Serious Does some sort of God exist? And why?

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I took Waterbomb's post to mean that the response he was provided was not condescending in words but in how readily his point of view was dismissed. The arrogance that comes off of some of the academic types just isn't that cool. With all due respect we do not have all the answers and trying to shut down, intentionally or not, conversations that need to be had is not a good thing. In order to understand the mind of the believer it is very important to place yourself in their shoes. Having differing opinions is amazing and I do not understand how this is so frowned upon by people who think themselves intelligent. Fact is there is no objective observable verifiable truth to this conversation so regardless of what YOU believe we should be open to hearing these differing opinions, unless you know we are too good to entertain differing ideas, because it may be that we are all wrong about this; nobody knows for sure.
This point is very true! The very nature of a discussion about deities implies that there is no right or wrong answer, however that doesn't mean that claims can't be backed by logical reasoning. When you contradict yourself in your arguments it implies that your position is inherently weak and holds no real ground. Its all good and all to claim that faith is only as powerful as it is due to the lack of evidence that points to any answer, but that specifically is why faith is a very weak grounds for believing in something. I can have faith that the sky is green and populated by invisible hamsters all I want but when evidence points to the contrary its hard to have a rational discussion about it as faith in God is no different than faith in Santa Claus. That said, while I personally do not believe in any deity figure I hold no qualms about those who do. I am just simply a person who functions off of a more logic-based mindset and I struggle to rationalize an all powerful deity, but in no way do I mean any disrespect towards those who think otherwise.

That is where the whole "Free Will" thing comes into play.
The concept of Free Will disproves any form of an omniscient God though. If humans truly have free will then their decisions are not set in stone, can change. However if God is omniscient and knows everything that has can and will happen, then that means that humans truly do not have Free Will and are simply following the path laid out to them. That God already knows who is actually going to be in Heaven with him. Similarly, if God decided to create sin (assuming of course that God knew that Eve would bite the apple of the Tree of Knowledge, thus creating choices for mankind) why not simply grant humans free will entirely independent of evil, sin, and heartbreak? Why is it necessary to subject humans to trials of fortitude to grant them access to eternal paradise? It seems to me that "Free will" in this sense is no different than saying that pawns on a chessboard have free will because they can move in several different places (forward one forward two or capture) when in reality all of their decisions are pre-determined and the illusion of free will is the only thing that remains. On top of that, the free will argument with respect to a god who allows evil to exist in no way excuses the god himself for allowing evil to exist in the first place. If you choose to do nothing with omnipotence then one is subject to negligence. Omniscience and the idea of Free Will cannot coexist in the same mindset for the two starkly contrast each other in concept.

I agree but logic does not entirely rule out anything. One person's logic is another person's stupidity and what I mean by this is that the idea of a supreme being may not be logical to you but to someone else it very well might make complete sense. Personally, I don't buy the all powerful entity spiel myself.
While true, this links back to the first paragraph I quoted. Someone doesn't have to be exactly logical to believe something, of course, nor am I knocking people who do believe in a deity. In fact I think that religion as a whole can do great good in this world and helps many people find peace in their lives, whether they're right or wrong. Logic doesn't rule out everything, but arguments should be backed with logical reasoning when presented forward instead of being unquestionably followed. In this instance I wouldn't normally even respond to this type of thread because you can't really discuss something with respect to faith.

You cannot prove or disprove, that is the way it is like it or not. Perhaps religion doesn't have all the answers, perhaps science does not either. Perhaps that is the way it is meant to be and looking for absolutes is a complete waste of time?
Absolutely, one can never be certain of any particular thing and doubt will always remain. In my opinion it is best to be skeptical of everything because that leads to an open mind where you challenge the most bare concepts to better understand them. This is why I think this particular question (Does God exist) is pointless, because nothing can really be done about it except changing other people's minds and that hardly impacts them in any significant way. The question shouldn't be "does God exist" it should be "If God exists under these strictures then why or why not should one follow Him?" To that point I find many logical errors behind the very concept of the described deity (for example how one cannot both give free will and also remain omniscient, how one cannot be omni-scient / potent / benevolent, etc).

I agree for the most part but in my life there have been certain times when synchronicity has occurred to a bewildering degree. I cannot wrap my mind around some of the events that take place in this world as just coincidental.
This is what is called "the Extraordinary Happenings fallacy." Descartes actually touched on this a little in arguing that it is possible for humanity to have been hoodwinked by some more powerful yet still mortal being in the cosmoes. Read up on his Meditations on First Philosophy for more on it and the Cartesian circle, it is pretty interesting. You cannot be certain if a God exists simply because you can walk outside and see beauty and wonder all around us, even if you take into account how marvelous physics works or how the number phi is in everything or other Da Vinci code -esque stuff. None of that proves any sort of higher being, and even if it does it certainly does not prove any specific immortal, all powerful being. Rather, more likely as Elon Musk suggests everything is orchestrated in a way by a higher being that is simply perceived to be a god-like figure (or more likely we all live in a simulation). Its like if you go back in time and introduce cave men to sound waves, electricity, lasers, or guns, etc etc. Advanced technology seems like magic to the ignorant. Why then should creation be any different?

Again though I'd like to reiterate, I mean no disrespect towards any religious person. I am simply super interested in philosophy, theology, and psychology and thus have pondered these certain of questions and this is what has led me to believe in the absence of a creator. Agree to disagree I guess, but I feel it is important to bring up logic based questions with regards to theology as reasoning should always be behind someone's decision to believe in something. Religion plays a huge role in moral codes for people to live by, and offers some sort of foundation for why people believe in things and that is incredibly important. For what its worth, I believe in some arguably silly stuff too like karma, reincarnation, universal oneness, and more. Everyone needs a rulebook to give them purpose, that is just how humans operate, we like to rational things. It is of my opinion that some foundations are simply stronger than others.
 

Ununhexium

I closed my eyes and I slipped away...
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I just like to believe in God because the idea of a benevolent deity that you can turn to in times of stress or a rough patch or if you just need help with something (could be the placebo effect who knows) is just very comforting to me.

I know there are some logical issues like why tragedies happen if there is an all powerful benevolent God but I’ve always felt like that the one thing God really couldn’t do is control free will, just try to steer them in the right direction. Also, there’s always the concept of Satan / antichrist / devil to tempt people in the other direction.
 

