"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

I'm sorry, but is this a joke?

If I say "I love you" to 30,000 people and "I hate you" to one person, does the 30,000 times I've mentioned I love someone mean I don't hate anyone? Of course not.

Kindly review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

JWeinCom said:

My counters follow, but you can skip everything and read the bolded italics if you like.

I'll explain why Hitler not being an atheist matters to me.

The evidence for Hitler being an atheist is nearly non-existent.  There are two or three statements that can be taken out of a book whose authorship is highly suspect.  There is simply no logical reason to claim Hitler is an atheist. 

Since there is no actual reason to call Hitler an atheist, why do people do so?  Because, like you, they feel that Hitler is too evil to be considered a Christian, and therefore he must not be a believer, and therefore he must actually be an evil atheist in disguise, and an atheist society will lead you to murder.  Mind you, I'm not claiming that is the argument your making, but it is a common argument, and similar to the one o_O was making.  Basically, Hitler must be an atheist because he was evil.  You can see why that may offend me.

I never said that Hitler's Christianity caused the Nazi movement.  Hitler did say that his hatred of Jews was motivated by their betrayal of Christ.  Can't say if that's his true motivation, but that's what he claims.  That being said, I don't imagine that Hitler would be a good person if he were an atheist.  I don't think Christianity was the motivation for his cruelty, but it's clear that it colored 

First of all keep your arguments straight buster, I never said that Hitler was an atheist, christian, buddist. etc. I said it does not matter. Because people, not the believes they subscribe to are responsible for their actions. To even "hint" at Christianity being a motive, is merely the same method of painting Atheism as "evil" that you were critizing others for. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Why can't we just leave hitler out of this.

If that was aimed at me, I don't believe I ever criticized Christians for not believing in evolution.  I mean, I'd happily criticize anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, but I never said that all Christians don't.  In fact I pointed out that the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution.  I'm not sure if o_O claimed that either.

It is an example. It is also more generalized then simply Christianity. Asking questions rather than making statements about something you don't understand.

This was him responding to me.  Unsurprisingly agaian o_O claimed I said something which I did not.  What I said was, " In any public statement Hitler ever made, he adhered to Christianity.  "I was using the word adhered to as meaning "  To remain devoted to or be in support of something:".  I think my meaning should be clear, but if not, all I meant to say was that Hitler claimed to be a Christian (Catholic to be precise) in any public statement ever made.  As for whether he adhered to Christian principles, I don't think that can be answered, and certainly not by me.

I can, and he did not. Whether he asked for forgiveness, is between him and God, but I doubt it because, from what I've seen he lacked remorse, and saw Jews and really all non aryans as less than human.

The difference is that noone claimed that HTML 3 was a perfect format handed down by a perfect unchanging deity.  If you believe the Bible is literally the word of god, then how can the Old Testament be imperfect or irrelevant?  Was god messed up and then he got better?  If you believe in a perfect unchanging god, then how can what he claimed moral in the old testament not be moral now?  If half the bible can just be thrown out, why is the other half so worthwhile?  If we're going to pick out the verses that support what we consider moral and good, why don't we skip the middle man and just believe what we feel is moral and good?

Thanks for asking. The Old testament is not thrown out, since it does have a purpose. But unless your Jewish(Torah) you do not follow it, because it is the Old Convanent. It chronicles the time before Jesus, and that is important but not with respect to lifestyle. The new testament is the new convanent that Christian's subscribe to because we believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Now rather than sacrificing animals and following the ten commandments, you simply ask for forgiveness through Christ and try to live like him.

As for your criticism of the different seemingly contradictory Gods in the OT and NT, yes that is a legitamate complaint, and one that has often been studied by theologists. However, since the bible is a book of faith, and not a textbook, Christians beleive it is the word of God, is it a stretch to consider that either the writers, cause there are writers who did transcribe gods words, the bible didn't just appear on the mountain, or us as readers failed at comprehension because the human perspective is a limited scope. Undoubtedly, there are things that are outside the Human Scope, so could we logically assume that Humans would not fully understand God? And Christians don't try to understand God, loving him is the only req really.

