Does it Matter that Hitler was a Theist?

[1robin]

Because survival o the fittest has to do with survival and nothing more.

That is not accurate. Evolution incorporates both negative survival changes as well as beneficial chance. It can produce both insanity and advantage. If you are claiming it only produces positive change that implies intent and will which it does not have.

Not necessarily. Evolution is a process of change that happens in biological life. The changes that are not good for survival will be eliminated from the species in the long run.

Evolution is change over time of anything. The term evolution has a thousand applications one being biological. There is chemical evolution, technological evolution, moral evolution, etc......

Keep in mind that we are FAR from the long run as a species. Since when has suicide happened in human beings?

The beginning.

if it was bad for the species as a whole (and not always what is bad for a single living being is bad for the species as a whole (google apoptosis) ) then it will disappear after some thousands or millions of years.

Do you actually believe we will survive millions of additional years doing what we do? I am surprised we haven't killed ourselves off yet. Even if you proved that suicide can't possibly be related to some biological random change that still does not help. I said Hitler claimed that evolution justified some of his actions. You said if that were true he would not have killed himself. That does not make any sense. I did not say every action he ever took was consistent with evolution. There is also no reason to claim that random biological change does not explain why he killed himself even though that is not what I claimed. In fact random biological changes are overwhelmingly lethal to entire types or species not just an individual. Evolution is a wastefull inneffecient and overwhelingly desctructive force in most instances however something always survives if it is even true in a macro sense.

 

[1robin]

No, you pretend not to understand slang as a means of feigning superiority. It's fooling no one.


You know a better way to do that? Stop talking about it.



Bull ****. You know it's bull ****. I know it's bull ****. Why do you keep spouting it like you expect to be believed?


You're right. The fascism of the National "Socialists" is indisputable historical fact, while your speculations on a nutjob's sincerity will never be more than that. And yet, you persist.


Well, then... learn to do something else.

I am not on the sarcasm merry-go-round with you any longer but feel free to keep going in circles as long as you wish.

 

[1robin]

I was going to be sarcastic and taking the **** out of you.

That is neither coherent, meaningful, on topic, civil, productive, or possible.

Obviously though you are a very angry individual and I hope you can honestly work that out. Maybe you should take the time out to think why you have to be passive aggressive and attack people personally. Kind of childish.

That is a good one coming from someone who's last two responses had to have asterisk to pass the censures. Nor does it have any effect on the facts contained in my questions nor cover up for the fact that you could not answer them even though they are in the field of study you claim to own. In fact I do not recall a single historical fact contained in any post directed at me you have ever made and I don't not sense any in the near future so I will leave you and your hypocritical asterisks to it.

 

[1robin]

He can't help himself he is just like that towards Muslims in general. He’s probably a Right-Wing Christian that has to use Muslims in any debate or discussion he has.

No I am not, I am like that towards Islam in general not Muslims. I have Muslim friends and even dated a Muslim lady recently.

He forgets that that the Churches where supporting the cause of Hitler and encouraged the white-supremacy among the Germans and actually kidnapped Jews. Lets not even go to Easteren-europe what also played a part in the Holocaust that was lead by Churches and generals.

It is quite ineffective to complain of something and then in the same post do it yourself. Regardless unlike others I am a consistent student of history. I am certainly no fan of the Catholic Church and condemn many things they have done but it is precisely because they would not go along with Hitler in any general or official capacity that he finally turned on them with a vengeance. I am quite sure that Catholic individuals did go along with Hitler on many issues but they were by far and away the minority. If you point out actual terrible things done by Christians like the crusades,wars between protestants and Catholics, or the inquisition unlike many I willing admit and condemn them. I wish others would admit the negative implications of evolutionary dynamics, Islamic violence and intolerance, and atheistic philosophy as consistently.

 

[1robin]

The point is that it is dangerous to associate one's belief in God with his or her morality.
It serves little purpose other than to create dangerous assumptions and, sometimes, dishonest conclusions.