WaterBomb

Two kids no brane
is a Forum Moderatoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Moderator
Could you guys imagine if, after all the fun that gets poked at it, Scientology turns out to be the true religion? That'd be a kick in the head.
 
there's no 'fun' to be poked at scientology. there are, however, legitimate critiques of how it exploits its members, steals children away from their families, is vehemently anti-science and murdering its members by proxy, creating a hivemind and brainwashes those inducted within it, isolates members from the outside world and disallows them from seeing their loved ones, constantly lies abt their finances and create a ponzi scheme, and myriad other ways that it fucking kills and harasses people on the daily.

it is the idyllic neoliberal creation where capitalism meets religion. it is a cult disguised as a religion who only gained the religious tax exemption because of harassment, blackmailing, and government infiltration. it is written by a science fiction writer. it is a disgrace to religion and is no way witty or amusing to joke about its possible legitimacy because there is none. david miscaviage is an awful human and the organization is fucking dangerous.

u should just watch leah reminis show if u really want to see what scientology really is.
 

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
It seems to me god is more of a metaphor for the unknown

christian god stands in for the source of morality, and the origin of the natural world

even if you're atheistic you have some kind of system of values that aren't exactly "objective" which is not obviously different from a religion?
 
It seems to me god is more of a metaphor for the unknown

christian god stands in for the source of morality, and the origin of the natural world

even if you're atheistic you have some kind of system of values that aren't exactly "objective" which is not obviously different from a religion?
They're pretty different though. Religion makes the specific claim that there is a deity of some sort that has interacted with the world in specific ways, varying based on the specific religion, while generally also claiming stuff like the afterlife. It's a set of beliefs about the universe that just so happens to almost always attempt to dictate what its believers' values ought to be. I don't see any basis for equating religion and individual values other than that they're vague and subjective (on that note, has anyone read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris?).

Also I dislike the concept of the source of morality and the origin of the natural world being a) characterised as unknown and b) being filled in by a christian god. While it's true that these things are technically unknowable it overlooks the fact that we can come up with plenty of evidence to support theories on both of those things. It's like saying that atheists don't actually exist, they're just hardline agnostics- technically true because we can't prove there isn't a god, but at some point it just becomes sensible to label them atheists. Then there's the issue of a christian god standing in its place- when this occurs people often don't want to displace it when evidence sheds light on what was previously unknown, and it is often used to discourage people from trying.
 

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
They're pretty different though. Religion makes the specific claim that there is a deity of some sort that has interacted with the world in specific ways, varying based on the specific religion, while generally also claiming stuff like the afterlife. It's a set of beliefs about the universe that just so happens to almost always attempt to dictate what its believers' values ought to be. I don't see any basis for equating religion and individual values other than that they're vague and subjective (on that note, has anyone read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris?).

Also I dislike the concept of the source of morality and the origin of the natural world being a) characterised as unknown and b) being filled in by a christian god. While it's true that these things are technically unknowable it overlooks the fact that we can come up with plenty of evidence to support theories on both of those things. It's like saying that atheists don't actually exist, they're just hardline agnostics- technically true because we can't prove there isn't a god, but at some point it just becomes sensible to label them atheists. Then there's the issue of a christian god standing in its place- when this occurs people often don't want to displace it when evidence sheds light on what was previously unknown, and it is often used to discourage people from trying.
Christian god (and all others) are personified only because this helps people understand/buy into the concept. The tenets of any faith exist just the same without god existing in an easy to imagine way. I'm not arguing for Christianity, but, it would be a disservice to say that there is no theory behind the christian morality. The people that came up with it, all of the mythology that preceded it, and those that have been editing it for the last two thousand years have thought about the purpose of the moral code they profess, in the same way you may consider some sort of outcome to your own sense of morality.

To me, the purpose of god/religion is supposed to answer the questions "How should I live my life", "what is right/wrong." What you think is wrong or right, no matter what your theory behind it is, is still pseudo-religious in nature. The actual appending of a deity is just a technique used by clever people to make it easy to understand and believe.

Again, im not an apologist to mainstream religions. They are a host for parasites, and can be used for evil.

But I just have a hard time seeing the difference between an atheistic set of values on what is right/wrong, and how one should live, and what a religious version of this looks like in practice.
 
Christian god (and all others) are personified only because this helps people understand/buy into the concept. The tenets of any faith exist just the same without god existing in an easy to imagine way. I'm not arguing for Christianity, but, it would be a disservice to say that there is no theory behind the christian morality. The people that came up with it, all of the mythology that preceded it, and those that have been editing it for the last two thousand years have thought about the purpose of the moral code they profess, in the same way you may consider some sort of outcome to your own sense of morality.

To me, the purpose of god/religion is supposed to answer the questions "How should I live my life", "what is right/wrong." What you think is wrong or right, no matter what your theory behind it is, is still pseudo-religious in nature. The actual appending of a deity is just a technique used by clever people to make it easy to understand and believe.

Again, im not an apologist to mainstream religions. They are a host for parasites, and can be used for evil.

But I just have a hard time seeing the difference between an atheistic set of values on what is right/wrong, and how one should live, and what a religious version of this looks like in practice.
I think the key difference is what you take as a prior. There is no singular secular set of values, just like there's no singular religion, but those values come from a more direct line of reasoning than if you take scripture and tradition as the prior and use the lessons as your moral code.

I think in practice, a widely atheistic culture would look more like a set of political parties (which isn't exactly amazing either lol) than a set of traditional religions.
 
Just going to state my opinion here. While I don't believe in God, I feel that faith itself allows God to exist. If you don't believe, there is no God. In fact, depending on your perspective, there might not even be a God. God is a figurehead of sorts: No belief = No God. However, believing in a figurehead might just make that figurehead real. (I apologize if I offend anybody with this post. It may sound cliche and/or cynical, but this is my honest opinion.)
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
A large part of my belief and adherence to God is rooted in the knowledge that religion (for the most part) is the best way to preserve morals and keep people on the right path in life. If we lack a strong set of morals, we have nothing but our own primal instincts to base ourselves on. Nowhere is this seen better than in the three most genocidal regimes of the 20th century: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and communist China. All three of these regimes disassociated themselves from religion and replaced them with their own man-made morals. The results were genocides on a scale never before seen.
 
