Christianity is Anti-Hatred of People or Groups of People

o_O.Q said:

JWeinCom said:

If you're trying to make people think, you're failing spectacularly.

You still have nothing that disputes that Hitler was a Christian. Nothing you've said here remotely relates to Hitler's philosophy or religion. Hitler did arrest priests. Absolutely. He also arrested atheists and shut down freethinkers hall, the most prominent gathering site of atheists. Hitler arrested or detained any people who opposed him, and since I'm guessing that most priests were decent enough people some of them opposed Hitler. However, there was never a widespread suppression of catholocism. But hey, even if it's not great support, it does get you a little closer. Although, even if Hitler did oppose the Catholic Church, which there is evidence that he did in many ways, that does not prove he wasn't a Christian, or that he was an atheist. After all, many Christians over the years have had disagreements with the church.

this is why we have church doctrine to this day changing to accept beliefs such as evolution because the chruch for a long time now has been intentionally subotaged with the ultimate goal to destroy everything the church stands for under the banner of "progressivism"

Wow. You make a halfway decent support of your argument, then you go right back into unsubstantiated nonsense. Anyway, this has nothing to do with whether Hitler was an atheist, and I'm not Catholic, so I don't care enough to argue. But again, it seems that you're just making your own decisions on what is right and holding things against your arbitrary standard. You're also attacking religions, something I still haven't done despite you accusing me of such. So, nice hypocrisy I guess.

but what people are too stupid in this day to understand is that without god we have nothing, no creator endowed rights, no morality nothing... it will then be man that sets these things and if the men in charge are corrupt ( and they most certainly are as everyone is ) then the general public will face the consequences but anyway

No, what people are too stupid to understand is that you need evidence to support yourself. Our data shows that secular societies score higher on every measure of societal health than comparable religious societies. I'm not going to get into this. Seriously, I don't know why you keep bringing up points that are completely irrelevant to the conversation. I really don't want to engage in any new topics. It's been work enough to dismantle the dumb arguments you've already laid out, so I'm not going to address any new topics. It's a baseless assertion, so until there is some evidence to support it, I don't need to bother with evidence to refute it.

"The time of the Cross has gone now,
The Sun Wheel shall arise,
And so, with God, we shall be free at last
And give our people their honour back"

i will repeat for one more time the sun worshippers of the past were esoterically atheists - the outer meaning was of course that they worshipped the sun but the hidden understanding was atheism - yes its complicated and does not make sense initially but it is the truth

Wow. Just wow. A poem that says, with god, we shall be free at last, is somehow used to prove that Nazies were atheist. Because it mentions the sun. In the nonsense olympics, that'd take the gold medal. Probably the silver medal too.

This was a hymn for the German faith movement. Some Nazis surely liked it, but the idea that it was "popular" is unsubstantiated, and it was not any part of official Nazi dogma. Nor does either the site you pulled it from, nor the book "Clerical Fascism in Interwar Europe" where the hymn is also recorded mention that this hymn was "popular", nor do they provide any evidence that it was endorsed by Hitler himself. Neither of these sources claim that the poem in any way signifies atheism. So, unless you have some other source, you are again making stuff up.

The source you provided, as suspect as I find in considering its evangelical nature, does not propose that Hitler was an atheism. It claims that Hitler has perverted Christianity, surely an argument one could make reasonably. They further claim that Hitler supported paganism, a claim I'm more skeptical of them. But whoever wrote the piece was at least intelligent enough to know the difference between paganism and atheism, and they do not conflate them. The other soure, the book, is using the poem as evidence of the role the clergy played in supporting the Nazi movement. They do claim the priests have an errant view of Christianity, but never makes the claim they are atheists.

"The Nazis may have marched into battle with "Gott mit uns" (God with us) as their motto, but their god was a pagan antichrist god, and they followed a false messiah, Adolf Hitler, and bowed down before idols of power, physical force and the dream of world domination by the Teutonic Master Race"

This is the author's interpretation. It has no evidence to back it up. Replacing your unfounded notions with his unfounded notions does nothing for your case. The author doesn't think what the Germans practiced was Christianity. That's fine. But it's an opinion. That's their view of what should or should not count as Christianity. Other opinions are available. And it has nothing to do with Hitler being an atheist.

he also replaced the bible with mein kampf and the examples go on and on and on

I actually did read this, and have been looking for verification on it, but was unable to find any. I'd be legitimately interested in seeing some kind of actual source. Oh, but I don't mean I want you to give me a source, cause you've shown you have no idea what a good source is. But if anyone listening in has information, I'm all for it.

i disagree with this obviously their god was indeed lucifer ( the light bearer, the morning star, etc etc etc ) but to these people the esoteric or hidden understand is that lucifer is intellect which is where the story of the gerden of eden comes from

Dude. You quoted the dictionary definition of atheism like five times, and I repeated it like 6. Do you even read? If they believe in a deity (including Satan) then they are not atheists.