Is it better to associate ones morality with opinion or preference? That is all that is left without God. There are societies that love their neighbors and some that eat their neighbors based on those same methods. Do you have a preference and some way to justify it? I will put it another way. If someone killed every one on Earth for no reason without God or a transcendent standard can you prove what they did was actually wrong?

 

[1robin]

What a ridiculous straw man.

I do not know about ridiculous but it was certainly a straw man. I mentioned specifically it was meant as humor. I was at the time getting so tickled at how the concept of evolution can it's self-evolve based on preference that I thought I would attempt to illustrate it. There is definitely a basic truth in that straw man though

 

[1robin]

Hmm but he always uses Muslims to generalize not sure if he does that with Atheist to.. But maybe your right.

Fouad you know very well what I think about Islam and you also should know that even though I am blunt I am sincere. I have never hidden my position and you know very well I have addressed evolution, atheism, and every other religion more often than Islam. There are not that many Islamic debates in this Forum. I did not mention it here until "dingbat" who I had not posted anything to and who responded to another post I had written to someone else with this sarcastic mess

"Your "knowledge" and "ideas" of history make me cry anyways. I haven't seen worst tripe, well outside of Above Top Secret. No Historian worth their salt has ever confirmed any of the garbage you stated in this thread. Though thanks to ignorance it does keep my academic field alive and well. So I guess I should thank you."

He did not even point out what he thought I was wrong about and certainly didn't show it. However the thing that frustrated me is his arrogant assertion that he was a far superior historian than I was and in a crude and disrespectful way and I had no idea who he was or what he was talking about. Since he was a Muslim I thought I would test his historical knowledge using something historical and that concerned Islam.
I told you I do not make claims for effect alone and I meant it. I currently have two ongoing debates with Muslims and both are far more civil and respectful than anything Dingbat has said to me here. I will leave you and him to continue complaining if you wish. This discussion has gotten far too personal for me but I did want to explain the history of my claims here.

 

[Dingbat]

That is neither coherent, meaningful, on topic, civil, productive, or possible.
That is a good one coming from someone who's last two responses had to have asterisk to pass the censures. Nor does it have any effect on the facts contained in my questions nor cover up for the fact that you could not answer them even though they are in the field of study you claim to own. In fact I do not recall a single historical fact contained in any post directed at me you have ever made and I don't not sense any in the near future so I will leave you and your hypocritical asterisks to it.

It is coherent if you are familiar with English but alas I fear you are not. It is amusing how everyone has a problem but yourself. Anyone who disagrees with you has issues but you are obviously just fine. Wonder what the common denominator is between everyone who you label with issues is...oh I know discussing anything with you. :biglaugh:

 

[bulmabriefs144]

Look under TvTropes No True Scotsman and Hitler Ate Sugar, and you'll have your answer.

He probably wasn't anyway, and no it doesn't matter, any more than having dogs makes you a rapist.

 

[1robin]

It is coherent if you are familiar with English but alas I fear you are not. It is amusing how everyone has a problem but yourself. Anyone who disagrees with you has issues but you are obviously just fine. Wonder what the common denominator is between everyone who you label with issues is...oh I know discussing anything with you.

Quote the statement I made that said everyone else has "issues". While you are at it replace the asterisks in

I was going to be sarcastic and taking the **** out of you

with any letters that makes that an actual sentence.

 

[Storm]

I am not on the sarcasm merry-go-round with you any longer but feel free to keep going in circles as long as you wish.

Feel free to stop running and address the argument.

 

[1robin]

Feel free to stop running and address the argument.

What argument? Umbrellas, the meaning of good bye, semantics? The only argument you have made is silly and personal that I can remember. If not you can give me a post number where you actually said something concerning the thread and I will look at it. However "and let me state this carefully" I am leaving soon. I will not say how soon or what soon means exactly but at some point in the near future I will not be here and so will not post at that time. I will then at some later time actually post again but will not give you the exact duration of that either so as it may not be used against me to no avail or purpose related to a debate.