A large part of my belief and adherence to God is rooted in the knowledge that religion (for the most part) is the best way to preserve morals and keep people on the right path in life. If we lack a strong set of morals, we have nothing but our own primal instincts to base ourselves on. Nowhere is this seen better than in the three most genocidal regimes of the 20th century: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and communist China. All three of these regimes disassociated themselves from religion and replaced them with their own man-made morals. The results were genocides on a scale never before seen.
I feel like this post could use some explanation

Can you provide evidence supporting the assertion that nazi germany was atheist? Can you demonstrate that being atheist directly caused the atrocities committed by the USSR and China? Because this seems like a whale of a non-sequitur to me. Are you aware of all the fucking awful shit being done in association with religion? There are genocides in Africa that have been carried out based on religion (and other places throughout history I guess), wars fought based on religion (e.g. ISIS), sexual abuse of children (e.g. Catholic Church), persecution of minorities (such as homosexuals. Also worth checking out Africa here, since it's much worse than is seen in first world countries, and is a result of many religions including christianity), shaming people for their sexuality and probably some other stuff idk

Also, if morals that have been passed down via religion should not be replaced with man made morals, can you explain why christians ignore parts of the bible condemning things like eating shellfish, and wearing clothes made of two different threads? Furthermore, can you explain why almost all cultures independently condemn things such as murder and theft despite often being associated with a wide variety of different religions? To me that seems implausible- would it not be more reasonable to say that humans, as social creatures, recognise that certain actions are disruptive to society and/or cause others to suffer, to which we are generally empathetic? Is that not a better reason to behave morally than because a deity told you so and potentially threatened you with an eternity of torture if you didn't comply?
 
Being a Christian myself I do believe a God exist. If you look it via cause and effect's perspective every effect must have a cause or an initiator which includes this world until a first cause. I find it very hard to believe this so well ordered universe with very well civilized nations and a planet rich with minerals all created from itself or from nothing.
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
Sorry for not backing up my original post with sources.

Can you provide evidence supporting the assertion that nazi germany was atheist?
"Nazism wanted to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances."

"Many historians believed that Hitler and the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after winning victory in the war." -Bendersky, Joseph W., A concise history of Nazi Germany, p. 147

Can you demonstrate that being atheist directly caused the atrocities committed by the USSR and China?
"Thus the USSR became the first state to have as one objective of its official ideology the elimination of existing religion, and the prevention of future implanting of religious belief, with the goal of establishing state atheism (gosateizm)"

The People's Republic of China is officially an atheist state which promotes atheism across the country.

Because this seems like a whale of a non-sequitur to me. Are you aware of all the fucking awful shit being done in association with religion? There are genocides in Africa that have been carried out based on religion (and other places throughout history I guess), wars fought based on religion (e.g. ISIS), sexual abuse of children (e.g. Catholic Church), persecution of minorities (such as homosexuals. Also worth checking out Africa here, since it's much worse than is seen in first world countries, and is a result of many religions including christianity), shaming people for their sexuality and probably some other stuff idk
I feel like a hypocrite asking since I didn't use any in my original post but can I have a source for these?

Also, if morals that have been passed down via religion should not be replaced with man made morals, can you explain why christians ignore parts of the bible condemning things like eating shellfish, and wearing clothes made of two different threads? Furthermore, can you explain why almost all cultures independently condemn things such as murder and theft despite often being associated with a wide variety of different religions? To me that seems implausible- would it not be more reasonable to say that humans, as social creatures, recognise that certain actions are disruptive to society and/or cause others to suffer, to which we are generally empathetic? Is that not a better reason to behave morally than because a deity told you so and potentially threatened you with an eternity of torture if you didn't comply?
The bible passages about not eating shellfish and etc are not as focused on as much or condemned in the Bible as much as say, the Ten Commandments. And not "all cultures independently condemn things such as murder and theft", as I said the many atheist states such as Nazi Germany and the USSR were well known for committing some of the biggest genocides in known history. It seems to me that most societies "condemn things such as murder and theft" mainly due to the fact that they have religious rules to guide them. Humans are still animals at heart, we still hold urges to hurt others if it means we can survive. Religion, as we've seen throughout history, provides humans with a set of guidelines that they need to follow.

Ian Kershaw; The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation
Wielander, Gerda (2013). Christian Values in Communist China. Routledge. p. 1
Bendersky, Joseph W., A concise history of Nazi Germany, p. 147

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
"Nazism wanted to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances."

"Many historians believed that Hitler and the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after winning victory in the war." -Bendersky, Joseph W., A concise history of Nazi Germany, p. 147
Despite Hitler being a huge Christian, as well as citing God as the reason for his exterminations in Mein Kampf, somehow his political party was atheistic in nature? Using Nazi Germany as a symbol for society gone off the wagon when one abandons God is super disingeuous; Hitler's rule had next to nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with his sick twisted ideas and, ironically, his religious-backed morals.

"And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity." - Adolf Hitler 1933 Stuttgart speech


"Thus the USSR became the first state to have as one objective of its official ideology the elimination of existing religion, and the prevention of future implanting of religious belief, with the goal of establishing state atheism (gosateizm)"

The People's Republic of China is officially an atheist state which promotes atheism across the country.
You ignored the question, I'll reiterate for Ortheore: Can you demonstrate how the atrocities committed by Stalin / Mao were directly in the name of atheism? That their atheist nature contributed to a lack of morals which then contributed to the slaughter of millions? Simply saying "well the USSR genocided millions and starved nigh 70% of their population and it was all because they were a godless nation" proves and shows nothing other than that those two specific dictators were atheist. I could just as easily turn that fallacious point back on you, that Christianity is an abhorrent religion that promoted the persecution of other religions and promotes intolerance globally in the most progressive era of humanity, and do so by citing atrocities from as far back as every Crusade to God-backed slave trade to more modern examples like the Army of God that marched on abortion clinics, or the social persecution of tons of minority groups from Jews to Muslims to Blacks to Gays. Anti-religion and atheist views have as little to do with genocidal acts throughout history, at least the examples you provided, as Christianity has to do with those acts and to say that because Stalin was atheist thats why he killed everyone is a dishonest intellectual tactic.