And if you want to go with something as stupid as "they worshipped the light, so they worshipped Satan, so they worshipped atheism", then you should probably be aware that Jesus is associated with light at least a dozen times in the bible as well as being associated with the sun. Not that I think Jesus is the sun, but by your warped logic, that explanation would fit.

And are you seriously back to atheists worship the human intellect? Seriously, THE DEFINITION OF ATHEISM HAS BEEN POSTED LIKE TEN TIMES. Atheists are not the same as humanists, and do not, as a rule, worhsip human intellect. Seriously, learn what something is before talking about it. You have a hard on for the dictionary, so use it. It's not a great resource, but it's a whole lot better than the shit you pull out of your ass.

"You said all humanists are atheists. "

and they were initially which is what we have been talking about - the past and imo for all intents and purposes the same still applies now

Awwwww... and I actually gave you a shred of credit for realizing how stupid that statement was and going back on it. I got a good chuckle out of this, so thanks for that at least.

"You said ALL humanists are atheists"

no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so

When I initially made that claim, you denied it. And when I pointed out that you can even follow your own line of nonsense, you said.

all right fair enough i was thinking of its origins but i will gladly admit that i was wrong to post that

So you already admitted you were wrong about that. And once you did, I let it go. So now you are trying to defend something that you yourself admitted was wrong. Your arguments are so laughably bad that not even you agree with them. And you accused me of changing definitions... lulz.

Even if you were right, and I've showed that the Humanist manifesto was started by theists and non-theists. If we're going by the "in the past" argument, then that is so retarded I have no idea how to respond. Christianity came from Judaism. So does that mean you consider Jews as Christians? Are Germans still Nazis? Do you still refer to Pakistan as India? Do you realize that things change over time? Assuming a Christian today believes the same thing a Christian 1000 years ago did would be stupid. Your shit was food just a day ago, but I'm fairly sure you wouldn't eat it.

So what is it? Are humanists all atheists or not? Since I'm probably not going to waste any more of my time, I'll just give you a response either way.

If you say yes, that's idiotic.

If you say no, congratulations on showing yourself to be in possession of a brain.

And again, you've managed to define everyone by your bizarre standards. Doesn't matter what humanist organizations say, doesn't matter what the dictionary says, doesn't matter what humanists who are Christians say. You've made the decision for them. Such arrogance coming from such a poor mind. As frustrating as it is to have so much stupid flung at me, I am at least amused by the irony.

the claim was made of you calling hitler a christian and claiming he was motivated by christianity and i understood instantly why you would make such a claim

Lol. I'm not sure how you "understood instantly why I would make such a claim" when I never made that claim. I claimed that there is nothing to suggest Except I never said either of those things. Seriously, learn to read, especially since you've tried to insult my reading skills several times.

I never said Hitler was a Christian. What I said was that there is no evidence to suggest Hitler was an atheist.

If you can find anywhere where I said that Hitler was a Christian, I'll give you a thousand dollars. I'm totally not kidding. Look over every single post, and if you can find me claiming that Hitler was a Christian, I'll make a paypal transfer of 1000 dollars. (I may have said most likely at one point) This is btw the 14th time you've claimed I said something I didn't say, and you have not been able to back yourself up any time. Here is what I did say.

"Hitler was very clearly not a humanist, and we have no evidence to suggest he was an atheist. In any public statement Hitler ever made, he adhered to Christianity. He argued for religious instruction, had close ties with the catholic church, had a large personal library of books regarding Jesus which were all well worn."

That is quite different from the words you're trying to shove into my mouth. I'm smart enough to know when I have evidence enough to make a definitive claim or not. That's why I never said Hitler was a Christian. I said we have a good deal of evidence to suggest it, and we certainly do, but I do not have enough evidence to say "Hitler was a Christian". You on the other hand, are not smart enough to realize when you have enough evidence to make a claim, and therefore spew inane nonsense.

And that is entirely true. At this point it's not surprising to me that you would make up strawmen arguments, because that's pretty much all you've done. Hell, you can't even keep up with what you've said, so how can you keep track of what I've said.

And just for fun, here is what you said.

as i conceded yes he appears to be associated with christianity in various ways but as i said there is also various evidence that the movement was inspired by an older religion

Protip: When you don't even agree with youself in a debate, it's time to give it up.

well i never did so because honestly many of those generalisations are factual but what i'm driving at here is that atheism is full of the same group think and lack of critical thinking... even more so because saying there is no god and denigrating religion seems to puff people up with some kind of ridiculous arrogance in my opinion of course

Well, you finally did it. You were close to it this whole time, but you finally actually made me laugh out loud. :) I mean, I linked you to the sweeping generalization fallacy for a third time, but that would seem a waste at this point.