To summarize: I may or may not respond in the near future and claim no responsibility to inform you as to when that will be exactly. If you need more detail for clarity, see my lawyer.

 

[Storm]

What argument?

That your insistence on taking Hitler's word that the Nazi Party was Socialist is a double standard. You know, the one you've been dodging for three pages or so with lame personal attacks.

 

[1robin]

That your insistence on taking Hitler's word that the Nazi Party was Socialist is a double standard. You know, the one you've been dodging for three pages or so with lame personal attacks.

Good grief, that was months ago I think, and in a different thread wasn't it? I think your claim was that Hitler was no socialist even though the party was called by that name, correct? First can you tell me how that issue has a double standard that relates to this one that I had some connection to? This is the last personal comment I hope to have with you, or the Dingbat guy "see former disclaimer" but if you will review, both him for sure and you I think, showed up and addressed personal comments to me before I said anything to you in this latest round.

 

[F0uad]

No I am not, I am like that towards Islam in general not Muslims. I have Muslim friends and even dated a Muslim lady recently.

Well by saying that you have dated a muslim lady doesn't make me any happier since its forbidden. If you did had Muslim friends what i really doubt they would certainly not befriend you since your letting the lady sin.

It is quite ineffective to complain of something and then in the same post do it yourself. Regardless unlike others I am a consistent student of history. I am certainly no fan of the Catholic Church and condemn many things they have done but it is precisely because they would not go along with Hitler in any general or official capacity that he finally turned on them with a vengeance. I am quite sure that Catholic individuals did go along with Hitler on many issues but they were by far and away the minority. If you point out actual terrible things done by Christians like the crusades,wars between protestants and Catholics, or the inquisition unlike many I willing admit and condemn them. I wish others would admit the negative implications of evolutionary dynamics, Islamic violence and intolerance, and atheistic philosophy as consistently.

See again Islam you can't stop it can you? Why when Christanity is under fire you have to bring up Islam? I am really wondering why.. If you have isseu's with Islam aren't you on the wrong website?

 

[Storm]

Good grief, that was months ago I think, and in a different thread wasn't it?

The original argument, yes. But I've said you were employing a double standard on those grounds here no less than 4 times. You even whined about it more than once, so quit with the amnesia ploy.

I think your claim was that Hitler was no socialist even though the party was called by that name, correct? First can you tell me how that issue has a double standard that relates to this one that I had some connection to?

I claimed that the Nazis were fascists despite their name, and provided evidence. I also, in the course of the original argument, brought up Hitler's claims of Christianity, which you adamantly denied, and proceded to call you on the double standard way back then. Not my fault you continue to employ it.

This is the last personal comment I hope to have with you, or the Dingbat guy "see former disclaimer" but if you will review, both him for sure and you I think, showed up and addressed personal comments to me before I said anything to you in this latest round.

Yes, I'm well aware you'd be much happier if I'd just go away. However, I've been around here a hell of a lot longer than you, and I really don't care. If you want to throw a hissy fit every time someone proves you wrong, I'll just stock up on popcorn.

 

[1robin]

Well by saying that you have dated a Muslim lady doesn't make me any happier since its forbidden. If you did had Muslim friends what I really doubt they would certainly not befriend you since your letting the lady sin.

Not all Muslims are that fundamental. She did not insist on the head scarf and was more liberal than many. She is actually living in my sisters house who is also a Christian. I am unaware of how a Muslim dating a Christian is a Sin for her. Can you clarify? Sounds worse than anything I have said about Islam. In fact, another Muslim girl years ago in college actually asked me out but I didn't go for some reason. As for my friends. One is an admitted in his words bad "Muslim" and I find his honesty more credible than most. I am certainly no great Christian. The other is more practical than fundamental and also very honest, both are aware I dated a Muslim and mentioned any sins. He reminds me of Shabir Alli.

