The Fall of Theism | 103 comments (103 topical, 0 hidden)
Hitler (none / 0)

 http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_re ligious_beliefs

Although this mistake has been corrected so many times in so many places it has become maddening, I am obligated to point out for factual accuracy that HITLER WAS NOT NECESSARILY AN ATHEIST.  I can't really blame anyone too much for perpetuating this because Christians love to distance themselves from him and have been repeating this line for a while.  This matter is very much under dispute.  However, it is clear as day that Hitler used Christianity pretty much whenever possible to help justify his beliefs and actions to his people.  Don't take my word for it, check the link at the top of my post. 

Unlike many religious people, I am not trying to distance my atheism from bad people who happened to be atheist.  I'm just pointing out some facts.  I'll readily admit there is a fairly clear consensus that Stalin was indeed an atheist and he is responsible for more deaths than Hitler.  The real common factor that links these two people is not atheism.  The relevant commonality is that they were maniacs in one way or another.

For the record, I realize it was not the intention of the original poster to play this association game that many other people try to play.  I dislike the association game and I hate it even more when people lie to make the associations in the first place.  Furthermore, if the "association game" absolutely has to be played than religion in general definitely comes out looking horrible and the clear loser.

  I would definitely say that organized religion is the most dangerous tool in manipulating the masses to do or support abhorrent deeds because it gives the impression that these deeds have a divine mandate or approval.  For many people, this trumps all logic and reason.

P.S.  This is my first post on the TYT forums.  For some reason or another my attempts to register here at the site have been unsuccessful for some time.  For some reason, the email account I had been trying to use has never received an account verification/activation email.  I finally decided to make another email address that I will never use again because I couldn't resist this topic.

by marklar1 on 06/17/2009 09:42:53 PM EST

Broken link (none / 0)

My link is broken......try this

 http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_re ligious_beliefs

by marklar1 on 06/17/2009 09:44:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Screw it (none / 0)

Just go to wiki and enter "Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs" into the search field.

 Sry

by marklar1 on 06/17/2009 09:46:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you see that button on the bottom? (none / 0)
it looks like an 8 sideways.  If you click on it, it will make the link for you.  Alternatively, you could turn your WYSIWYG Editor off in My Preferences: Interface and use the tag "a" if you know html

by birdboy1 on 06/17/2009 10:08:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
TY (none / 0)

Thank you good sir.  I shall give it a go now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religiou s_beliefs

by marklar1 on 06/17/2009 10:15:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Flattered (none / 0)
Well, I'm flattered that you found my topic so irresistable :)


On the idea that Hitler wasn't an atheist: I knew that, but I didn't want the conversation to devolve into a debate about Hitler's religion. In short, you are exactly right, but whenever I hear Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins m ention that Hitler was a Christian, Christians fire-back: "that' s debatable" or "he wasn't a true Christian" (as if anyone has ever been a true Christian) or simply "that's a lie!"

The crux of my argument is, it is irrelevant if Hitler was or was not an atheist, atheism or non-belief of any sort, was not his motivation for going to war or creating a Holocaust. This was just an attempt to block die-hard Christians from using this argument against me.

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 12:38:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fair Enough (none / 0)

I agree that the religion or lack thereof of these people is irrelevant.  If that is not how I came across, I will have to be clearer in the future.