The bible passages about not eating shellfish and etc are not as focused on as much or condemned in the Bible as much as say, the Ten Commandments. And not "all cultures independently condemn things such as murder and theft", as I said the many atheist states such as Nazi Germany and the USSR were well known for committing some of the biggest genocides in known history. It seems to me that most societies "condemn things such as murder and theft" mainly due to the fact that they have religious rules to guide them. Humans are still animals at heart, we still hold urges to hurt others if it means we can survive. Religion, as we've seen throughout history, provides humans with a set of guidelines that they need to follow.
Or most societies condemn things such as murder and theft because morals aren't intrinsically tied to any one religion and instead some people just realize "hey maybe I shouldn't just kill my neighbor and expect to attain normalcy and order inside my nation." I am atheist myself yet I practice pacifism and do my best to spread peace and love to everyone I encounter, I don't murder and I don't steal nor have I ever felt those thoughts and urges to do so. You don't need to be religious to have any hard set morals and I find it insulting that you equate godlessness to being little more than an uncivilized animal and extremely disrespectful to the entirety of the human race to imply that we would always be at each other's throats if we didn't go to a house of worship every Sunday and yell at Starbucks employees for saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas
 
"Nazism wanted to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances."

"Many historians believed that Hitler and the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after winning victory in the war." -Bendersky, Joseph W., A concise history of Nazi Germany, p. 147


"Thus the USSR became the first state to have as one objective of its official ideology the elimination of existing religion, and the prevention of future implanting of religious belief, with the goal of establishing state atheism (gosateizm)"

The People's Republic of China is officially an atheist state which promotes atheism across the country.


I feel like a hypocrite asking since I didn't use any in my original post but can I have a source for these?
As tcr points out, Hitler and the nazis were not shy about their support for christianity, and to suggest the regime as a whole was atheist is not a valid conclusion imo given their open endorsement of christianity. In particular the second quote is nothing but conjecture and hypotheticals. As for the communist regimes you mention, I never disputed that they were atheist, but instead that there's a causal relationship between atheism and the atrocities committed by those regimes.

I'm assuming that when you characterise religion as being the path to morality, you only refer to modern christianity. To make the point about christianity in general you would have to be wilfully ignoring numerous cases in history where wars and other atrocities were committed in the name of christianity, such as the crusades, inquisitions, persecution of people notable individuals such as Galileo etc. (now that I think on it, you should check out northern ireland's history of religious conflict- a lot of violence, including the latter half of the previous century). To make the point about religion in general you would have to be wilfully ignoring that and all the fucked up shit done in the name of other religions, including what's being done now by islamic extremists. So I'll try and select sources that are specific to modern christianity (let me know if I'm wrong to do this)
Genocide in africa- news article
Child sex abuse in the catholic church- report
Oppression of homosexuals- westboro baptist church is an easy pick here- do I need to provide sources on what they do? As for the stuff in africa, there's a good documentary on it- God Loves Uganda. Article on said documentary here
The bible passages about not eating shellfish and etc are not as focused on as much or condemned in the Bible as much as say, the Ten Commandments. And not "all cultures independently condemn things such as murder and theft", as I said the many atheist states such as Nazi Germany and the USSR were well known for committing some of the biggest genocides in known history. It seems to me that most societies "condemn things such as murder and theft" mainly due to the fact that they have religious rules to guide them. Humans are still animals at heart, we still hold urges to hurt others if it means we can survive. Religion, as we've seen throughout history, provides humans with a set of guidelines that they need to follow.
I know that the passages about shellfish etc are not widely focussed on. What I'm asking is why. If this is the word of god, the origin of morality, why not heed such instructions? Is it not sensible to suggest instead that people read those rules and decided for themselves that those rules are not remotely reasonable? In other words, ignoring deified morals in favour of man-made ones?

Setting aside the fact that calling nazi germany atheist is nonsense, you still have yet to demonstrate that religion precedes morals against murder and theft. More to the point, how do you explain the fact that significant portions of the population don't believe in a god and yet are still decent people? Hell, in my country atheists/agnostics are actually more numerous than any single religion, but that's partially a product of christianity being reported as about a billion different variants, collectively they still outnumber non-believers. Furthermore, it's easy to point to societies as a whole and construct a narrative from that, but is that reflected in other forms of evidence? Out of curiousity I looked up the proportion of people in the US that identify as atheist vs the number of US prison inmates that identify as atheist- 3.1% of the general population vs 0.1% of incarcerated people (article).

The stuff about humans being animals at heart... a) what the hell is that supposed to mean, there are numerous animals out there that form societies based around co-operation and b) what basis do you have for making those claims? Specifically, that humans intrinsically have urges to hurt each other, and that said urges are done in the name of survival. The former claim is an intriguing one to be making since you know there's an entire field of science dedicated to studying human behaviour. The latter claim just isn't supported by evidence- in the wake of a natural disaster we naturally act to support each other and rebuild, looters and such are generally very rare. On the other hand, the atheist societies you're fond of referencing don't apply here- the atrocities were invariably perpetrated by those in power, who therefore faced minimal threat to their survival. Honestly the idea that humans are inherently evil just strikes me as being toxic, and a good example of spreading misinformation in order to retain power.
 
Wikipedia... I think? said:
"Nazi ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment whose legitimacy did not spring from the government. It desired the subordination of the church to the state.[26] Although the broader membership of the Nazi Party after 1933 came to include many Catholics and Protestants, aggressive anti-Church radicals like Joseph Goebbels, Martin Bormann, and Heinrich Himmler saw the kirchenkampf campaign against the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-church and anticlerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[27]"

"Christianity remained the dominant religion in Germany through the Nazi period, and its influence over Germans displeased the Nazi hierarchy. Evans wrote that Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to coexist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science. According to Evans: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope, and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' abortions in black cassocks.'"[35]

During Hitler's dictatorship, more than 6,000 clergymen, on the charge of treasonable activity, were imprisoned or executed.[36] The same measures were taken in the occupied territories; in French Lorraine, the Nazis forbade religious youth movements, parish meetings, and scout meetings. Church assets were taken, Church schools were closed, and teachers in religious institutes were dismissed. The Episcopal seminary was closed, and the SA and SS desecrated churches and religious statues and pictures. Three hundred clergy were expelled from the Lorraine region; monks and nuns were deported or forced to renounce their vows.[37]"

"Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian. In light of evidence such as his vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[1] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition, and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity. Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church".[2] Hitler's remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, are further evidence of his irreligious and anti-Christian beliefs; these sources record a number of private remarks in which Hitler ridicules Christian doctrine as absurd, contrary to scientific advancement, and socially destructive.[3]"
this is what i got though from my brief research? seems to contradict this idea of hitler/the nazi party being religiously motivated, so i'd love to hear more if anyone else has any further contradicting sources or can make a further case as to Hitler's endorsement of Christianity.

