Atheism, Religion, and Crime

[anEvilAtheist]

Then I guess there are a lot of foolish Catholics on this site. I often hear people say that people are still Catholic even if they leave the Church.

I haven’t been hearing that. Could you cite someone in particular?

I don’t remember the specific posts. I thought that people who were baptized Catholic and stopped going to church were still considered Catholics. If I’m wrong, then I guess there is no inconsistency regarding Hitler.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler

Hitler, baptized a Catholic, admired the “God is dead!” German philosopher Nietzsche and paid tribute to him by attending the dedication of Nietzsche’s bust at the Nietzsche Archives.

What Martin Niemöller said, a Lutheran pastor in Germany who spent several years in one of Hitler’s concentration camps, appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636, as:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.

What in any of the above gives you reason to believe that Hitler was a Catholic, rather than an atheist.

Nothing. I never said that I thought he was a Catholic, unless you defined everyone who was baptized Catholic and never formally left the Church as Catholic. I never claimed that he believed in Catholicism.

You know, not everyone is either a Catholic or an atheist. If you define Catholic as someone who believes in God and adheres to Catholic teaching and an atheist as someone who does not believe in any God or gods, then I don’t think Hitler was either one. He made clear many times, in both public and private, that he believed in God, even though he hated many religious groups. If you’re okay with disregarding all his statements and declaring him an atheist, then I could just as easily say that Padre Pio was an atheist. It certainly doesn’t make sense to tar atheists with your speculative theories that Hitler was an atheist when the evidence contradicts your position. I think it would be equally unfair to tar Catholics with speculative theories that Hitler was a practicing Catholic when the evidence contradicts it.

You can cite remarks from his writings when he made it clear that he wanted to appear to be on the side of the Christians so that they would not oppose his evil intent. Such we find in* Mein Kamph, a thorough tissue of lies from start to finish that exploited the suffering of the German people*.

Isn’t that precisely what we have learned from evil villains throughout history … that they would like to be seen as angels of mercy and messiahs, or in the case of Hitler, a prophet of the Master Race that would rule for a thousand years?

Not necessarily. A lot of villains wanted to be feared rather than loved.

By the way, since you seem intent on blaming all atheists for the crimes of all other atheists, regardless of their other views, will you accept the blame for the crimes of all theists, even when their religion’s moral views are far different than those of Catholicism?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

I don’t remember the specific posts. I thought that people who were baptized Catholic and stopped going to church were still considered Catholics. If I’m wrong, then I guess there is no inconsistency regarding Hitler.

I think when you stop regarding yourself as a Catholic, you are no longer a Catholic. It’s plain from Hitler’s own mouth that he was not only not a Catholic, but that he hated all religion.

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler
*
By the way, since you seem intent on blaming all atheists for the crimes of all other atheists, regardless of their other views, will you accept the blame for the crimes of all theists, even when their religion’s moral views are far different than those of Catholicism?*

I don’t believe all atheists are evil as I do not believe that all Catholics are good. The problem in making comparisons is a little bit of the old apples and oranges thing.

Religion is not unified around the world in its moral precepts. I do believe some religions are vastly more peace oriented than others. Some are clearly more loving than others. Some are more full of a profound intellectual and spiritual heritage than others. But what they all have in common is an effort to provide answers to the ultimate mysteries of life that seem reasonable and an effort to provide the healthiest kind of society possible in all the ways that moral health can be measured. As I said, these religions vary in the success with which they cope, but their greatest virtue is that they provide a moral consensus to which most members can subscribe, so that in dealing with others, all the members know through their most solemn agreements between themselves and their gods, what to expect out of life, and where to go for consolation in the event that life disappoints their hopes and dreams.

Those are the apples.

However, among atheists there is a broad sameness to consider. The fundamental doctrine is singular: no gods. After that, every atheist is free to make up all his other doctrines. But there is no central, unifying force that can bring social values into being in such a way that they can be honored. Ironically, the freedom thought to be implicit in atheism is not there. Nature abhors a vacuum. There must be an authority to create and sustain all values. In the absence of God, men will create human gods and give them absolute power. We have seen this in Korea, for example, which is held together not by a culture that makes sense, but rather by the force of a single man who can impose his will on all. There is no appeal to his will. One cannot seek a higher value than Kim, because Korea is an atheist country through and through. The cult of the leader now looms huge over every aspect of society. His gigantic face peers down from the sides of great buildings, and he is reverently addressed as the Dear One. All of this fulfills Chesterton’s caution: “Abolish God and the government becomes God.”