What is important to me in the debate over religion and whether or not it is harmful or helpful is not the particular religion of people who do bad things.  What concerns me is its power to blind people to reality and objective morality.  People are taught from early childhood that their religion and holy books are absolute truth and that to question anything about them is wrong and even evil.  As a former student of childhood psychological development, I know that all this indoctrination takes place during one of if not the absolute most impressionable years of a person's life.  This is when people develop their "moral compass" so to speak and it usually stays with them with little change for the rest of their lives.  This would not be such an issue if religious morality corresponded 100% with secular, common sense morality.  Unfortunately, it does not.  It inserts all of these arbitrary rules that are necessary for propping up a religious society as well as ones that reflect the personal prejudices and hangups of the original clergy.  This is taken even further by the clergy members who end up taking their places who insert their own unfounded beliefs.  Then we end up with legislation or attempts at legislation that are totally unnecessary for the function and progress of a secular society and often to the direct detriment.  Some examples would be abstinence only education, efforts to outlaw any abortions, gay marriage bans, denial of evolution, and teaching of creationism/intelligent design (I don't care what anyone may have been told, intelligent design is just creationism in a white lab coat).  Often times these policies directly infringe on personal freedoms.  The Bible in particular has even been used in the past as a means to justify slavery.  In my home state of Connecticut, as well as some others, I can't even buy a six pack of beer on Sunday.  I think most TYT fans are savvy enough to figure out where laws like that came from.  Why is it necessary to "keep holy the sabbath" in order for a society to maintain law and order?

Given all this, I would still not argue for a ban of religion whether it be personal or organized because I believe in personal freedom.  Of course, I am referring to the freedom to act in any way that does not harm or infringe upon the rights of others.  Unfortunately, many religious people do not uphold that same ideal.  In many cases, I only get to have freedom within the dogma of their beliefs that are not founded upon any substantial fact.  Those unfounded beliefs infringe upon my rights and I cannot be silent in the face of that.

I will continue to rail against organized religion for the rest of my life because of this.  I can only stop if they start minding their own business.

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

by marklar1 on 06/18/2009 02:23:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
''Objective morality'' (none / 0)
WARNING: Sharp Curve Ahead

      -- or --

I'm hijacking this thread.  Do what I say and nobody will get hurt.

"Objective morality": more dangerous words have never been spoken.

Religionists usually speak in terms of absolutes (if they don't, you should check your wallet. They're trying to get away with something).  There may be some things upon which we all agree are either good or bad, behavior-wise.  But we also know that those judgments are subject to analysis of the situation at hand.  Yes, I'm talking about that ideological realm that right-wingers hate above all others, situational ethics.

We might agree that "Torture is always bad."  Still, the hypocrites have a point when they suggest that torturing someone might be a good idea if it can save lots of lives.  Fortunately, situational ethics makes it clear that torturing people is never a good idea.  Besides, we have generally agreed that "torture is always bad."  I move that we revisit the question only on a vote with a 2/3 majority.

We might agree that killing a baby is always bad.  But that mother whose baby's crying is endangering a group of people who are hiding from an enemy who wants to kill them may smother her baby to save the lives of the others.  She'll suffer terribly for the rest of her life.  But amidst her doubts, she'll believe that she did the right thing -- and her opinion is and was the only one that matters.  Could anyone be qualified to judge her?

Is there objective beauty?  Is there objective morality?  Philosophers have been arguing about that forever.  My thinking is that since they haven't been able to prove their existence yet, they probably don't exist.  Show me someone who is ugly and I'll show you their beauty -- you can start with Hitler, if you like:  He really did want Eva Braun to be happy.  That's love.

But I hadn't heard that quote from good ol' Tom.  Thanks for providing it.

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 03:11:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good Points (none / 0)

I suppose I should not have used the term objective morality and stuck to the other term I used, secular morality.  Either that or stressed objective morality people can agree upon.  For example, I think we can all agree that killing someone just because they disagree with you is not a moral action.  Stealing someone's car simply because it is more preferable to your car is not a moral action.  Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is certainly a different situation if you can't work for, beg, or borrow the money required to buy it honestly.  I don't think I would be in favor of punishing that person assuming that particular situation.  Really, my main point is that a piece of legislation should be based on better reasoning than the fact that a religious text or authority demands it.  I believe that some if not all of the examples I provided in my previous post illustrate that. 