Now, as an intelligent person, I try to make as few generalizations as possible. Obviously, it is sometimes necessary, but it is to be avoided when possible. That is why, as you'll noticed, I never once made a generalization about theists or any group. Because, and I'm going to bold this because it is important, generalizations are the cause of things like racism, discrimination, and genocide. Thinking that all members of a particular group are the same is the basis of discriminating. And this dude's going to then call me arrogant. Lol. You got balls man. Not brains, but balls.

finally if you yourself do not understand the purpose of your movement and where its taking us then my friend i can't do much for you

You just called me arrogant, then you tell me what I think. I'm not a part of any movement. I simply don't believe in a god. I don't really give a fuck whether or not you believe in a god. If there is a movement I'm a part of, it's called the anti-nonsense movement. When people spout out nonsense, especially about me, I set them straight

Now, you've accused atheists of having a hive mind, and I can figure out why you think so. Because you have decided in advance what everyone believes, and if they go against that, you just claim they're lying. Hitler says he's a Christian? Lying (possible). Atheists say they don't claim god doesn't exist? Liars. (less likely lying) Christians claim themselves to be humanists? Liars. Webster claims atheism is the lack of belief in deities? Liars.

You decided I feel a certain way of thinking because I'm part of an atheist hive mind. And when I say I think differently, you simply claim I'm lying, because my statement goes against your hive mind claim. If you ignore all the evidence against your claims, you'll always be right. In your own mind at least. To everyone else, you'll just be illogical, disrespectful, and dishonest.

i came back here to clarify some things because people need to understand that the wrong ideas about history are being propagated whether you yourself can accept or not is your decision but if this inspires just one person to take the time to consider what is going on i'll be satisfied

Funny enough I know for a fact that at least one person did take the time to consider what I said. I seriously doubt you've changed anyone's mind. Even if you did have any history backing you up, you've argued with such incredibly disgusting dishonesty that I don't believe anyone could possibly be convinced. If they read this topic, here is what they'll see...

They'll see that you are a liar. I gave you an opportunity to back yourself up on a lie you told about me (well more like 12 lies but who's counting?), and you instead tried to cut my quotes to try and avoid it. Nice manipulation, but I'm not letting it go. You made a claim that you couldn't back up, and don't even have the common human decency to apologize when caught with your pants on fire. I'm not sure why you expect anyone would listen to your views on what happened over 50 years ago in Germany, when you can't even seem to recall what happened in this topic a week ago.

Now, even IF you just made an honest mistake, you've still failed to say a simple "my bad". So not only are you a liar, but you are an unrepentant liar. By the way, the fact that you go on making up pure bullshit about me is why I'm not even pretending to be respectful at this point. Respect is earned, and part of earning it is being honest. If you are not going to show respect, you will not be given any.

They'll see that you like making strawmen arguments. You don't have the ability to respond to what I've actually said, so you keep responding to the things I haven't said. You've constructed about 14 strawmen arguments by my count.

They'll see that you resort to personal attacks when you can't back anything up. Yeah, just accuse me of attacking theists because you can't respond to the actual claims.

They'll see that you try to drop an argument as soon as it no longer suits you. For about 5 posts you harped on about how I was so wrong for defying the dictionary. So, when I show that the dictionary goes against your argument, suddenly you don't want to talk about the dictionary anymore.

They'll also see that you can't use a dictionary. Somehow, you think that humanists are atheists, and that atheists worship the sun and that atheists are nazis and nazis worship satan. I don't even know how your mind can process such garbage. But, use whichever definition you want for atheism, and sun worship and satan worship do not fit into it.

They'll also see that you can't form a sentence. Seriously, if your goal is to win hearts and minds, at least show that you have the basic skills that a first grader should have mastered. Not that it invalidates your arguments, because your arguments do a great job of invalidating themselves. But seriously, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to show you have a grade school education.

They'll see that you are a bigot. You've believe that you have a right to define what people believe in, and then attack them for things that YOU THINK THEY BELIEVE EVEN IF THEY DON'T. This is a dangerous way to think, and a sign of a pathetic mind. You accuse atheism of being a hive mind, then when I say something that goes against your view of atheism you go "nuh-uh you're lying." Beyond stupid.

They'll see that you try and cherry pick to the extreme. Hitler says he's a christian? Nonsense. Poem makes specific appeals to god? Irrelevant. Poem mentions sun disc? AHA! MUST BE AN ATHEIST! BECAUSE ATHEISTS WORSHIP THE SUN! Fuck logic I guess.

They'll also see that you cannot stick to a topic. Took about 8 requests to get you to vaguely address the topic of Hitler's religion. You did a shitty job, but kudos for finally getting there.

To sum it up, as fun as this has been, it is very unproductive to argue with someone like you. If you are just going to make up shit that I've said, what's the point of me being here? If you're just going to ignore what I say and make claims on my behalf, then you can do that without me I guess. I do thank you though, because you just got a logical beatdown to the point that anyone reading this who considered Hitler to be an atheist will now be corrected on that notion.