Martin edit: I've not outright deleted this because you are making a legitimate point, but I've made said point a lot clearer in post by separating it from stuff a lot better than it was before. Please provide more of your own content than "oh look this contradicts that" in your posts in future so as to not violate Rule 2: Content and Organisation, and provide a link to your source when you quote it even if where it is from seems obvious from formatting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
this is what i got though from my brief research? seems to contradict this idea of hitler/the nazi party being religiously motivated, so i'd love to hear more if anyone else has any further contradicting sources or can make a further case as to Hitler's endorsement of Christianity.

Martin edit: I've not outright deleted this because you are making a legitimate point, but I've made said point a lot clearer in post by separating it from stuff a lot better than it was before. Please provide more of your own content than "oh look this contradicts that" in your posts in future so as to not violate Rule 2: Content and Organisation, and provide a link to your source when you quote it even if where it is from seems obvious from formatting.
If you've ever read Mein Kampf you would realize that Hitler indeed identified himself as some sort of Christian. Whether he was "traditional Jesus-loving non-hypocritical Christian" is a different story, but there is next to no doubt that Hitler was at least in part religiously motivated. "And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord." (page 59?)". Hitler truly believed that his future accordance in 1925 was the will of God.
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. "

I could not find the exact quote in the copy of the text of Mein Kampf I am reading at this moment nor will I be bothered to scour through an abhorrent work to find the true passage, but this is a quote by him. In essence I believe that Hitler, though seen as "anti-religious" by historians, was an extremist to a degree that he believed "modern" Christians to not be true Christians, leading to the criticism involved with his religiosity. Yes, Hitler used the idea of German Christianity to gain power before his 1930s reign, but that doesn't discard the idea that many Nazis were religiously motivated in their practice as well as the masses who elected him to Chancellor in 1933 in the first place. Several speeches from that era support the idea of religious motivations. If you take a look at some of the history behind his speeches you can see that he started off incredibly small (111 attendance in his first speech at Munich) but would steadily grow larger and larger despite showing signs of racism / antisemitism extremely early on. Hell he had a speech titled "Why are we Antisemites" in 1920, 13 years before he was elected as Reich Chancellor. Simply reading some of the transcripts would show even that early on he was invoking God in his passages. In one of his 1920 speeches he refers the party as the party of "Positive Christianity" that is, the typical Aryan Christianity purported by Nazis. Was he traditional, I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior Christian? Not really, he actually rejected Jesus as the savior of mankind. Was he heavily religiously motivated in his actions? Yes, his own works attest to this.

Unless somehow you want to say that Hitler's own works are irrelevant and the words of historians who knew nothing of what went on in Hitler's mind are thinking, its pretty obvious that the Third Reich from 1933 until at least in the early 1940s was religiously backed. Even the extermination of the Jewish people was hinted at in Mein Kampf so you can't just say "well the real tragedies weren't religiously backed." This is all beside the point anyway, as its pointless to use Hitler's religious views as a counterargument to religion in the first place just as it is pointless to use atheism as a counterargument to morality and why certain dictators killed people.

The point of this response was to show how religion is often entirely seperate from morality. Sure there are some people who get their morality from the Bible, the Quran, or whatever other document one wants to provide, but that morality often comes from the culture and upbringing more so than any biblical works. The evidence for that is multiple atrocities committed by any and all theistic spectrum individuals. Humans can scummy and wretched, who knew? To imply that the only reason one has morals however is because of the fear of divine retribution then I would argue that you really don't have morals in the first place. I choose to be a kind person not because I fear being sundered by lightning by almighty Thor, I choose to be kind because I want to. Everyone's morality is different and I believe that no one person should be judged for their actions without the entirety of their life story laid out before them to justify. Its the age old question, would you steal bread to feed your family? Its a trick question, the bread is poisoned and its not your real family, you've been cuckolded by a stronger, smarter male.

http://www.greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
 
Last edited:
I get that the overall point here is that everyone is capable of committing atrocities and that religious people are not more likely to be moral than non-religious. I don't disagree. I just happen to take exception to the interpretation that Hitler/the Nazis were religiously motivated because I think that's a poor (and just in general incorrect argument). I don't believe most true religions that you can associate with atrocities (eg ISIS) are legitimate representations of that religion, but a twisted version purely used as a means for control. There is religion itself, in the forms of text and customs that just is, but also an outer religion that is used and interpreted by people. My take is that those two are separate entities that need to be divided when discussed.

If you've ever read Mein Kampf you would realize that Hitler indeed identified himself as some sort of Christian. Whether he was "traditional Jesus-loving non-hypocritical Christian" is a different story, but there is next to no doubt that Hitler was at least in part religiously motivated. "And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord." (page 59?)". Hitler truly believed that his future accordance in 1925 was the will of God.
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. "

I could not find the exact quote in the copy of the text of Mein Kampf I am reading at this moment nor will I be bothered to scour through an abhorrent work to find the true passage, but this is a quote by him. In essence I believe that Hitler, though seen as "anti-religious" by historians, was an extremist to a degree that he believed "modern" Christians to not be true Christians, leading to the criticism involved with his religiosity. Yes, Hitler used the idea of German Christianity to gain power before his 1930s reign, but that doesn't discard the idea that many Nazis were religiously motivated in their practice as well as the masses who elected him to Chancellor in 1933 in the first place. Several speeches from that era support the idea of religious motivations. If you take a look at some of the history behind his speeches you can see that he started off incredibly small (111 attendance in his first speech at Munich) but would steadily grow larger and larger despite showing signs of racism / antisemitism extremely early on. Hell he had a speech titled "Why are we Antisemites" in 1920, 13 years before he was elected as Reich Chancellor. Simply reading some of the transcripts would show even that early on he was invoking God in his passages. In one of his 1920 speeches he refers the party as the party of "Positive Christianity" that is, the typical Aryan Christianity purported by Nazis. Was he traditional, I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior Christian? Not really, he actually rejected Jesus as the savior of mankind. Was he heavily religiously motivated in his actions? Yes, his own works attest to this

Unless somehow you want to say that Hitler's own works are irrelevant and the words of historians who knew nothing of what went on in Hitler's mind are thinking, its pretty obvious that the Third Reich from 1933 until at least in the early 1940s was religiously backed. Even the extermination of the Jewish people was hinted at in Mein Kampf so you can't just say "well the real tragedies weren't religiously backed." This is all beside the point anyway, as its pointless to use Hitler's religious views as a counterargument to religion in the first place just as it is pointless to use atheism as a counterargument to morality and why certain dictators killed people.