I will rehash the example I used of abstinence only sex education.  We have no facts to back up the effectiveness of these types of programs.  They were forced into school curriculums based on certain Christian beliefs that sex before marriage is wrong and various forms of contraception are wrong.  We have blown large amounts of tax dollars from many different religions or schools of thought on this when the effectiveness of these programs have not been demonstrated.  Also of importance is the fact that many religions and many people without a specific religion do not agree that sex before marriage or contraception is wrong in all cases.  This is an example of legislation based on religion and it is unacceptable.  If these programs had been shown to be more effective than programs stressing safe sex my complaints would be invalid regardless of where the idea for abstinence only came from.  But they are not effective and they do come from religious thought.  Therefore, the legislation reeks of religious dogma and is an example of religion harming society.

by marklar1 on 06/18/2009 04:28:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks, but (none / 0)
"I think we can all agree that killing someone just because they disagree with you is not a moral action."

I'll have to get back to you on that one.

But as far as abstinence-only education is concerned, all we have to do is to look at the incidence of teen pregnancies in areas where abstinence-only education is used to the exclusion of everything else.  The abstinence-only approach is a failure.

Bristol Palin should be adequate proof of that.

Oh.  Okay.  I'll stop killing people just because they disagree with me.  Sheesh!  You're taking all the fun out of debate!

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 08:17:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Who needs debate (none / 0)
when you can have a crusade?  Think about it; your own little genocide on any religion you want!  Don't like atheists?  Shoot up the church of the flying spaghetti monster!  They'll be sorry they ever mocked you when they go to hell with their socialized medicine.  But I recommend the more classy approach: the war against liberals!  I, for one, am tired of their snide remarks and sarcastic imitations of us fundamentalists.  I'm tired of their science, which I don't understand anyway. I'm tired of their "logic"(who needs logic anyway, when you have faith.)  I'm tired of their promotion of equal rights.  First they forced me get rid of my slaves, and then they tell me I can't beat my wife, and now they're gonna make it illegal for me to shoot the gay couple down the street.  And then they tell me that abortion is right!  Who cares about the woman's life;  there could be a boy in her belly and everyone knows that's why the baby's life is so much more important than the mother's.
I'm sorry for rambling; my point is, Tired of those annoying liberals?  Join me in my crusade against anything liberal!

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 08:34:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OOPS (none / 0)
I forgot to tell you that the views expressed in the previous comment are not necessarily the views of the author.

Because you obviously couldn't tell

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 08:44:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
and I forgot to say there (none / 0)
that yes you obviously could tell, I was joking again

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 10:26:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Silly bird :) (none / 0)

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 03:36:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Banning Religion (none / 0)
As destructive as I think religion is, I also cherish freedom of thought.  If we're not free to let our minds wander down any path of our choosing, how will our species keep coming up with new ideas?  Besides, if someone is free to preach religion, that means that I'm free to ridicule them.

I'm also against passing laws defining "hate" crimes.  Punish people for what they do, not for what they think, because I might want to hate someone who commits a hate crime, and I hate thinking of myself as a hateful hypocrite.


...um...

Please accept my apologies for that last sentence.

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 03:39:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Banning Religious Education for Children! (none / 0)
Freedom of thought is fine, if applied to self-determined adults (let's be honest: not everyone is, teabagging comes to mind). Children on the other hand cannot decide what is true or fake, so they believe anything they are being told, they don't have the opportunity to wander down any path of their choosing, that's how education works and that's arguably beneficial in many ways. Even the religious indoctrination had purpose and necessity once in our history.

But I strongly believe humankind or at least the apex of humankind has overcome the need for religious indoctrination. What's more important: if the children were given all the available facts and not forced into a belief system, they would all become agnostics, the most spiritual would be deists or pantheists (except the schizophrenics, but most schizophrenics are already secular anyway).

As I strongly believe (lol) that, I think of religious indoctrination as mental child abuse! I cannot think of anything worse than intentionally lead an innocent human being to believe the most absurd, far-fetched and very often confused and hateful things like christianity and islam (among others) do. But then most of the parents were raised to believe the same bs and are victims themselves.
As much as I like making fun of believers myself, I feel pity almost all of the time and I'd rather make fun of something more harmless, like eating habits or clothing or something like that.