Those are the oranges.

The crime and oppression statistics for North Korea are miserable:

hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP10.HTM

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

Not necessarily. A lot of villains wanted to be feared rather than loved.

There is a case to be made that Hitler wanted both.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

He [Hitler] made clear many times, in both public and private, that he believed in God, even though he hated many religious groups.

So far as I can tell, he hated all religious groups. Can you name one he didn’t? So which god did he believe in? No, I think Hitler was Hitler because he was not worried about god, there not being one. And I’m darned if I can find anyplace in his writings where he talks about any god other than the God of Christians and Jews, for which he seems to have had considerable contempt.

As he said: “Christianity is a religion for slaves and fools, for ‘the last shall be first and the first shall be last.’”

Trying to make Hitler into a theist is reaching for the unreachable.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist

I don’t remember the specific posts. I thought that people who were baptized Catholic and stopped going to church were still considered Catholics. If I’m wrong, then I guess there is no inconsistency regarding Hitler.

I think when you stop regarding yourself as a Catholic, you are no longer a Catholic. It’s plain from Hitler’s own mouth that he was not only not a Catholic, but that he hated all religion.

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler

Okay, then we both agree that Hitler was not a Catholic.

By the way, since you seem intent on blaming all atheists for the crimes of all other atheists, regardless of their other views, will you accept the blame for the crimes of all theists, even when their religion’s moral views are far different than those of Catholicism?*

I don’t believe all atheists are evil as I do not believe that all Catholics are good. The problem in making comparisons is a little bit of the old apples and oranges thing.
…

The crime and oppression statistics for North Korea are miserable:

hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP10.HTM

Under both atheism and theism, you still need to figure out what worldview you ascribe too. There are a variety of moral systems that atheists believe in, just like theists have different views on morality. Some atheists adopt a permissive form of morality in which they do what they want, and some theists adopt a more permissive form of morality (thinking God is love so they can do whatever they want and God will still love them). It’s not theism or atheism that is the problem; it’s the other aspects of the worldview.

And I’m with you in being outraged over what’s happening in North Korea. Christians might use it as an example of what happens when you abandon religion, and atheists might use it as an example of what happens when leaders create a religion around themselves. In this case, I think that the latter criticism is pretty accurate because the state ideology does say that the leaders are literal gods (see Juche). But overall, I don’t think it’s reasonable for atheists to say that all oppressive regimes are religion-like, and therefore religion is evil and atheism is spotless. Stalin was an atheist and if you say religion is evil due to religious dictators, atheism must be evil due to atheist dictators. The reality is that it is not simply a belief or lack of belief in God that is the problem, but the other beliefs people hold and the actions they take.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist

He [Hitler] made clear many times, in both public and private, that he believed in God, even though he hated many religious groups.

So far as I can tell, he hated all religious groups. Can you name one he didn’t? So which god did he believe in?

I don’t know. But if you’re right, that doesn’t mean he’s an atheist. There are plenty of people who think organized religion is worthless, but still believe in God. There are people who are “spiritual but not religious”. There are people like Bill Maher who are incredibly critical of all religion, but are firm believers that there is a God.

No, I think Hitler was Hitler because he was not worried about god, there not being one. And I’m darned if I can find anyplace in his writings where he talks about any god other than the God of Christians and Jews, for which he seems to have had considerable contempt.

As he said: “Christianity is a religion for slaves and fools, for ‘the last shall be first and the first shall be last.’”

Trying to make Hitler into a theist is reaching for the unreachable.

These statements by Hitler do not sound like things an atheist would say (taken from the previously sited articles):

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.

We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty.

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

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.

Hitler delivers a speech in which he promises to restore “family…honor and loyalty, Volk and Vaterland, culture and economy” and recover “the eternal foundation of our morality and our faith.” Hitler further declares a “merciless war against spiritual, political, and cultural nihilism.”

 

[zalo]

Charlemagne

“It could fairly well be said that the twentieth century was the first century in recorded history when atheist governments collectively made life a living hell for the entire human race.”