So it's your interpretation that part of Hitler's rise to power was because he wanted to rid the world of the "false" Christianity and replace it with his version of Christianity? You believe that Nazism was a crusade to take back Christianity so to speak?

Why does Hitler stop invoking God during the height of World War 2 (i'm assuming we both agree to that)? If his rise to power was all for Christianity, why does he show a disdain for it and seem to treat it as a means to an end? How can we be so sure that he was so devoted to his religion, given that the book itself was meant for an audience?

I'll just put in plainly, my take is that I'm not so sure Hitler was ever really convinced by any form of Christianity and I think he simply saw it as both a potential threat to his power but also a potential means to expand his power. I don't deny that you can take this sort of interpretation re: his motivations, but I think you also have to recognize the context and the type of audience Mein Kampf was meant for. I mean if you truly think that a lot of the conventional thoughts on Hitler re: religion are wrong, by all means you are free to think that/present your case, but I think you've ignored a lot of the context surrounding his words and his actual actions. No one is saying is saying Hitler's words are irrelevant (lol) but it seems to me that you are suggesting that the only possible reading of history is by the direct words written by a person in history which seems to me to be a very problematic way of viewing it.

The point of this response was to show how religion is often entirely seperate from morality. Sure there are some people who get their morality from the Bible, the Quran, or whatever other document one wants to provide, but that morality often comes from the culture and upbringing more so than any biblical works. The evidence for that is multiple atrocities committed by any and all theistic spectrum individuals. Humans can scummy and wretched, who knew? To imply that the only reason one has morals however is because of the fear of divine retribution then I would argue that you really don't have morals in the first place. I choose to be a kind person not because I fear being sundered by lightning by almighty Thor, I choose to be kind because I want to. Everyone's morality is different and I believe that no one person should be judged for their actions without the entirety of their life story laid out before them to justify. Its the age old question, would you steal bread to feed your family? Its a trick question, the bread is poisoned and its not your real family, you've been cuckolded by a stronger, smarter male.

http://www.greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
I mean I don't think they are entirely separate - religion itself has a lot to say about morality and I think does affect it, but I would agree with you in that it is not the only basis for morality (so ur second sentence then).

In any case, I didn't (and am not) make the initial argument (not rlly sure if ur responding to me or what), but I will say about this passage is that not all religions are based on a fear of divine retribution (in fact I would argue Christianity isn't either but that certainly is a valid interpretation of it). Doesn't that oversimplify religion just a bit? How do religions such as Buddhism and Taoism fit into this framework you have? It seems like you might not even consider them to be a religion?
 
Martin and the cong mod team:

Please don't edit my posts (I mean the only thing about my post that was changed was that a quote tag was added. I could've done that). If you think the post violates the rules (which I don't think it does but then again it's not my call to make) then just delete the post. I know that you guys probably feel pressure to enforce the rules in a way that shows you guys aren't biased in order to placate certain users, but please consider the purpose of the rule and consider the context that my post was made.

I'm not going to call out the obvious double standard that exists in this thread, but I would just ask that either 1. you actually enforce what you perceive to be rule breaking or (and that would be by deleting my post outright) 2. actually let me know what is wrong with my post like messaging me via PM or discord instead of hiding it by editing my post. Thanks
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I get that the overall point here is that everyone is capable of committing atrocities and that religious people are not more likely to be moral than non-religious. I don't disagree. I just happen to take exception to the interpretation that Hitler/the Nazis were religiously motivated because I think that's a poor (and just in general incorrect argument). I don't believe most true religions that you can associate with atrocities (eg ISIS) are legitimate representations of that religion, but a twisted version purely used as a means for control. There is religion itself, in the forms of text and customs that just is, but also an outer religion that is used and interpreted by people. My take is that those two are separate entities that need to be divided when discussed.



So it's your interpretation that part of Hitler's rise to power was because he wanted to rid the world of the "false" Christianity and replace it with his version of Christianity? You believe that Nazism was a crusade to take back Christianity so to speak?
Certainly not, most religions that are extremist in nature (ISIS, Nazi, Fundamentalist Christians) do not represent the whole of one religion. Just because ISIS practices from the Quran doesn't mean that Islam is a terrible religion, for example. I wasn't trying to use Nazism as some sort of proof to support the argument that religion is terrible, merely to point out the hypocrisy attached to such an argument.

In a sense. I can make no claims myself, I neither study Hitler vigorously like some historians do nor can I claim to have anything but a researched college education on Hitler, but I believe from analyzing what I've seen about his personality and his works that he either 1) Used religion as a means to gain power and didn't believe a word of it, which is quite possible, or 2) He believed what he said, condemned false Christians and Jews and initially set out to do just that in the late 1920s. I don't believe 1) is the case because I find it a stretch to believe that he was plotting his meteoric rise to power as early as 1925, 8 years before he actually took office. Theorycrafting how one could attain such power? Certainly; planting the religious seed used to dupe the masses almost 10 years in advance? I do not believe so.

Why does Hitler stop invoking God during the height of World War 2 (i'm assuming we both agree to that)? If his rise to power was all for Christianity, why does he show a disdain for it and seem to treat it as a means to an end? How can we be so sure that he was so devoted to his religion, given that the book itself was meant for an audience?

I'll just put in plainly, my take is that I'm not so sure Hitler was ever really convinced by any form of Christianity and I think he simply saw it as both a potential threat to his power but also a potential means to expand his power. I don't deny that you can take this sort of interpretation re: his motivations, but I think you also have to recognize the context and the type of audience Mein Kampf was meant for. I mean if you truly think that a lot of the conventional thoughts on Hitler re: religion are wrong, by all means you are free to think that/present your case, but I think you've ignored a lot of the context surrounding his words and his actual actions. No one is saying is saying Hitler's words are irrelevant (lol) but it seems to me that you are suggesting that the only possible reading of history is by the direct words written by a person in history which seems to me to be a very problematic way of viewing it.