Btw: you are absolutely right on hate crimes. OTOH: I'd consider the hate(ful thoughts) that accompanied the criminal action as a mental condition that needs to be addressed.
And tolerance of intolerance is.. uh, forgot, but it's bad ;).

by eborujion on 06/18/2009 08:48:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Child Abuse (none / 0)
I agree with you to a point.  But we do tell our children "fairy tales" which they soon learn are untrue, and those fairy tales are often good teaching tools.

The real problem is when the adults truly believe the fairy tales that they tell their kids.  That's when correcting the child's beliefs becomes more difficult.

This line of thought always leads me to the conclusion that our species needs a few hundred more years to evolve mentally before we can make significant inroads against this problem.  We're talking about interfering with how people raise their children, a very touchy subject.

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 10:53:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Memetic engineering... (none / 0)
I have yet to rear my own off-spring but I will take the risk and raise them bs-free (that means NO fairy tale presented as real; fables and cautionary tales are just that, the kids will figure out that they're allegorical) and try to break the cycle (already started with my family's and friends' children and spreading the meme of atheism).

Mental evolution is imho just wishful thinking... Look how far everything in technology and philosophy and sciences etc. has developped so far, but the general human mindset has not changed a bit since the very beginning. It's all about tradition and education. And education always is coercion persuasion to some extent. Of course some memetic framework helps.

by eborujion on 06/18/2009 05:33:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mental Evolution (none / 0)
I doubt that many people were concerned with mental health at the end of the 1800s (except, of course, for Freud and a handful of others).  In fact, almost no one knew that such a concept even existed.

But now we're aware that mental health exists and can be measured, and (for the most part) we're interested in having good mental health.  We can even tell, in a general sense, what it looks like.

This is because of education.  As a species, we possess much more knowledge than we did a hundred years ago, and we've used that knowledge to change not only our environment but also to change ourselves.

That is evolution.  Just because we sometimes choose the direction in which we wish to evolve (toward better mental health, for instance) doesn't mean that is isn't still evolution.

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 07:52:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
FYI (none / 0)

You mentioned Freud for a moment there.  I just wanted to mention that Freud wrote a book way back in 1927 called 'The Future of an Illusion".  I read this book about a month ago and would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in religion and psychology.  It is considered to be Freud's "indictment" of religion.  Throughout his adult life, Freud often referred to himself as a "godless Jew" which I can't help but find amusing.  This is not the only book he wrote on religion but it is the only one I have read and can recommend.  Also, its fairly short and you don't have to be well versed in psychology at all to understand it.


by marklar1 on 06/18/2009 09:50:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, I see, (none / 0)

 we were talking about different issues. What I was referring to was the evolution/development towards the "adulthood of humankind", where most of the people would have grown out of their petty wants and basic animal sentiments that seem to determine the course of almost all human action and interaction and act responsibly for the benefit of society and humankind as a whole.

Of course the knoledge even in the so called social fields has multiplied, but still this knowledge has not permeated our society and does not influence human conduct at all.

In evolutionary terms: some advanced traits occur in the population but they are not prevalent and sure as hell they are not dominant or advantageous over more primal behavior. Sex, fear and sapidity are the dominating forces dictating the masses' behavior (imo that has nothing to do with intelligence, even the most intelligent people act stupid in masses).

What mental health concerns I pretty much agree even if I do not know of a generally accepted definition of good mental health, I think of it more as of a threshold.

by eborujion on 06/19/2009 10:05:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll grant that (none / 0)
If humankind will ever have an "adulthood", it appears to be a long, long way off.  But "good mental health" might include being free of identifiable illnesses and disorders.  In addition, as we learn more, we'll be able to more readily identify the disorders of the right-wing.

(I just hope OneHitKill doesn't see this comment.  He hates armchair "psychologists".)

by EveningStarNM on 06/19/2009 01:43:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
inability to use logic (none / 0)
is not a personality disorder.  It's just a state of being un-educated and un-educateable.  It's also very hard to educate their kids because the people unable to use logic will teach their kids the same stuff.  