Here you repeat the same incorrect argument: that those were crimes of atheists as such. My response, that you chose to ignore, was that those were crimes of authoritarianism, not of atheism. Authoritarianism can be more easily compared to theism, than to non-theism. Why? Because both authoritarianism and organized religion demand the same thing: absolute obedience. You have nothing to say:

1. to my contention that the Church was the source and the center of authoritarianism by making heresy, i.e. thinking with your own brain, a crime. Same thing with Stalin: heresy, i.e. not thinking exactly as the leader, was made a crime and punished by torture and death.
2. to my contention that during all its history the Church behaved like a purely human structure, concerned with power, not salvation.
3. to my contention that the unspeakable violence on fellow Christians is an absolute absurdity that doesn’t sit well with the claimed “divine guidance”.
   And please do not try to dismiss all the bloodshed by merely saying “it’s our human nature”. Did anybody ever asked for forgiveness for all those massacres? Did any of the popes, cardinals or bishops ordering them was ever excommunicated, even posthumously?
   Come on now, don’t you think the “one and true religion” should have behaved a little better?

Peace

 

[Ideo]

OP, you might find this peer-reviewed study to be of interest. I will not intrude on the conversation any further, but perhaps this article will clear some things up. At the time of their crime, a large percentage of US inmates claimed to have been Christians. If I am not mistaken, the rate on death row is even higher (at the time of the crime, not later on). Please look up the exact statistics, as I am just popping in to post this link. I cannot verify the exact percentages. xD
moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

 

[Dameedna]

hippyprincess
As to the negativity of religion? The word “atheism” means the refusal to believe in gods. And that’s all it means. When your basic philosophy is negative, how can you attack your opponent as negative?

Charle,

You cannot define for an athiest, what athiesm is. Especially, if this definition suits your own beliefs. This is not honest, I’m sorry to say.

An Athiest, does not “refuse” to believe in Gods. They do not “reject” gods. They do not “hate” Gods (although they can definately claim to dislike a lot of religious concepts as can you, if you think about things like Jihad, or polygomy).

An athiest is one thing and one thing only. They lack a belief in Gods. This is not a choice, it’s a state of mind.

In terms of general logic, an athiest cannot logically reject a God, that does not exist.

An athiest cannot refuse a God , that does not exist.

And athiest cannot “choose” to not believe in a God, that doesn’t exist.

All of these arguments are irrational and illogical to an athiest, which is why you will hear time and time again, athiests calling belief irrational. Since God doesn’t exist(to the athiest), claiming we “reject” him, is irrational.

The perspective you come from is one, where God is a reality for you. Therefore, since God is real, if you do not love him, you are rejecting him. But Charle, this is your world view, your map, your perspective.

What is very hard to understand is the athiest perspective because the fundamental reality is different than your own. God does not exist…therefore the athiest map, world view and perspective is not something you can relate to, although you try…from a beleivers perspective. Since there IS no God, we cannot love or reject him, we cannot refuse or embrace him, we cannot ignore or pay attention to him. We cannot hate a God anymore than we can hate a unicorn.

Neither exists.

I’m not saying the athiest is right, I’m trying to explain to you why your comments are incorrect, from an athiests perspective. We simply aren’t “refusing” anything. There just isn’t a God…to refuse. He doesn’t exist.

Its hard to get inside the head of another, especially when their world view, is completely reverse of your own.

Cheers

 

[Angel7]

Charle,

You cannot define for an athiest, what athiesm is. Especially, if this definition suits your own beliefs. This is not honest, I’m sorry to say.

An Athiest, does not “refuse” to believe in Gods. They do not “reject” gods. They do not “hate” Gods (although they can definately claim to dislike a lot of religious concepts as can you, if you think about things like Jihad, or polygomy).

An athiest is one thing and one thing only. They lack a belief in Gods. This is not a choice, it’s a state of mind.

In terms of general logic, an athiest cannot logically reject a God, that does not exist.

An athiest cannot refuse a God , that does not exist.

And athiest cannot “choose” to not believe in a God, that doesn’t exist.

All of these arguments are irrational and illogical to an athiest, which is why you will hear time and time again, athiests calling belief irrational. Since God doesn’t exist(to the athiest), claiming we “reject” him, is irrational.

The perspective you come from is one, where God is a reality for you. Therefore, since God is real, if you do not love him, you are rejecting him. But Charle, this is your world view, your map, your perspective.

What is very hard to understand is the athiest perspective because the fundamental reality is different than your own. God does not exist…therefore the athiest map, world view and perspective is not something you can relate to, although you try…from a beleivers perspective. Since there IS no God, we cannot love or reject him, we cannot refuse or embrace him, we cannot ignore or pay attention to him. We cannot hate a God anymore than we can hate a unicorn.

Neither exists.