I mean I don't think they are entirely separate - religion itself has a lot to say about morality and I think does affect it, but I would agree with you in that it is not the only basis for morality (so ur second sentence then).
Have I ignored the context? I see a man invoking God and divine right to further his movement in his 1920s / 1930s work, and I see a movement that started off as a small handful of people and growing into nigh 8.5 million people. Whether Hitler himself was Christian is entirely irrelevant because the atrocities committed by the Nazi party were in part religiously motivated, at least at the start. Religion was most likely used as a tool and manipulated by Hitler seeing as German Christianity was seen as a massive threat to his rule. You say yourself that the book was written to an audience, does that not make the audience complicit in the acts committed by the Nazi party? Religious views were in my opinion a large backbone of the rise to power for the Nazi party, whether they were a tool used by Hitler or his actual views can be up for debate, and certainly not every Nazi was religious just as not all religious Germans were members of the Nazi party in theology (even if forced to be in the party at later dates). I don't mean to disregard historian's words, I just think its a little disingenuous for historians to ignore Mein Kampf or speeches presented by Hitler in favor of theories of Hitler's mindstate in the 1940s. I think its important to point out that many historians also agree that Hitler suffered from a multitude of psychological conditions, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, psychopathy, narcissism, ptsd, and sadism among others. (note, I am in no way excusing Hitler for his crimes nor the Nazi party by giving some sort of "blame" as to the actions committed. I am thoroughly disgusted by this evil and hope it never again reigns on this earth). I think pointing out his psychological conditions is important as it implies, quite literally, Hitler was going crazy towards the end of his rule and before his suicide in 1945. His blatant abuse of methamphetamines combined with other drugs, in theory, withered his mind until and made him psychotic to the point he could no longer distinguish between reality and the dream world he created around himself (that he was the superman / savior of Germany). That in my non-professional opinion is why Hitler ended up discarding his cloak of religosity, the deterioration of his mind, the abuse of power, as well as quite possibly him not believing it in the first place and using religion as a tool to control the masses.

Though I argue whether or not he himself was religious is irrelevant to the argument at hand as the intent was there for all to see and the people who enabled him, elected him to Reich Chancellor in 1933 and the soldiers who obeyed his dishonorable commands often did so using their religious morals as a backbone. I just want to state I think its important to argue this because I believe the original tangent (that Hitler was atheist and gonna use his power to wipe away all religion) is revisionist history meant to "whitewash" everything in retrospect. Christian roots had taken hold of the Nazi party, and to imply that it was a purely anti-theist movement is bonkers to say the least and hugely detrimental to an honest argument (disregarding that using any one person as "proof" that religion or no religion is evil is a stupid and fallacious argument).

In any case, I didn't (and am not) make the initial argument (not rlly sure if ur responding to me or what), but I will say about this passage is that not all religions are based on a fear of divine retribution (in fact I would argue Christianity isn't either but that certainly is a valid interpretation of it). Doesn't that oversimplify religion just a bit? How do religions such as Buddhism and Taoism fit into this framework you have? It seems like you might not even consider them to be a religion?
No this part wasn't directed at you but at the main tangent that started the whole Nazi discussion (kilometermans post). I am no expert so correct me if I'm wrong but Taoism and Buddhism both subscribe to the belief that in order to obtain "immortality (in Taoism)" or Nirvana / enlightenment (in Buddhism) one must remain morally pure. The concepts are the same, with a general rulebook laid out on what to do during your life in order to maintain a successful spiritual afterlife. While they are both certainly religions in a sense, they are more importantly philosophies in life, in my eyes more akin to existentialism or nihilism than Christianity or Islam. Regardless, there is still a certain aspect of fear used to control the populace, whether its fear of divine retribution or using Nirvana as a carrot stick to guide people to morality it makes no difference. There are certainly healthier aspects that differ from each religion / philosophy however.
 
In a sense. I can make no claims myself, I neither study Hitler vigorously like some historians do nor can I claim to have anything but a researched college education on Hitler, but I believe from analyzing what I've seen about his personality and his works that he either 1) Used religion as a means to gain power and didn't believe a word of it, which is quite possible, or 2) He believed what he said, condemned false Christians and Jews and initially set out to do just that in the late 1920s. I don't believe 1) is the case because I find it a stretch to believe that he was plotting his meteoric rise to power as early as 1925, 8 years before he actually took office. Theorycrafting how one could attain such power? Certainly; planting the religious seed used to dupe the masses almost 10 years in advance? I do not believe so.

Have I ignored the context? I see a man invoking God and divine right to further his movement in his 1920s / 1930s work, and I see a movement that started off as a small handful of people and growing into nigh 8.5 million people. Whether Hitler himself was Christian is entirely irrelevant because the atrocities committed by the Nazi party were in part religiously motivated, at least at the start. Religion was most likely used as a tool and manipulated by Hitler seeing as German Christianity was seen as a massive threat to his rule. You say yourself that the book was written to an audience, does that not make the audience complicit in the acts committed by the Nazi party? Religious views were in my opinion a large backbone of the rise to power for the Nazi party, whether they were a tool used by Hitler or his actual views can be up for debate, and certainly not every Nazi was religious just as not all religious Germans were members of the Nazi party in theology (even if forced to be in the party at later dates). I don't mean to disregard historian's words, I just think its a little disingenuous for historians to ignore Mein Kampf or speeches presented by Hitler in favor of theories of Hitler's mindstate in the 1940s. I think its important to point out that many historians also agree that Hitler suffered from a multitude of psychological conditions, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, psychopathy, narcissism, ptsd, and sadism among others. (note, I am in no way excusing Hitler for his crimes nor the Nazi party by giving some sort of "blame" as to the actions committed. I am thoroughly disgusted by this evil and hope it never again reigns on this earth). I think pointing out his psychological conditions is important as it implies, quite literally, Hitler was going crazy towards the end of his rule and before his suicide in 1945. His blatant abuse of methamphetamines combined with other drugs, in theory, withered his mind until and made him psychotic to the point he could no longer distinguish between reality and the dream world he created around himself (that he was the superman / savior of Germany). That in my non-professional opinion is why Hitler ended up discarding his cloak of religosity, the deterioration of his mind, the abuse of power, as well as quite possibly him not believing it in the first place and using religion as a tool to control the masses.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

I mean at this point it seems like your shifting your argument to the Nazi party itself being religiously motivated, and that's an even weaker argument to make. Are you ignoring the context of the German state post WW1 or do you just think that it wasn't relevant to either Hitler or the Nazi Party??? Did the Nazis just happen to take power in 1933 by luck??? Framing the rise of the Nazi party as a religious movement is extraordinarily dangerous imo because you the actual (or what I take to be the actual) and legitimately dangerous reasons for the rise of Nazi Germany: extreme nationalism (that grew out of anger over ww1 reparations). What do you think Hitler was doing during the 1920s if not trying to attain power? Wouldn't appealing to the people via religion be a way to do that?

