[001]
MajinGojira
Current Version
Changed line(s) 13 from:
n
We don\'t deny that Atheists have done horrible things, but it was not because of Atheism. It\'s hard to get motivated by a lack of a belief or, in some definitions a strong disbelief in a God or Gods. Atheism itself tells no on how to behave in regards to that core statement, so there\'s nothing about atheism that is related to or \
to:
We don\\\'t deny that Atheists have done horrible things, but it was not because of Atheism. It\\\'s hard to get motivated by a lack of a belief or, in some definitions a strong disbelief in a God or Gods. Atheism itself tells no on how to behave in regards to that core statement, so there\\\'s nothing about atheism that is related to or \\\"Causes\\\" the atrocities. As opposed to Religions whose Holy Books often provide motivations and justifications for such acts.
\\\'\\\'this includes Mein Kampf, which was written with political intent, as well as his public speeches\\\'\\\'
Horseshit. Mein Kampf was a personal document first and foremost. It was published WELL before he had dreams of being the head of state and was in line with many other political manifestos of the time. The writers were completely open with their extreme views. He was going to convince them with his strength of character and convictions through that piece of rhetoric.
Micheal Wong has a [[http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.xhtml wonderful essay]] discussing it and pointing out the common objections to using Mein Kampf, which you so readily employ. I\\\'ll reproduce them here, but the citations and notes for these are found in the link.
--> The common excuse given by Christian apologists is that he was only pretending to be a Christian in his public speeches and writings, in order to curry the favour of Christians in Germany. However, this excuse has many serious weaknesses:
--> 1. All of the evidence for this massive contradiction between public and private beliefs is hearsay. Typically, it involves uncorroborated accounts of private conversations. Any sensible observer must question why Hitler suddenly became so open about his secret beliefs that he would spew them even after having been informed that they would be documented.
--> 2.Most accounts of his private conversations do not contain anti-Christian sentiments. In fact, when you look carefully at all the anti-Christian quotes attributed to Hitler, you will find that virtually all of them come from just two or three people! One must question why they alone were privy to secret thoughts that he carefully hid from everyone else in his life and his government. Why didn\\\'t he reveal these secret thoughts to Rudolf Hess? Heinrich Himmler? Joseph Goebbels? Hermann Göring? Are we supposed to seriously believe that Hitler kept all of these men in the dark for more than a decade while abruptly pouring out his heart to his secretary Martin Bormann, and an obscure provincial official named Hermann Rauschning?
--> 3. In order to generate something more substantive than unreliable hearsay quotes, Hitler\\\'s actions or words against political opponents or competing brands of Christianity are almost invariably misrepresented as actions or words against Christianity as a whole. This is simply absurd; if we adopt denominational intolerance or political ruthlessness as the definition of anti-Christian attitudes, then most Christians throughout history have been anti-Christian, including the Roman Catholic church throughout most of its existence!
--> 4. Hitler never publicly spoke out against Christianity right up until the very end, yet he demonstrated such extreme megalomania, capacity for self-delusion, and overconfidence in his own abilities (particularly as the war dragged on) that it seems absolutely ludicrous to believe that he was still hiding his true beliefs for fear of offending religious groups.
--> 5. When one pays lip service to a common religious belief which one actually finds repugnant (as many of the American founding fathers did), one normally does not do it as clearly and enthusiastically as Hitler did.
--> 6. There is no serious historical doubt that the roots of his anti-Semitism came from the Viennese Christian Social movement, or that he was inspired by Martin Luther (on whose birthday the infamous Kristallnacht occurred), who wrote the infamous racist screed \\\"On Jews And Their Lies\\\". Are we to believe that he admired these men and followed in their footsteps while simultaneously despising their beliefs?
--> 7. Even if we accept the unfounded notion that Hitler pretended to be a Christian in order to curry favour with the public, we would still have to acknowledge that the Christian public was amenable to his message! There would have been no benefit in paying lip service to Christians if Christianity were as inherently unreceptive to his message as modern Christian apologists would have you believe.
The eagerness of you to cut and run and the lack of a proper handle makes me think you\\\'re a troll or at the very least are trolling. The shallowness of the arguments speaks further to that, IMO.
But I can be cynical at times, so I could be totally wrong on that last part.
\\\'\\\'this includes Mein Kampf, which was written with political intent, as well as his public speeches\\\'\\\'
Horseshit. Mein Kampf was a personal document first and foremost. It was published WELL before he had dreams of being the head of state and was in line with many other political manifestos of the time. The writers were completely open with their extreme views. He was going to convince them with his strength of character and convictions through that piece of rhetoric.
Micheal Wong has a [[http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.xhtml wonderful essay]] discussing it and pointing out the common objections to using Mein Kampf, which you so readily employ. I\\\'ll reproduce them here, but the citations and notes for these are found in the link.
--> The common excuse given by Christian apologists is that he was only pretending to be a Christian in his public speeches and writings, in order to curry the favour of Christians in Germany. However, this excuse has many serious weaknesses:
--> 1. All of the evidence for this massive contradiction between public and private beliefs is hearsay. Typically, it involves uncorroborated accounts of private conversations. Any sensible observer must question why Hitler suddenly became so open about his secret beliefs that he would spew them even after having been informed that they would be documented.
--> 2.Most accounts of his private conversations do not contain anti-Christian sentiments. In fact, when you look carefully at all the anti-Christian quotes attributed to Hitler, you will find that virtually all of them come from just two or three people! One must question why they alone were privy to secret thoughts that he carefully hid from everyone else in his life and his government. Why didn\\\'t he reveal these secret thoughts to Rudolf Hess? Heinrich Himmler? Joseph Goebbels? Hermann Göring? Are we supposed to seriously believe that Hitler kept all of these men in the dark for more than a decade while abruptly pouring out his heart to his secretary Martin Bormann, and an obscure provincial official named Hermann Rauschning?
--> 3. In order to generate something more substantive than unreliable hearsay quotes, Hitler\\\'s actions or words against political opponents or competing brands of Christianity are almost invariably misrepresented as actions or words against Christianity as a whole. This is simply absurd; if we adopt denominational intolerance or political ruthlessness as the definition of anti-Christian attitudes, then most Christians throughout history have been anti-Christian, including the Roman Catholic church throughout most of its existence!
--> 4. Hitler never publicly spoke out against Christianity right up until the very end, yet he demonstrated such extreme megalomania, capacity for self-delusion, and overconfidence in his own abilities (particularly as the war dragged on) that it seems absolutely ludicrous to believe that he was still hiding his true beliefs for fear of offending religious groups.
--> 5. When one pays lip service to a common religious belief which one actually finds repugnant (as many of the American founding fathers did), one normally does not do it as clearly and enthusiastically as Hitler did.
--> 6. There is no serious historical doubt that the roots of his anti-Semitism came from the Viennese Christian Social movement, or that he was inspired by Martin Luther (on whose birthday the infamous Kristallnacht occurred), who wrote the infamous racist screed \\\"On Jews And Their Lies\\\". Are we to believe that he admired these men and followed in their footsteps while simultaneously despising their beliefs?
--> 7. Even if we accept the unfounded notion that Hitler pretended to be a Christian in order to curry favour with the public, we would still have to acknowledge that the Christian public was amenable to his message! There would have been no benefit in paying lip service to Christians if Christianity were as inherently unreceptive to his message as modern Christian apologists would have you believe.
The eagerness of you to cut and run and the lack of a proper handle makes me think you\\\'re a troll or at the very least are trolling. The shallowness of the arguments speaks further to that, IMO.
But I can be cynical at times, so I could be totally wrong on that last part.