If you want to continue this (which I wouldn't do if I were you cause you're coming off like a schmuck) then I'll need an apology for misquoting me. It's not because I'm trying to be an ass or to massage my email, but it's because I need to know that you are actually reading my opinions, and realize that it's wrong to just make up what I'm saying. I'll also need you to provide a clear and concise definition of paganism, neo paganism, anti theist, theist, atheism, humanism, and satanism, because you show no knowledge of what these actually mean. I mean... you have some sort of warped definition, but you can't seem to back that up with anything but your deranged logic.

So yeah. Show that you're ready to have intelligent conversation. Otherwise, I won't be responding to this. Honestly, I probably won't even read this, because I have a tendency to take it too seriously when people say stupid things on the interrnet, and I'm sure I'm on the verge of a ban, and I'm already fairly confident you won't say anything of value.

If anyone else would chime in, I'd be really interested to see what others make of this. Otherwise, I'll be off worshipping the sun I guess.

"You still have nothing that disputes that Hitler was a Christian."

"ou're also attacking religions, something I still haven't done despite you accusing me of such. "

you keep convincing me more and more that you do not understand what your own movement is about which doesn't surprise me because most don't as can be said about most followers adhering to concepts that were created by other people

the two movements atheism and theism are antithetical to each other

religion hopes to destroy atheism so that everyone can be saved under the glory of god and live under certain tenants that are identified in the bible which some people find oppressive such as the condemnation of homosexuality

atheism hopes to destroy religion so that the perceived stranglehold religion has on reason and expression can be lifted from humanity

"Our data shows that secular societies score higher on every measure of societal health than comparable religious societies. "

Like communist russia? lol

" A poem that says, with god, we shall be free at last, is somehow used to prove that Nazies were atheist."

do you by any chance understand what symbology means? or is that too abstract for you to understand? they clearly were not referring to the christian god "the time of the cross has gone now" so what does that tell you? does it not perhaps suggest that there is a esoteric meaning?

" I'd be legitimately interested in seeing some kind of actual source. Oh, but I don't mean I want you to give me a source, cause you've shown you have no idea what a good source is. "

says the man that proclaims that we should reject dictionary definitions to gain definitions of movements from adherents themselves... because people are never disengenuous about the purposes of movements lol

your world must be an interesting one to live in

"then you should probably be aware that Jesus is associated with light at least a dozen times in the bible as well as being associated with the sun. Not that I think Jesus is the sun"

my first post in this thread covers this... there is actually loads of evidence that suggests that jesus was a symbolic representation of the sun... whether that is right or not at this point i'm not sure

but phrases like these http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/The-Sun should raise some level of concern in any christian especially since many are actually said in relation to jesus as a man when in the bible its clear that the spelling is s-u-n

"Hitler was very clearly not a humanist, and we have no evidence to suggest he was an atheist. In any public statement Hitler ever made, he adhered to Christianity. "

lol so he adhered to christian principles?... what do we call people like that? oh i know! they are called christians!

"as i conceded yes he appears to be associated with christianity in various ways but as i said there is also various evidence that the movement was inspired by an older religion

Protip: When you don't even agree with youself in a debate, it's time to give it up."

and this is why i criticised your comprehension because you clearly have a problem if you can conflate "association" with "adherence"

i associate with people that subscribe to various ideologies does that mean that i automatically adhere to those ideologies? lol well that's what you are saying here

"Thinking that all members of a particular group are the same is the basis of discriminating."

and here again you demonstrate that egregious lack of comprehension - you are describing absolutism not generalisation

generalisation means that you do accept that there are exceptions to a majority not that " all members of a particular group are the same"

"And when I say I think differently, you simply claim I'm lying, because my statement goes against your hive mind claim. "

if your thinking goes against the very tenant of the group you claim to be a part of then you are not a part of that group

as i said the very purpose of atheism is the destruction of theism... that's why its theism with an "a" in front of it

it is an antithetical movement

"If you ignore all the evidence against your claims, you'll always be right. In your own mind at least."

i conceded that hitler has some degree of association with christianity and reneged on the incorrrect claims that i made

you on the other hand have dismissed my sources including dictionaries lol

"Atheists say they don't claim god doesn't exist? Liars."

do i really have to go for quotes from atheists claiming just that seriously? are you really that dishonest?

" Christians claim themselves to be humanists? Liars."

i addressed this already... you do understand that christianity is only 2000 years old right?