The willful ignorance that is the right wing is going to stick around for a long time, and there isn't much anyone can do about it.

by birdboy1 on 06/19/2009 03:15:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure, ignorance is not a crime or a disorder (none / 0)
It's not even a defect.  The time has long passed when one person can possess all human knowledge.  Ben Franklin was probably the last person capable of that.  Ignorance is unavoidable.  It's most often better to describe someone's ignorance without criticizing it, and then only when a person's ignorance is relevant.  I have no need, for instance, of knowledge about how to split the strands of a DNA molecule, and spending the time required to learn it would not be beneficial to me or to society since it would take time away from my continued investment in knowledge that I already possess.  But if I run across an article about DNA and have the time, I read it.

On the other hand, when you can employ logic but deny it anyway, there's something wrong.  And willful ignorance may be a sign of deeper problems.  Since the "normal" (yeah, I know) preference of humans is for more knowledge, and since more knowledge is beneficial not only for individuals but for our species, the deliberate denial or avoidance of knowledge might be considered to be a danger to the individual and to society requiring treatment.

by EveningStarNM on 06/19/2009 03:57:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What I was talking about (none / 0)
Was when people are unable to use logic.  They have been taught one thing and if that thing is wrong, then their whole reality turns itself upside down.   That inability to use logic is not a disorder.  It's the way these people have been taught.  

The only way to fix it is to hope irrational people don't reproduce.(that was a joke, don't kill the idiot down the street)

by birdboy1 on 06/19/2009 04:19:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sometimes Darwin works too slowly (none / 0)

by EveningStarNM on 06/19/2009 06:07:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lack of ability to adapt? (none / 0)

What amazes me most is the inability for these people to just learn and adapt in this area.  I was raised Roman Catholic and went to a Catholic school from K-8th grade.  Before I even left that place I had already adapted the standard dogma a bit to help myself reconcile the beliefs with the reality of the outside world.  Before I received my Confirmation somewhere around sophomore year of high school I was already an Agnostic as my knowledge of the outside world and the realization of the silliness of my parish's teachings grew.  I don't really remember when exactly, but it was not long after that I was a full blown Atheist.  

I'm not suggesting everyone should be going the full godless route that I went, but it shouldn't take much critical thought to realize that even if your specific deity is real the holy books are at least a perversion of the true deity's message/identity.  I think you really have to continuously lie to yourself to take most of these stories literally.  Take what you have learned of the outside world and do what you have always done.  Just say god must have done it!  Evolution?  God did it!  Abiogenesis?  God did it!  So on and so forth. 

by marklar1 on 06/19/2009 06:21:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Silly goose (none / 0)
Evolution doesn't exist.  I don't see anything in the bible saying anything about evolution.  So it must not exist.  But I see socialism.  
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

Socialism is the only way to be a real christian.

Note: the views portrayed in this comment are not necessarily the views of the author.

by birdboy1 on 06/19/2009 08:49:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good find (none / 0)
I'll have to break that passage out next time I'm debating a religious conservative.  Of course, the blinders will already be on and they won't acknowledge it.

by marklar1 on 06/19/2009 09:09:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've got a whole bunch (none / 0)
Any time you're debating a religious conservative, just tell me.  I've got plenty of quotes showing how hypocritical the religious right are.

chief among them,

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. - 1 Tim 2

by birdboy1 on 06/20/2009 01:49:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Correction (none / 0)
Nononononono... It's only socialism, if a) the other guy's do it and b) one of them is black. And especially if they don't share the goods. Christianity has nothing to do with money, it's all about fucking, er, not fucking!

by eborujion on 06/19/2009 09:14:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jibjab couldn't have put it better (none / 0)
the world is "Nuckin Futs"

by birdboy1 on 06/19/2009 04:30:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The Fall of Theism | 103 comments (103 topical, 0 hidden)