Plus, if you get rid of the old testament, you lose the messianic prophecies, you lose the ten commandments, you lose the creation myth, and you lost basically all of the law. 

Again, none of that "law" is required because of the New Covanent. The Messianic prophecies are only there to legitamize Christ, but Jews don't believe Christ is the messiah, even though those prophecies are still there. The ten commandments, popular as the might be aren't neccessarily tenants that Christians have to follow. The only reason they are so prevalent however is because they are a good approximation of Jesus's "Love Thy Neighboor". In that regard, the Ten Commandments are a shortcut to "Love Thy Neighboor".

In terms of logic.

"Love Thy Neighboor" > Ten Commandments, because it is the much stronger statement, covering a lot more range

at the same time

"Love Thy Neighboor" ~= Ten Commandments, because following the Ten commandments implies Loving thy neighboor

The danger of religion is the danger of dogma.  Whenever you have ANYTHING that is considered divine or beyond criticism, it is dangerous.  It could be nationalism taken to extreme, it could be a divine ruler like in WW2 era Japan, or even an economic system like Communism, and  so on.  It is incredibly dangerous to have something which cannot be questioned.  When you tell people from their birth that they need to follow god without question (and the Bible is VERY clear on whether or not you should question it), AND that there are humans who are more capable of knowing what god wants than you are, then it is all too easy for someone to persuade you to do evil in the name of god.

The danger of dogma applies to anything that people identity in, its not mutually exclusive to Christianity or Religion, as you've stated. So its not just the danger of religion. While the first part holds, the second part does not. That doesn't come from Christianity, that comes from abuse of power, it happens in ALL of those cases you listed previously in some form or the other. Thus what follows is a result of human corruption leading to brainwashing. 

You've pointed out yourself that it is possible to interpret the Bible in a violent and destructive way.  Whether or not it is the correct interpretation, it is possible.  And religion can and has been used to rationalize the most bizarre and destructive policies.  What possible other reason could there be to tell Africans not to use condoms in the midst of an aids epidemic for instance?

Thats because religion is recognized as an authority, and thus using it to rationalize actions is an appeal to authority, regardless of whether or not the actual content makes such a suggestion, which I claimed in the OP, generally does not. Saying Religion is responsible because it was used to rationalize something is simply making a scapegoat of it, because people don't want to to address that those bizzare and destructive policies were made by fellow human beings. The policy that you mentioned is not rational at least from the health perspective, why not back it up with an authority not based in Logic? Its easy as pie, because if you are insecure in your own beleif, you will believe what someone with a stronger conviction says, and you dare not challenge it from the otherside cause, "how can god be wrong?"

The Bible actually states that Satan knows all of the scripture in the Bible and can quote them verbatim. Even trying to tempt Jesus by using his own faith to make him test God. The only way to combat this is to become more versed in the Bible and strengthen ones own conviction and understanding. Then if someone tells you that God said to do this, you can actually think. Unfortunately, that requires a lot of willpower, to overcome the rudimentary understanding you were given as a child, and think for yourself, but again that isn't exclusive to Christianity or Religion. That is the responsibility of the Parents, they determine what kind of person that child becomes.

And of course, there is not a lick of evidence to support Christianity and the Bible is obviously false if taken in any kind of literal sense.  If you want to enjoy it as a metaphor, that's fine, but when we have people who truly and deeply want to force people to live their lives based on a book, it better be 100% true.

False and true are logical statements on validity. The Bible is a book of Faith, so it cannot be taken for true or false and is not intended to be taken literally. As for your second statement, you are again assuming that people are rational actors. People have been forcing their believes on others since the dawn of humanity, it predates religion, whether it is factually true or not is as it is in the case of religion, irrelevant. People also have motives for doing so typically to maintain power, or because they themselves believe it to be true to themselves.

Now, I'm not saying that religion will always be used to manupulate or decieve or that religious people are inherently evil.  I'm relatively sure that most religious people are decent enough.  But, when you have such a heirachical and dogmatic system, it is incredibly dangerous.  It is a tool that can be used to destructive ends.  Why leave it in the toolbox for those who would abuse it?