"Webster claims atheism is the lack of belief in deities? Liars."

i never dismissed any dictionary definition... if my memory serves me correctly... you did

with regards to my earlier claims about evolution playing a part in nazi ideology the term "racial hygiene" should provide more than enough evidence

as i said earlier the nazis were trying to create the perfect race of humans to rule over all of humanity ( i was wrong to claim that they wanted to exterminate everyone who wasn't aryan it was just about domination )

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007057

http://www.historywiz.com/racialhygiene.htm

this idea has its roots in the writings of a russian named helena blovatsky who spoke about "root races" with extraordinary powers that were lost through breeding with lower races

"Might this "new form" of man of Hitler's be related to Blavatsky's root race schema? She maintained that the sixth and seventh root races would witness a return to the earlier spiritual state of existence. Man would once again have spiritual insight and be at one with the forces of nature. According to Hitler, "Creation is not yet at an end.... Man has clearly arrived at a turning point.... A new variety of man is beginning to separate out." Hitler further believed that mankind would evolve into two distinct types. "The two types will rapidly diverge from one another. One will sink to a sub-human race and the other rise far above the man of today. I might call the two varieties the god- man and the mass-animal." The new, godlike Aryan would rule over the inferior races, the "mass-animal."43 To Hitler, it was the divine mission of the Nazi movement to bring this about: "Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than a religion: it is the will to create mankind anew."

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395043

this is a man who supposedly adhere's to christian tenants in the 30s when the church views the mere mention of evolution as blasphemy and as you mentioned it accepts now... why the sudden change? because the church was taken over by people with similar ideas afterwards

this also ties into the concept that the average person is too stupid to take responsiblity of their own life and therefore a group of wise men must be created to rule over everyone else or the rabble/massess etc

this has ties to socialism and communism because again many of these things have the same root

and yes you do worship the sun... the vast majority of the population do in various ways anyway so don't feel bad about it

Ugh. Insomnia. Might as well respond.

ah so the fact that he attacked the church, was condemned by the pope, participated in a movement that put forth phrases such as "the time of the cross has gone now", etc etc etc does not dispute that he was christian?

Hitler attacked many people who disagreed with him, but as far as I know, and as far as you've shown, there was no concerted effort to attack the church. Hitler attacked atheist groups as well. I'd wager that it would be hard to find any group of which Hitler did not attack at least some part.

"The time of the cross has gone now". Hmmm... interesting that you ignore the part about god in that poem. At any rate, that was a hymn put forth by the clergy. And there is no evidence that Hitler ever heard it, endorsed it, etc. As controlling as Hitler was, he did not control every hymn in every Church. At best, you've proved someone in the movement worshipped the sun, and even that claim is sketchy. If you want to claim your interpreation of a hymn that Hitler may or may not have ever heard or agreed with is stronger evidence than Hitler saying "I am a catholic" I would have to disagree.

and i thought you were saying that you never said hitler was christian later in your post?

" I never said Hitler was a Christian."

Ummmm.... yeah? I don't get your point. I never did say that Hitler was a Christian. And my offer for 1000 if you find that I did still stands.

supporting atheism which you are doing means that directly or by proxy you are attacking religions because in case you do not understand ( as you have demonstrated earlier btw) atheism is not a neutral position

I don't know what you mean by neutral position. If you mean neutral position in terms of agnostic (there may or may not be a god) I agree that atheism is not neutral in that sense. It is a position where the believer does not believe there is a god or gods or godesses.

First off, I didn't attack theists at any point. Regardless of whether or not I believe in my movement (that I didn't know I was a part of) is irrelevant. You made a factual claim about something I did, and you cannot demonstrate that I did it. You are a liar.

And I really don't know what atheism movement you're talking about. There are certainly atheists involved in many different movements, but I'm afraid I'm not aware of any centralized atheist movement. Who defined this movement? You? If so why do you feel qualified to define it? Do you have some expertise? Please state your credentials, or show some kind of evidence.

the two movements atheism and theism are antithetical to each other

I don't know what you mean by movement. I know there is no centralized atheist movement, and there is definitely no theist movement. There is the secularist movement. There is the Islamic movement. The Christian movement. Etc. Surely, you can't be both a theist and an atheist, but that doesn't mean theists are obligated to discourage atheism of vice versa.

Wow. You've added yet another scoop to your steaming pile of fail. You apparently don't know what religion is. Religion hopes to destroy atheism so that everyone can live under certain tenants of the bible? Which religion? Does Islam want us to live under the bible? Judaism? Roman Paganism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Do satanists want us to live according to the bible? Does every religion condemn homosexuality? Do wiccans condemn homosexuality? Greek pagans? Pantheists? Rastafarians? Pastafarians?

I know many people who are theists and are religious, and do not condemn homosexuality. The only person here who is attacking theists is you.

You also don't know what a tenant is. A tenant is someone who occupies an apartment.

You keep trying to lump ten different terms into one and eliminate any nuance. You just lumped ALL religions into Christianity and you've lumped ALL unconventional religious beliefs or non-beliefs into atheism. Do you get why I'm having trouble understanding you? Forget defining atheism, you don't even seem to know what religions is. Yet, you feel qualified to speak on this subject. And please, try to spin this to make it seem like something less than a stunning display of stupidity.

Do you realize the difference between a set and members of a set? Christianity is a religion. That does not mean Christianity and religion are the same thing. Some humanists are atheists. That does not mean all humanists are atheists. Some atheists may worship the sun. That does not mean all atheists worship the sun. Do yourself a favor, and stop using generalizations. I mean, generalizations can be a useful tool when used appropriately. You seem incapable of doing so, so you're best off not trying.

