Was Hitler Christian,Athiest,Savior-Madman) FACTS welcomed along with your opinions

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Atheists aren't obsessed with "proving" anything because they can't prove anything! They have nothing to work with except their feelings and thoughts that there isn't a god.

This is a blanket insult if I ever heard one. Christians and religious adherents in general prove all of their ideas and beliefs with a foundation that there is a god, and that their mythology is the truth. From that supposation, based upon faith, they embark upon proving whatever they can, with total confidence and a sort of righteously superior ease, since God is Real to them. Since god is real, and hell exists, and the scriptures are true, and the second coming is nigh, and etcetera etcetera, everything can be proven and justified knowing that all they need is Faith and the rest follows. Faith does not prove anything. It's very nice, but it does not prove scientific truths. If I have faith that aliens exist on a neighboring planet, does this faith make the aliens and the planet real? Well, if I and a big group of scolars and passionate believers got together and carefully thought it out, all we'd have to do is believe in our aliens enough and prove they exist by saying "Of course they exist! Look at yada yada yada that exists, so they must exist! I have faith they exist, so they must exist!"

This is untrue that atheists, or all those in this world who just do not believe in god, santa claus or aliens, are not motivated to prove things. What do you think scientific study is all about? Scolars of science and reason are rarely religious adherents, Rian.

[Lief Erikson]

If you wouldn't mind, would someone who feels Hitler was a Christian please respond to my post 114 and posts 84-86?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

‘Ridid’ modifies ‘inspiration’ youll note in my post. My reference is to the fact that there is no specific finite tome or guide book by which the atheist can simply take his inspiration FROM as has been done by countless millions of Christians over the course of history.

Ah, I see; as you had previously referenced interpretation of scriptures, I assumed this was the 'inspiration' that was rigid to which you were referring.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why does this thread appear as just "..." on the main page?

I imagine because the title is so long.

[Spock]

This topic will be closed for 'cool down' for the next 24hrs. starting now.

It will be reopened after that time period or earlier if TPTB get a chance to evaluate this topics direction.

[Spock]

ok, it's 3 hrs. early and I'm reopening this topic.

DO NOT ATTACK THE POSTER

and on another note, this day, 7 yrs. since Columbine and the Fuhers birdhay anniversary:

Police: MySpace foils school shooting
Five teenagers arrested; alleged targets were popular students

Thursday, April 20, 2006; Posted: 6:12 p.m. EDT (22:12 GMT)


RIVERTON, Kansas (AP) -- Five teenage boys accused of plotting a shooting rampage at their high school on the anniversary of the Columbine massacre were arrested Thursday after details of the alleged scheme appeared on the Web site MySpace.com.
Sheriff's deputies found guns, ammunition, knives and coded messages in the bedroom of one suspect, Sheriff Steve Norman said. Authorities also found documents about firearms and references to Armageddon in two suspects' school lockers.

[Spock]

and stop fiddling with my topic title please

I've tried to modify the title of this thread so that it shows up as a title and not as ---.
I almost had it a few moments ago but then it reverted. Hopefully it now will stay as titled and show for all devotees of the subject.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

This is a blanket insult if I ever heard one.

Wait, wait, wait - it's not a blanket insult - you totally misunderstood me! Please take a look at the context and re-read the posts that brownie and I made. We're talking about proving the faith of atheists or Christians - i.e., proving that god doesn't exist or that god exists - and my point is that neither side can "prove" their beliefs That's all - no insults intended.

Christians and religious adherents in general prove all of their ideas and beliefs with a foundation that there is a god, and that their mythology is the truth.

As I've said many times, I don't think these things can be proven, because the foundation that you mention ("there is a god") cannot be proven. And atheists can't prove their atheistic myths, either, for the same reason.

Faith does not prove anything.

I totally agree with you.

It's very nice, but it does not prove scientific truths.

I was never talking about scientific truths. If you want to bring it up as a new subject, then that's fine and I agree with you that faith does not prove scientific truths. I make that point all the time in evolution threads The faith of evolutionists astounds me!

This is untrue that atheists, or all those in this world who just do not believe in god, santa claus or aliens, are not motivated to prove things. What do you think scientific study is all about?

Again, I never said that. I was talking SPECIFICALLY about proving the existence/non-existence of god. And brownie is the one who said the 'obsessed about "proving" anything' phrase to begin with, anyway, NOT me - maybe ask HIM if he was only talking about proving god stuff, or if he meant to include scientific stuff. I understood him to only be talking about "god stuff".

BTW, that was an interesting point, brownie! Made me think about some things.

Scolars of science and reason are rarely religious adherents, Rian.

In the field of evolutionary biology (that odd little hybrid field - it's historical science), I would agree. In other fields (more of the "real" science fields), I think your statement is false. But I imagine we'll just have to disagree on that one!

OT - why is "hybrid" spelled with an "i" and not an "e"? One would think that "brEd" would be part of the word!

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

Off topic but needs to be said.

