o_O.Q said:fund
lol if you had actually read the links i provided then you would see that hitler himself admits to percieving the aryan race as gods and worthy to rule over all of humanity http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395043 Wait... so atheists believe that Aryans are gods? You are very confused on what atheism is. And after reading this, it has nothing to do with whether or not Hitler believed in a god. In fact, the quotes that this site gives from Hitler reference god. The article on several occasions mentions that Hitler believes in the divine, which is contrary to atheism. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. That Hitler hated jews? Yeah, we knew that. And if we don't take Hitler seriously when he says he's a catholic, or when he says he's killing all of the Jews according to God's will, why do you take him seriously on this? I guess Hitler is only truthful when it suits you? if you can dismiss that along with all the other evidence i have presented that demonstrates above all that he was not a christian and even beyond that he was most likely actually an atheist well continue to do so but i have concluded due to the evidence i have seen that he is indeed an atheist... your only retort was that he was a christian and i have posted evidence that clarifies that he did indeed support the church for a period but it was because there was a mutually beneficial relationship which eventually ended with both sides attacking each other You have not provided a single piece of evidence to show that he did not believe in deitities. You have claimed he worshipped lucifer, and that he worshipped Aryans. If he did either, he was not an atheist. beyond that you have no evidence that contradicts my claim of him being an atheist because i don't think that at this point you could still honestly believe that he was a christian and if you do whatever I have given plenty of evidence to contradict the idea he was an atheist. Such as; Hitler's strong support of religious instruction, his public claims of being a Christian, numerous statements in Mein Kamf where Hitler claimed to be doing God's work, work with the clergy, laws against any public besmirching of Jesus, and so on. You on the other hand have not shown anything to support the idea that Hitler did not believe in deities. You even claim he worships several. You claimed he worshipped Aryans, old nordic gods, and lucifer. Any of those statements would mean he's not an atheist. "Evolution is not atheism." in that time period evolutionists were generally atheists as the church rejected the idea of evolution... i can't actually believe that i actually had to post that but whatever You are aware that the Church does not represent all non-atheists... right? You do realize that not all theists are Catholic... right? And you do realize that not all Catholics agree with the Catholic Church... right? You do realize that you accused me of saying all theists are blind followers, and now you're implying that Christians cannot go against the church? You do realize that you're implying that Christians are blind followers right? You realize how hypocritical that is... right? And you did not say that evolutionists were generally atheists, you said " the only people back then that believed in evolution were atheists... " Big difference. What you said is that there was not a single Catholic who went against the Church's teachings, that no other Christian denomination supported evolution, that there were no deists who believed in evolution, and that no one of any other religious persuasion even existed. ...do i really have to clarify this? do you understand that there's a massive difference between christianity now and then? in our current time period there exists a pope who scoffs at the idea that god is a supreme being capable of anything "“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything … but that is not so" "“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life”"
how can a pope make statements like that and not draw an upoar from christians? it amazes me It amazes me how you can make a statement that completely goes against your argument. Just two seconds ago you argued that all Christians follow everything the Church says (and you argue it again later in the post), now you're saying that Christians should oppose the church. Wow. And if it's possible for people to believe in a god (i.e. not be an atheist) and believe in evolution now, it was possible then. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Do you think that no Catholic or Christian ever had that thought until the pope said it was ok? Unless theists truly are blind followers, and it is literally impossible for Christians to think differently from the church, then your argument is nonsense. america is bombing syria out of religious ideals? i thought it was about spreading liberty and democracy? The expressed purpose of the bombings the US is doing in Syria (and the US are not the only ones), is to prevent the spread of Isis, a fundamental Islamic organization. Only someone truly ignorant of current events would claim religions does not play a role in this conflict. and it never occurs to you that perhaps atheism has pagan origins for some reason... I ask you to back up a position and you just repeat it. Atheism does not have pagan origins. Unless you believe people are born as believing in some god, then every single person is born as an atheist. "But the point is, if sun worship can be considered to be Christian, then it can not be used to proclaim Hitler as an atheist." why? if people lack an understanding of the fundamental meanings of some of the things they believe in then yes there can be a situation which arises like this an example is how christians mostly worship on SUNday when the bible tells them that they must worship on the sabbath Why? Because atheism and Christianity are mutually exclusive positions. You cannot use one piece of evidence to support two contradicting positions. Basic logic here. If the sun can be evidence for both, it can not be used to prove one or the other. Unless you are trying to convince me that atheism and Christianity are the same thing and Hitler was a Christian atheist. Honestly, such a ridiculous argument would not surprise me at this point. And the fundamental meaning of "sun" is a small star made of hydrogen which our planet revolves around. If one group at one point used it in