"Our data shows that secular societies score higher on every measure of societal health than comparable religious societies.

Like communist russia? lol

When we do these kinds of studies, we have to do so in a way where we can isolate religion as a factor. So we would want to compare countries that are similar in most aspects besides religion. You are cherry picking examples, and I could do the same. For example, if I compared a secular society like Sweden to a religious society like Syria, obviously the secular society would come out looking a lot better.

On the other hand, a comparison between a country like Canada and the US makes more sense as they, while not identical, are both modern westernized country. When westernized countries are compared, more secular societies come out ahead. I believe this holds true when comparing countries in other areas. Israel, the least religious country in the middle east, is also the most stable with the highest quality of life (although I can't confidently say that's solely due to religion).

It's called isolating variables, so I guess we can add "research and statistics" to the things you're ignorant of.

You seem to think I can't think abstractly, but I assure you I am quite capable when the time is right. But, when you're trying to discuss ideas, you need to define basic terms, which you seem incapable of doing.

As for the hymn, to be honest, I don't have the grounding in that kind of poetry to interpret it, and I'm not going to claim I do. What I do know, is that it was a hymn that was created in the clergy, which gives me the impression it was referring to god as in Yahweh. I don't know enough about the culture to say what the cross represents. It could represent Jesus, it could represent the Church, or it could represent simply the time of Jesus' life. I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, but I don't think you are either. Neither the source you found, or the source I found claimed this to be a poem supporting atheism. There is no logical way to interpret this as support of atheism. And again, if you're going to define Hitler's beliefs by a poem he might or might not have heard, then you need to learn how to research.

This is an honest question, and I honestly mean no disrespect, but have you been to college? Have you done any academic work? I'm one class away from my master's degree in education, and my bachelors degree is in English. Out of all the work I've read and wrote, do you know how many times a scholarly work has referred to a dictionary definition? Absolutely 0. When defining a movement they will almost always refer to either people within the movement, or prominent critics who have demonstrated expertise on the subject. Because movements, concepts, and ideas are often complicated and hard to define. If I tried to quote webster's dictionary in a scholarly paper, I'd have gotten an F (ok maybe not an F, but at least a stern correction from the professor).

A dictionary is a reference tool. It is for you to get a basic understanding of a concept you are unfamiliar with. If you want to discuss any subject in an advanced manner, you need to use other sources. If you think that the dictionary is a good source to define a complex movement then I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. If you're going to argue a subject you should know more than the dictionary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dictionaries_as_sources#cite_note-1

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhowrel.html

These sources describe why dictionaries are not reliable as primary sources. And of course, wikipedia is not a reliable source, but it's a good description and has good links to support it.

You really seem to not know how a dictionary works or what it is used for. A dictionary is meant for people who don't know a word to get a good approximation of what it means. Do you really expect a dictionary to completely define something like atheism or Christianity thoroughly and completely in 5 or 6 lines? Do you really think you know more about atheism than people like Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, or Richard Dawkins because you've read 12 words about it in a dictionary? And a dictionary is NOT the word police. There is no authority behind a dictionary. If I had the money, I could create a dictionary that says "idiot: A person who thinks dictionaries are infallible". Nobody is going to stop you if you have the money to publish it. There is no dictionary committee making sure every dictionary is right. Some dictionaries are more respected than others, but none can claim to be an absolute authority.

Also did you know that there are subject specific dictionary? If I looked up gravity in the OED I might get an entirely definition than if I looked it up in a physics dictionary. Dictionaries give you the lay term which is often inappropriate under different circumstances.

Dictionaries are also notoriously bad at keeping up with definitions. You seem to think that the idea of a concept from 2000 BC should still apply, but it does not. Concepts evolve and change. Did you know that dictionaries are updated all the time? That the definition you're looking on it can be changed? So even dictionary editors don't think their definitions are perfect. And if it will be changed, it's because the editors did legitimate research. If I was talking about my computer, would you think of a giant 1970s computer? No, you'd think of a modern computer. Even if they have the same origin, they are immensely different. Same thing with words. Language is fluid and evolving.

When you act as though the dictionary is an authoritative source, you are embarrassing yourself. If all you know about atheism is what you read in a dictionary, then you are just showing how pathetically little you know about atheism. I hate to play the, I have a college degree card, but ummm yeah, I have a college degree in English. This means that I've spent a great deal of time learning about the English language and its usage, and that a university (SUNY New Paltz. Not Harvard, but a fairly legit school) said "this guy knows enough about the English language and research that we're willing to vouch for him. Another university (Brooklyn College. Again not like Ivy League or anything, but a legitimate college) said, this guy has proven he knows enough about research that we're going to vouch for him. My point is that I know both how the English language works and how to do research.

So, if you keep harping on the dictionary, you're just embarasing yourself. If what you know about atheism comes from the 12 words in Oxford's English dictionary, then you are not equipped to discuss it. You're really embarrassing yourself here.