Its not mutally exclusive to Religion, so removing it does nothing. It does not address the problem of it being inherent in Human nature, and thus removing it does nothing but antagonize the innocent.

The only reason for keeping religion going is if the potential for good outweighs the potential for evil, or if it is true.  I don't believe that either condition is met.

Is it strange to consider a scenario of an outside species considering the same about the human race in general? The fact that religion can and has been used as a scapegoat for evil, means that we should address that propensity in Humans as a species. Simply removing the Religion is moving the problem out of one's line of sight, It is still there.

Personally, I think the only effective way of addressing this is to distribute power so that corruption is stamped out. Unfortunately, this is much harder then simply blaming a scapegoat.

What Hitler and other failed dictators of the past never realized is to destroy a doctrine, you simply have to delegitamize it, and let it melt away. Vocal "Christians" spewing "hate fueled nonsense" are effectively digging there own graves, an inevitable result of outdated modes of teaching with the fast changing times, and the momentary catharis of those threatened by Christianity, experincing its slow suicide, are distracted from considering the possibility of the problem going beyond religion. 

Those "decent" christians you mentioned are left no choice but to try and attack the detractors and become "Vocal" themselves, speeding up the destruction, or silently sit by and watch it burn. With enough, strength in faith, one can call the Vocal out on their Bullcrap, but unfortunately, even if the numbers were even, which they are not, it would, for a long time, be fruitless. If the reason of empirical indisputable fact still isn't fully accepted, "Global Warming/Climate Change", what hope does calling out the Vocal based on a book of faith have of working at all?

I thought the positions where reverse, however this is holds regardless.

Thing is your entire claim is based on the occurrence of the word hate in the Old testament. Which makes zero sense because you are literally taking words out of context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context. I was just showing, even in your flawed reasoning, using hate as a word count makes no sense at all. Especially when the fact that the basis of Christianity isn't even mentioned, in the OT, the book you say has the most occurences of the word hate.

Your initial claim is silly, I was just obliging you and rendering it moot on your own terms.

And the circus act continues. Did you miss this post where I cite verbatim the passages these are from? That's incredible...considering I replied directly to you with them. Is it a regular occurrence for you to ignore facts which do not correspond with your rather inappropriate and mendacious view?

No sir, you did not render anything moot. You argued quite fantastically poorly that because love is mentioned more than hate, that the hate is negated; this is a rather elementary level error in reasoning called a non-sequitur, which I see you've failed to acknowledge. Actually, my mistake...you contrasted "Jesus" and "Christ" with "hate" which is even more alarming since they seem to have no analogous relationship at all to the term, either in thesis or antithesis.

I'm left again dumbfounded by a reply that seems largely delusory.

So, unlike the person I was arguing before, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, and I think we could find some common ground.

I don't believe that believing Christianity in and of itself is a bad thing.  I think it's incredibly illogical, but I'm certainly not the final judge on such matters.  

What I have a problem with is organized religion which trains people to follow another person's interpretation of the bible (or whatever other religion) without question.  I would have absolutely no issue with religion under the following conditions.

1.  Children are, in so much as reasonably possible, not exposed to religious ideas until they are at an age where they are ready to analyze the ideas critically. 

2. Scriptural views are used by individuals to guide their private lives but are not used as a rationale for law or government policy.

3.  There are no humans who are claimed to be divine or to have a divinely inspired understanding of the bible.  People who have read the book more closely may of course argue their beliefs, but we shouldn't have figures like popes, priests, imans, or cardinals that are ordained and believed to be holy.

4.  It is acceptable for religious views to be questioned (respectfully of course).  

5.  People do not use any method, other than reasoned argument, to coerce any person to believe a particular religious views.  Tactics like excommunication, exile, fatwah, murder, disowning, and so on, are not used to coerce people into believing.

If these principles are met, I wouldn't have an issue with religion and the world would be a better place.  Would you agree to all, or at least some of those?