Originally Posted by Spock

Police: MySpace foils school shooting
Five teenagers arrested; alleged targets were popular students

Thursday, April 20, 2006; Posted: 6:12 p.m. EDT (22:12 GMT)

Good! Little bastards.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Still how can you kill in the name of NO god? What scripture do you get your directives from?

Saying scripture is disingenious. There is however, an awful lot of literature written on the subject of athiesm and the conflicts within modern society between "free thinkers" and "theists".

Sagan, Feynman, Harris, and Dawkins are four that spring to mind. If you think their writings haven't influenced numbers of people into a shared belief system, then I'm afraid there's no basis for continuing this discussion.

Once you have a shared belief system, no matter if it's canonical or not, no matter if there is "Scripture" or not, it is only a matter of time. Because all you need for an attrocity is the concept of "them" and "us".

An atheist (which by the way is simply another form of religion as far as Im concerned) as far as I know has no such equivalent rigid inspiration. And the concept of "agnostic influenced atrocities" is too paradoxical to comprehend really.

"And how do small wealthy elites persuade large numbers of poor people to go and fight for them? When a regime wants to make war, for its gain, it tells its population that they are under threat."

"As a good rule of thumb, any polemic featuring parties stating categorically that the other party is responsible for everything bad is unlikely to be veering toward fact. You are at liberty to love or loathe religion, believe in god or something else entirely; you are not entitled to assume one category of faith unique purely because of its object. And moving from there to blaming it for the ills of the world (if there’s a god involved in war, poverty and inequality it’s presumably Mammon) is not a leap of logic, or even intuition; it’s a leap of faith."

http://www.nthposition.com/whatsgotthenongod.php

You should read that.

And then think about the commononly known "fact" repeated over and over by "freethinkers" that religion is the cause of all of mankinds ills.

And then come back here and SERIOUSLY tell me you cannot imagine how it could be used to justify an attrocity.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It isn't really that simple. Hitler and Stalin are examples of people (powerful and intelligent people) who took that approach and ultimately failed. Short-term destruction for your own benefit only works if you hold all the cards, which no one does, at least not forever. You might benefit for 10 years (like Hitler) or a lifetime (like Stalin), but in the end, you fail. True longterm success comes to those societies that compromise their own desires with those of others.

I point you to the studies on Gengis Khan, apparently almost 9 in 10 asian men are descendants of, or descended from relatives of him.

How long did his reign last? No longer than Stalins.

Why did you think I was talking about societies? I'm talking about GENETIC SELECTION.

If Hitler hadn't been psychoticly self loathing, there would have been a slew of descendants. As it is, he was intent on engineering the "master race" of blonde haired, blue eyed not-Hitlers.

Stalin, on the other hand... well, you'll just have to imagine the liberties the chairman took...

I'll state it again plainly so you won't miss it: Short Term Benefits yield Long Term EVOLUTIONARY gains.

And I'll quote myself: "In other words, because of the conflict between the human survival instincts of altruism and competition, there will always be those who choose short term benefits, because short term benefits translate into LONG term benefits when you look at genetic selection"

You should be able to derive this just from looking at "normal" human behavior and thinking about it for a bit.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I'll state it again plainly so you won't miss it: Short Term Benefits yield Long Term EVOLUTIONARY gains.

You should be able to derive this just from looking at "normal" human behavior and thinking about it for a bit.

Social evolution is just as much a part of human existance as biological. Just because someone has the blood of Genghis Khan does not mean they will grow up to be bloodthirsty conquerors. And there is nothing to prove that even a son of Hitler would necessarily turn out the same way.

This is because society has "evolved" over the centuries (and continues to). There is no doubt that it is often a few steps forward and then a few steps back. But, on the whole, societies slowly realize the importance of of things like democracy, equal rights and avoiding totalitarianism and oppression. And this isn't because these ideas "sound nice" or "god wants it that way", it's because they work better in the long run.

That's what evolution is all about, changes that work longterm, not changes that only benefit a generation or two.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Social evolution is just as much a part of human existance as biological. Just because someone has the blood of Genghis Khan does not mean they will grow up to be bloodthirsty conquerors. And there is nothing to prove that even a son of Hitler would necessarily turn out the same way.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I pointed out however. It doesn't matter to the genes if the social conditions get passed along, only that the genes continue to replicate. And genes influence behavior just as much environment. Meaning that they have a large influence on culture and society.

This is because society has "evolved" over the centuries (and continues to). There is no doubt that it is often a few steps forward and then a few steps back. But, on the whole, societies slowly realize the importance of of things like democracy, equal rights and avoiding totalitarianism and oppression.

Idealism!? Are you seriously going to advance idealism of mankinds general "march to perfection" to refute the idea that bloody conquest has a rooted history and played a major part in human genetics? And STILL does?

And this isn't because these ideas "sound nice" or "god wants it that way", it's because they work better in the long run.