I have a challenge for you. Say this "I believe that dictionary definitions are always correct and the best source of information on a topic." Please please please say that so I can laugh at the stupidity. If you're not willing to say it, then I'll take that as an admission that you are, like you are about so many other things, wrong and dictionary definitions are not a great source of information.

And in any scholarly work YES THEY DO USE PRIMARY SOURCES. I would say 99% of the time, the statements of adherents of a religion or movements are used to define it. Unless you have some sort of logical reason to dismiss what adherents say, we use that definition. Because, and here's a point you seem really confused on, generally, a person is the best source of information on what that person believes.

So, if you have a reason why we shouldn't trust the definition provided by every prominent atheist (and in the dictionary that you cling to so you don't have to do more than one page of research), then say it. If not, then I think we should take Christopher Hitchen's word over yours. Of course, if you want to JUDGE the movement, THEN you use secondary sources.

You for some batshit crazy reason feel that you should be trusted to define atheism, humanism, theism, deism, humanism, and even my thoughts (lol, how stupid is that?) yet you can't even clearly define religion, as you've proven. What a joke.

If you think that a 12 word definition is all the research you need to make a case about any movement then lolololololololol. If you still think that dictionaries are a reliable source for research, please allow me to make a topic about it. I'll present my case as to who should define movements, you could present yours, and then everyone can laugh at you because what you're saying is insanely idiotic. And if you're not confident enough in this claim to throw it out the community, then you should probably shut up about it.

Then how can you use worship of the sun as evidence for atheism if it could also be for Christianity? How can it be both? (I think it's neither.) Is Christianity atheism? I seriously have no idea what you're even trying to say at this point.

i never dismissed any dictionary definition... if my memory serves me correctly... you did

Yes I did, and hopefully you understand why. But IF you do accept dictionary definitions (you shouldn't) then you'd have to agree with the one presented in OED which just so happens to be the definition I gave. So do you accept the OED definition or not?

If you accept the OED definition than you are contradicting yourself when you say things like atheists by definition want to destroy theism. If you don't agree with it, then you are dismissing dictionary definitions. So you're either lying or contradicting yourself. You can choose which.

"Hitler was very clearly not a humanist, and we have no evidence to suggest he was an atheist. In any public statement Hitler ever made, he adhered to Christianity. "

lol so he adhered to christian principles?... what do we call people like that? oh i know! they are called christians!

How can you misquote me when the quote is right there? It was like, an inch away. You just had to move your eyes slightly upwards. Either you're lazy, you can't read, or you're a pathological liar. Like, seriously, you went through the effort to get the quote and post it, and then you still somehow managed to get it wrong. This level of ineptitude is simply astounding. Do you think you're going to get away with manipulating my words when the quote is there for any intelligent person to read?

I did not say he adhered to Christian principles, I said he adhered to Christianity. Adhered, in this instance, means (from Websters, cause this IS an occasion that the dictionary is useful) to give support or maintain loyalty. And he supported Christianity in any public statement. I also made sure to include that word public to indicate the possibility that he may have believed something differently in private. So, if you take that to mean, "Hitler was a Christian" then you are clearly not qualified to comment on anyone's reading comprehension.

and this is why i criticised your comprehension because you clearly have a problem if you can conflate "association" with "adherence"

I've asked you more than five times to state clearly what you believe Hitlers ideas to be, and you refused. If I'm not clear on this, then that's your fault. Considering how often you conflate terms, you can hardly blame me for my confusion.

and here again you demonstrate that egregious lack of comprehension - you are describing absolutism not generalisation

generalisation means that you do accept that there are exceptions to a majority not that " all members of a particular group are the same"

Very funny that someone with a degree in English is being lectured by someone who cannot use sentences. Please use them. To make it easier to follow you. And also, I'm genuinely curious to see if you can.

First off, you are not generalizing, you are using absolutism. Like when you said "all humanists are atheists". That's an absolute statement, (you did admit it was stupid but then went back to defending it).

In the example I was talking about, you said that I must think a certain way because I'm an atheist, despite having no evidence of such, and despite me claiming the contrary. So, I don't see that you're allowing exceptions. When you say I have to believe in every tenet of atheism (whatever that means) that is absolutism).

And generaliztions and absolutism both lead to discrimination. If I say "well Neil Degrasse Tyson is pretty smart, but most black people are stupid", then am I not discriminating? Any intelligent person in a debate recognizes that overgeneralizations are a logical fallacy and that generalizations are to be avoided as much as possible.

if your thinking goes against the very tenant of the group you claim to be a part of then you are not a part of that group

as i said the very purpose of atheism is the destruction of theism... that's why its theism with an "a" in front of it

it is an antithetical movement

Again you cannot define terms clearly. Atheism could refer to a movement, but it could also refer to a personal belief. They are not the same thing. I am not, as of now, a member of any atheist movement. I may be in the future, but I'm kind of lazy.