See again Islam you can't stop it can you? Why when Christianity is under fire you have to bring up Islam? I am really wondering why.. If you have issue’s with Islam aren't you on the wrong website?

Christianity wasn't under fire. You were claiming things about my position on Islam. What you said about Christianity that was negative I first clarified, agreed with, and then even added on to. What more could you possibly want? In the other thread I even said your 16 million Hafiz was actually 20 million. How much more honest could I be? In any debate I and most people address their comments to common ground. In fact that was the entire context of your statements. How could I possibly respond and not mention Islam? What does this website have to do with my position? This site provides for debates between religions and Islam is one, isn't it? Of course I have a problem with Islam, the same as you have with Christianity or the Bible. I have said so many times. I have never communicated any frustration with you when you were mentioning every problem you wished to with the Bible. I can take it and even understand it and Christ can as well. I, as a Christian have no desire to suppress or oppress it's critics but to engage them. That is one reason among many I am here and when I am talking to a Muslim, Islam is the one that obviously will come up the most. F0uad it is very hard to offend me and you haven't but I am afraid the staff will soon object to this conversation. Please address my statements and then anything additional can be done by PM if you desire as this is getting far afield.

 

[Orias]

Now and then one or another person on this board has raised Hitler's religious beliefs as evidence for...what? Does it matter that Hitler seems to have believed in a god? Was his belief in deity at all significant to what he did? Do you think it would have changed anything if he had been less religious -- perhaps even an atheist? Why or why not?

Hitlers religious beliefs were as skewed as his political beliefs. Being that if a monster like him can get away with "believing in God", then chances are this God of his is just as monstrous.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it better to associate ones morality with opinion or preference?

Definitely. Also, see below.

That is all that is left without God.

Not by a long shot. There is perception, knowledge and discernment.

There are societies that love their neighbors and some that eat their neighbors based on those same methods. Do you have a preference and some way to justify it?

Yes, lots of both. Mainly, I am utilitarianist of the Peter Singer persuasion. Sam Harris is a fine author as well.

I will put it another way. If someone killed every one on Earth for no reason without God or a transcendent standard can you prove what they did was actually wrong?

To my own satisfaction? No doubt. What does it take to attain yours?

 

[1robin]

Definitely. Also, see below.

That is quite remarkable. So you think it is better to have morality defined by opinion. In fact it is to a large extent and has resulted in a race of men with enough hardware aimed at each other to wipe us all out about 100 times over and it is likely only the grace of God that has prevented it. Let me illustrate it a little differently. I claim that morality should be based on the requirements of this man.
"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.
He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart
Keep in mind I know that will never happen we are talking about hypotheticals. Please explain how that foundation is less desirable than popular opinion of fallible men.

Not by a long shot. There is perception, knowledge and discernment.

You can put any word or philosophy you wish in front of morality and it is simply opinion in the end. For example Stalin, head hunters, and the Aztecs and countless others all used perception, knowledge, and discernment to kill, cut the hearts out of, and chop the heads off of millions. In two of the three cases they were stopped eventually by Christians. How do we pick which one of them were right in your system?

Yes, lots of both.

What? I guess avoidance was the only way out of my statement.

Mainly, I am utilitarianism of the Peter Singer persuasion. Sam Harris is a fine author as well.

I believe that Sam Harris argues that morality is generated by evolution. Is that not so and didn't you disagree.

To my own satisfaction? No doubt.

You are avoiding the issue again. I sympathize; as there is no graceful way out but I said prove it and you supplied your preference. I will make it easier, can you even show that evil, good, bad, or heck any morality at all is actually true beyond preference and opinion without God

What does it take to attain yours?

Reality. I am being overly simplistic because I am burned out but without God there is actually no morality that has any greater foundation than person preference. If God exists then his moral requirements are absolute and at least objective in effect if not nature.