No, it doesn't. Oh certainly it does from the standpoint of peace and stability. But humans don't want peace and stability, no matter what lip service they give to it. The behaviors in question DO work, and work well, from the standpoint of genetic selection, otherwise they wouldn't be so prevelant among humans.

As a parallel take the statistics on the number of humans that cheat on their partners. It's because there are definate evolutionary beneifts that outweigh the risks of doing so.

That's what evolution is all about, changes that work longterm, not changes that only benefit a generation or two.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Social systems at MOST will last a couple of thousand years. You know as well as I do that that has a negligable effect on genetic selection. I cannot, therefore, accept your claim that societies have a significant effect on genetic selection.

Not until you show me one that's going to last for 10,000 years or so. China probably got closest, since they have about 7000 years of "continuous" culture, but really that claim breaks down rapidly under scrutiny, as they have undergone several periods of empire and invasion, revolution and rebuilding.

[Rían]

Speaking of Hitler and extermination camps, I came across a good quote from a book I'm reading called Your God is Too Safe by Mark Buchanan. Great book, IMHO.

Anyway, he quotes from a story called Roger's Version by John Updike. A earnest young evangelical says, "The Devil is doubt". Another character answers back, "Funny ... I would have said, looking at recent history and, for that matter, at some of our present-day ayatollahs and Fuhrers, the opposite. The Devil is the absence of doubt. He's what pushes people into suicide bombing, into setting up extermination camps. Doubt may give your dinner a funny taste, but it's faith that goes out and kills."


I think that's a very insightful quote. I like doubt; I like questions; I like thinking. I think if one doesn't doubt, at least periodically, then one isn't thinking.

[Spock]

I doubt your reasoning.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Once you have a shared belief system, no matter if it's canonical or not, no matter if there is "Scripture" or not, it is only a matter of time. Because all you need for an attrocity is the concept of "them" and "us".

I agree.

I've heard from several different places, from "non-religious" people, that "religious" people shouldn't be able to vote or be judges or even sit in committees and offer opinions. The former group is trying to make second-class citizens of the latter group, because the latter group's beliefs are different from the former group's beliefs. A minor atrocity compared to the Holocaust, but still an atrocity - and wasn't that one of the first steps towards the Holocaust? (not that I'm expecting one in the US anytime soon, but it's a point to ponder)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

I doubt your reasoning.

Awww, I doubt that you really doubt!


stupid 90-second rule!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

And genes influence behavior just as much environment. Meaning that they have a large influence on culture and society.

Quantifying the influence of genes vs. environment is very much up for debate. But I would say that enviroment has a much larger influence when we talk about societies, cultures and governments.

Take a baby born in China and toss them into suburban America. While they might not grow up exactly like the native American, they will probably be a lot closer to the American's they grew up with in terms of culture than the Chinese they left.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Idealism!? Are you seriously going to advance idealism of mankinds general "march to perfection" to refute the idea that bloody conquest has a rooted history and played a major part in human genetics? And STILL does?

I don't know about "idealism". I don't think perfection is possible. But there is visible change. The developed world is much less bloody than it was 2000 years ago and many more people live better lives. People are violent by nature, but there are more societal controls on violence today then there use to be.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

No, it doesn't. Oh certainly it does from the standpoint of peace and stability. But humans don't want peace and stability, no matter what lip service they give to it. The behaviors in question DO work, and work well, from the standpoint of genetic selection, otherwise they wouldn't be so prevelant among humans.

In many ways humans are still the animals that they came from. But they also have the ability to look at the bigger picture. This does not mean that they always do, or that they always get the picture correct. But you make it way to simple. Human behavior is much more complicated than simple genetics.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

As a parallel take the statistics on the number of humans that cheat on their partners. It's because there are definate evolutionary beneifts that outweigh the risks of doing so.

Again, you are completely separating genetics from society and with humans. Reproduction alone does not equal "success" in human society. You could have 100 children but if everyone you ever met thought you were a jerk you would be forgotten the moment you died and while your genes might continue evolutionarily your ideas and attitudes would not. Something which is much more important in the human existance.

On the flipside, you can be the kind of person who effects millions long after you die and not even have a single child. Human existance is genetics and society and it is meanless to try to make conclusions that leave out one of these factors.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Social systems at MOST will last a couple of thousand years. You know as well as I do that that has a negligable effect on genetic selection. I cannot, therefore, accept your claim that societies have a significant effect on genetic selection.

Not until you show me one that's going to last for 10,000 years or so. China probably got closest, since they have about 7000 years of "continuous" culture, but really that claim breaks down rapidly under scrutiny, as they have undergone several periods of empire and invasion, revolution and rebuilding.

Your the one obsessed with genetic selection. I'm talking about the evolution of human behavior, which has much more to do with society than genetics.

[Old toby's wicked weed]

mr hitler adiolf, not nice man think me.

Confused now be. Him christian icon??

[edited by Tessar]
Lets please keep this clean.

[Tessar]

Ba-doh.

[edited]