some way symbolicly, that does not mean it holds the same symbolic meaning for all time and all groups. i think the fact that you didn't type "publicly adhere to christianity" says it all You've got to be fucking with me now. Because that's almost exactly what I said. "In any public statement Hitler ever made, he adhered to Christianity." That was quoted like three times by this point. How can you still get it wrong? In any public statement = publicly. Seriously, are you just trolling now? Because I have to believe that after more than a dozen times, this has to be intentional. Please comment on my reading comprehension again, because the irony would be funny. no you were not, you defined generalisation as absolutism to denigrate me saying that some generlisations are justified and hilariously you are now trying to say that i'm the one misusing terms Maybe I misspoke. Doesn't change the fact that you have, and continue, to misuse generalizations and absolute statments. Something which you chose not to dispute. if we define christianity as the values that are put forth by the church then yes i can say confidently that no christians in that era were evolutionists Well, if we define the terms the way you like, then of course you'll be right. And that's kind of what you've been trying to do this whole time. But, you're obviously lying if you say that's how you view Christianity, because you've said on many occasions, most recently in this very post, that the Catholic Church has perverted Christianity. So, obviously, you don't believe that, and you're once again showing yourself to be a liar. And even if you were being honest, that definition would still be retarted. What you described is catholicism and even that is iffy. Not all Christians are catholics. And if you define Christians as those who follow everything the church says, then you are saying that all Christians are blind followers. Funny how you keep accusing atheists of saying that and getting all pissy when the only person making that claim is you. If we take your definition, what do we call someone who worships Jesus Christ and believes him to be divine, but doesn't follow everything the church says? Cause they're sure as hell not atheists. If we define Christianity as the values that are put forth by the catholic church, and Christians as those who follow those values, then every single person who doesn't believe in evolution and/or the big bang would not be a Christian by your definition. Anyone who disagrees with the current pope (including you) would not be a Christian. You argued like ten lines ago that Christians should be in an uproar against the Church. How can Christians be in an uproar agains thte church when, by your definition, Christians only include those who agree with the Church? Again, even you can't keep up with your own nonsense. And, I assume you're talking about the Catholic Church, yet there are over 20,000 denominations of Christianity, and the church doesn't speak for them all. Louis Leakey also was a prominent christian evolutionist of the era. genetics does not equal evolution... genetics merely refers to the biological material that is used to provide the body with instructions on how to developyou can't conflate that with a species changing into another species over a long period of time I'm going to step away from this to avoid another pointless argument about definitions. I gave Mendel as an example of a Christian who likely believed in evolution, but I shouldn't have. I don't know what he believed, so that was a bad example. well therefore you are not interested in understanding the truth and its a waste of my time to bother with this... that you can also state that his views on humanity has nothing to do with whether he was christian or atheist imo shows you have already taken a jump off the deep end You keep bringing up different topics to avoid the ones at hand. That is why I don't care to examine his views on evolution. I've wasted enough time shooting down stupid arguments on a variety of topics, I'm not going to dragged into another one. Find me something that indicates that Hitler did not believe in any deities, because that's what atheism is. "Bringing up the opinion of prominent atheists when discussing atheism is dishonest?" "We shouldn't listen to dead people?" if the intention is to give the impression that they are representative of most atheists then yes it is very dishonest This is how research works. I have a viewpoint. I bring up relevant sources to support that viewpoint. A bestselling author on the topic is a relevant source. Respected figures within the atheist community are relevant sources. If a good amount of atheists do not agree with them, they would not be so popular within the community. I also gave definitions found on popular websites, evidence from this forum, dictionary definitions and so on. Even definitions from Christian apologists. I could provide dozens more. I explained why these sources are relevant. You cut that part out. I asked you what evidence you had to support your opinion. You ignored the question. I asked you what you considered to be evidence, and you ignored me. If these sources are not relevant, please explain why. So far, your argument to support your view of atheism is "cause I said so". And when I've presented evidence to the contrary, you've said "nuh uh"! with regards to listening to dead people when did i say we shouldn't? While you were discussing why the sources I presented didn't matter, you brought up that Hitchens was dead. Common sense would dicate that you felt this to be relevant to whether or not the source was credible. Otherwise, you just brought it up for no reason, which would be pretty stupid of you. So either you're trying to dishonestly pretend you didn't bring it up in relevance to the credibility of sources, or you're stupid and you just like bringing up random nonsense. Your choice. |
Please note that I have responded to every point you brought up. You on the other hand selectively cut out anything that shows how inept your argument is. This is itself a form of dishonesty. And, the more directly I pose a question, the more likely you are to ignore it. So I ask again, what is the basis for your opinion on the "vast majority" (which you downgraded from vast majority to most) of atheists? What would you consider relevant evidence on the subject? Why should we respect your opinion with nothing to support it?