No one is ignoring Mein Kampf or his speeches invoking Christianity either. It has nothing to do with ignoring and more to do with critical analysis of the context of his words in its time period. I think it's disingenuous for you to cherry pick words that make your argument and hand-waive everything else away because ??? Like ok apparently anything Hitler says in the midst of WW2 can be ignored because he was insane? What about those around him (eg goebbels himmler) who echoed anti-religious views? What explanation do we have for those statements? Come on man.

I mean I suppose your viewpoint is valid - I definitely am not entirely convinced but if that's what you feel fair enough I guess.

Though I argue whether or not he himself was religious is irrelevant to the argument at hand as the intent was there for all to see and the people who enabled him, elected him to Reich Chancellor in 1933 and the soldiers who obeyed his dishonorable commands often did so using their religious morals as a backbone. I just want to state I think its important to argue this because I believe the original tangent (that Hitler was atheist and gonna use his power to wipe away all religion) is revisionist history meant to "whitewash" everything in retrospect. Christian roots had taken hold of the Nazi party, and to imply that it was a purely anti-theist movement is bonkers to say the least and hugely detrimental to an honest argument (disregarding that using any one person as "proof" that religion or no religion is evil is a stupid and fallacious argument).
It isn't revisionist history in the slightest. There is definitely a legitimate argument to be made that the Nazi regime was working towards and would have eliminated religion (if arguably that hadn't already happened). I mean for me it just feels like your grasp of history is more about making a point re: religion (fair, this thread is about religion) than about actually discussing Hitler's motivations in good faith. I don't think its a stretch to claim that Hitler was going to do away with religion had the Nazis succeeded. Claiming that such conjecture is simply a "hypothetical" and "irrelevant" is just an easy way to ignore information instead of actually analyzing and thinking about the facts and circumstances in totality.

Let me be clear though that I get that the idea here is that you're trying to push back on the idea that atheism leads to greater atrocity (which I feel is a problematic comparison since atheism isn't really a religion that groups people together or can be used as a fabric of society but that's a different matter). I don't disagree. But I think making the argument that these people weren't atheists/weren't driven by atheism to do what they did is a much stronger and more relevant argument (not to mention perhaps bringing up positive examples of atheist morality).

I'm not so sure about the "people let this happen by justifying it with their individual religious morals" because that's applicable to literally every bad thing done ever especially when you don't make a distinction between the "actual" religion or a perverted sense of it but I get why you're making the point so fair enough.

No this part wasn't directed at you but at the main tangent that started the whole Nazi discussion (kilometermans post). I am no expert so correct me if I'm wrong but Taoism and Buddhism both subscribe to the belief that in order to obtain "immortality (in Taoism)" or Nirvana / enlightenment (in Buddhism) one must remain morally pure. The concepts are the same, with a general rulebook laid out on what to do during your life in order to maintain a successful spiritual afterlife. While they are both certainly religions in a sense, they are more importantly philosophies in life, in my eyes more akin to existentialism or nihilism than Christianity or Islam. Regardless, there is still a certain aspect of fear used to control the populace, whether its fear of divine retribution or using Nirvana as a carrot stick to guide people to morality it makes no difference. There are certainly healthier aspects that differ from each religion / philosophy however.
To quote Ortheore: "if your entire argument hinges on the fact that you're ignoring the definition of a word that is accepted by literally everyone else in favour of your own it's not a very convincing argument- their points can't be said to hold any weight in this discussion because pretty much none of us are using the term "religion" as Harari is." =] just kidding but I think my point is that I feel you have a pretty narrow minded view of the major religions. Why isn't Christianity or Islam life philosophies? Can they not be interpreted the same way?

Your conception of Taoism and Buddhism is a vast oversimplification if not outright wrong (I mean what does "morally pure" even mean lol) also. At the very least it just sounds like you're trying to fit them into your framework of religion (which to your credit you semi-admit).

I mean it seems like it's this definition of religion that we're (or at least I am) hung up on. I think an interesting discussion would be to think about what "religion" actually entails. Atheism as a religion doesn't really make sense to me and that's why it's hard to argue about it because at its core I don't really see how you can have an "atheistic" society. For you then, it seems like a large foundation of religion is a fear of a supernatural power, which is a pretty constricting definition (but a fair one). I think Harari's definition of religion that I posted earlier is really interesting - can we make the argument that nazism is a religion? I think you could, as it was a structure that brought people together in Germany together and was the foundation of Nazi Germany society. And then if you accept that sense of the word, I feel the dangers
 

destinyunknown

Banned deucer.
Communist countries are atheist because Communism itself acts like a religion for the most part, and also because every communist country has been a dictatorship. In general, dictators remove religion so they (or Communism, and the Party) can become the religion themselves, since that's a way to legitimize and perpetuate their power, and maintain the support of the citizens. This also happens by using 'actual' religions like in some Islamic countries.

However, using Christianism as a way of legitimizing your power as a dictator wouldn't have worked in Germany in the long run. Thinking otherwise not only means you're ignoring history, but also that you don't understand at all how Germany works. Christianism is very divided in Germany so it would never work, since it would have lead to inner conflicts.
 
Last edited:

termi

bike is short for bichael
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
Communist countries are atheist because Communism itself acts like a religion for the most part
you what
and also because every communist country has been a dictatorship.
technically no, for one because states like the USSR and China under Mao never were truly communist (communism is classless and stateless, these countries obviously never achieved this), secondly because there have been instances of states ruled by anarchist communists, although these were usually short-lived. I get your point though, the most relevant states that were ruled by a communist party were dictatorships in one way or another
In general, dictators remove religion so they (or Communism, and the Party) can become the religion themselves, since that's a way to legitimize and perpetuate their power, and maintain the support of the citizens.
interesting theory but do you have anything to back this statement up? I don't think I've heard anything like this before so I'm curious to hear where you got this from or if you're merely making this up on the fly
 

McGrrr

Facetious
is a Contributor Alumnus
I'd live the same way regardless of whether a god exists. That is, I believe that I live a moral and "good" life. If a just god exists, I trust him/her/it to recognise this. If an unjust god exists, he/she/it doesn't deserve to be worshipped anyway.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top