And again, where are the tenants of this movement? Is there a list somewhere? Did the mighty atheismo hand them down on stone tablets? I know they're not in the dictionary, so where did you pull them from?

And, the "a" prefix in front of a word is not for antiethical. It means without. If a person is asexual, that means they don't have any sexuality to speak of (or they don't have sexual organs). That doesn't mean they actively go around stopping people from fucking.

Of course, atheism can be considered antiethical to theism in the sense that they are incompatible. However, that does not mean an atheist has to be opposed to other people being theists.

Of course, there IS a prefix that means against That prefix is anti. That's why I explained antitheism to you.

I did actually find some sight listing the "tenets of atheism" actually a Christian apologetic site, (I think you quoted it earlier) but it's a pretty good description.

https://carm.org/what-is-atheism

"Some Basic Tenets of Atheism

Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. As I said, there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. I've tried to list some of them below. Pease note, however, that not all atheists accept all of these tenets. The only absolute common one to which they hold is that they do not believe in a God or gods.

There is no God or devil.

There is no supernatural realm.

Miracles cannot occur.

There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will.

Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.

Man is material.

Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.

Ethics and morals are relative.

For the Christian, atheism clashes with many aspects of our faith. Some atheists openly attack Christianity--citing apparent contradictions in the Bible, perceived philosophical difficulties related to God, and what they consider as logical evidences against God's existence. But the atheists' criticisms are not without very good answers as you will see in the coming papers."

I don't agree with everything he says, but at least this guy is smart enough to know what it is he's arguing against.

Btw this is yet another source that cofirms my definition of atheism. And this time it's being defined by someone opposed to atheism.

And what does it mean to destroy theism? How is it possible to destroy an abstract idea? Do I do it with a hammer or something? You can say someone is trying to destroy religion, destroy a particular religion, or destroy theists, but anyone trying to destroy theism would me wasting their time. Cause unless you're a nazi with psychic powers, it'd be impossible.

with regards to my earlier claims about evolution playing a part in nazi ideology the term "racial hygiene" should provide more than enough evidence

I don't recall bringing up Nazis ideas of evolution again, but either way, I don't care. Many atheists believe in evolution. Some don't. Some theists believe in evolution. It is irrelevant to Hitler's religion. If I said Hitler was a creationist, then it may be relevant, but I didn't say that.

and yes you do worship the sun... the vast majority of the population do in various ways anyway so don't feel bad about it

nd this betrays the level of stupidity in your comments. You somehow feel that you are qualified to make a claim about what I believe with no evidence (and this is absolutism not a generalization since you made an absolute statement about my beliefs) and not only that, but you feel that you can make claims about the vast majority of the population. Please show me the massive amount of anthropological studies you've done to back up that statement.

do i really have to go for quotes from atheists claiming just that seriously? are you really that dishonest?

Eureka!!! I think you finally understand. YES! YES YOU DO HAVE TO DO RESEARCH AND PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM! Please, find me an example of any prominent and respected atheist who defines atheism as "the assertion that there is no god". Because I have done a lot of research on atheism, and even the most hardcore atheists do not define it that way. (although some atheists may also be antitheists and believe firmly there is no god).

Christopher Hitchens- We don't say on non-truth claims or faith claims that we know when we don't.....atheists do not say that we know there is no god. We say to the contrary, no argument and no evidence has ever been deduced that we consider to be persuasive......The same with the afterlife. Of course we don't say that we know there isn't one. We say that we don't know anyone who can bring any reason to think that there is.

Richard Dawkins: “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,”

Sam Harris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4

You see, this is the basis of discussion (or more accurately debate). You have a difference of opinions, and sides produce evidence to support their position.

So again yes you do need evidence to support your claim. Why do you think you wouldn't?

By the way, you also need evidence to show that I've been dishonest, but you've already shown that you're a liar (and I do have evidence), and you don't seem to think that's a problem.

Btw, if you want to use my conversation with Killinger to show that I am being dishonest in my stance of theism, please look up to the difference between secularism and antitheism.

And that's really the crux of it. Do you have any credentials to show that you have any knowledge of atheism? If not, have you provided any source to back up your opinion (say dictionary again if you want to make another display of stupidity)? Have you shown that you have any credentials regarding research (I do btw)? Can you show credentials to show you have any expertise about the English language? (I do.)

Do you have something to show expertise in theology? Humanism? Nazi germany? Paganism? World religions?

Because for most of those things, I am not an expert, which is why I've supported everything I've said with evidence and you have not once been able to point out a factual error. (Btw try not to get papercuts when you make sweet love to your copy of Websters).

The only thing you're an expert on is on how not to prove a point and how not to be coherent. :)

I'll leave you with a quote, and the hope that you'll at least have the common sense to stay down rather than humiliate yourself further.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Existing User Log In

New User Registration

Politics Discussion - Christianity is Anti-Hatred of People or Groups of People - View Post

Recent Badges:

"Some Basic Tenets of Atheism