I’m not saying the athiest is right, I’m trying to explain to you why your comments are incorrect, from an athiests perspective. We simply aren’t “refusing” anything. There just isn’t a God…to refuse. He doesn’t exist.

Its hard to get inside the head of another, especially when their world view, is completely reverse of your own.

Cheers

One of the Hypocracies of Athiesim, why are you Fighting something that you Believe Doesn’t exist. All the Effort to drag us down, if your philosophy were true, you wouldn’t even care about this subject. G-d Is drawing you to him, why else are you here? If your here out of SPITE to attack us, then you must look at yourself. Its not that G-d Doesn’t exist. It’s that you refuse to acknowledge his existence.

 

[zalo]

Angel17, you are terribly misguided if you think atheists are fighting God. No, they are fighting a certain belief system that defines itself as the Absolute (or the Only) Truth and demands absolute obedience i.e infringes on basic human freedom.

Peace

 

[Charles_Darwin]

One of the Hypocracies of Athiesim, why are you Fighting something that you Believe Doesn’t exist. All the Effort to drag us down, if your philosophy were true, you wouldn’t even care about this subject. G-d Is drawing you to him, why else are you here? If your here out of SPITE to attack us, then you must look at yourself. Its not that G-d Doesn’t exist. It’s that you refuse to acknowledge his existence.

Because religion is something that effect us all. Went people want to take established scientific theories out of school and replace them with fariy tales you can be damn sure i’ll fight it.

 

[j1akey]

Charles Darwin:

Because religion is something that effect us all. Went people want to take established scientific theories out of school and replace them with fariy tales you can be damn sure i’ll fight it.

Ditto.

Also, even if I think God is just some made up fantasy, religion still affects many aspects of my life and the lives of people around me anywhere from perceived more codes about what is right or wrong to laws that are passed because of religious beliefs. Vast swaths of my country are returning to middle-ages types of thought processes where superstition and psuedo-science wins the day and that scares the hell out of me.

 

[Angel7]

Angel17, you are terribly misguided if you think atheists are fighting God. No, they are fighting a certain belief system that defines itself as the Absolute (or the Only) Truth and demands absolute obedience i.e infringes on basic human freedom.

Peace

We all have free will, the Church supports that, whether or not you believe in Christ’s Church is your will. The Church Does not DEMAND anything. God Gave us free will to believe the truth, and to deny it.

 

[Angel7]

Because religion is something that effect us all. Went people want to take established scientific theories out of school and replace them with fariy tales you can be damn sure i’ll fight it.

the Truth is in your words, you said “Established” Theories, in truth there is MUCH evidence that proves evolution is a total lie. During the Time of Galileo, the theory that we revolved around the sun wasn’t Established. It was under investigation. If we teach things that aren’t established, we risk teaching people errors. Only when we are certain, then we teach it. The Church did not accept the Theory untill suffecient evidence was given. Like i said before, we are Humans, and Misinterpret things. The holy spirit guides us away from Doctrinal Error, it doesn’t teach us Science. We are all human.

 

[j1akey]

Angel7:

the Truth is in your words, you said “Established” Theories, in truth there is MUCH evidence that proves evolution is a total lie.

At the risk of totally derailing the point of this topic, I don’t know what evidence there is to prove evolution is a lie. There’s 150 years of research and discovery to prove it true but I have yet to see anything that proves it false. Please point me in the right direction so I may review it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

OP, you might find this peer-reviewed study to be of interest. I will not intrude on the conversation any further, but perhaps this article will clear some things up. At the time of their crime, a large percentage of US inmates claimed to have been Christians. If I am not mistaken, the rate on death row is even higher (at the time of the crime, not later on). Please look up the exact statistics, as I am just popping in to post this link. I cannot verify the exact percentages. xD
moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

You also might find this article to be interesting: adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

A lot of atheists try to argue that there atheists get incarcerated at a significantly lower rate than Christians. I don’t think the evidence backs up that claim.

 

[Filius99993]

Because religion is something that effect us all. Went people want to take established scientific theories out of school and replace them with fariy tales you can be damn sure i’ll fight it.

There is no such thing as an “established theory”. Those two words are contradictory.

Besides, if you’re talking about evolution, it doesn’t go against Catholic faith. Now, not all Catholics agree on it, but that happens with any scientific issue.

And also, there are no public schools that teach “fairy tales” or the Bible as fact. So it really should not concern you.

 

[j1akey]

Filius99993:

And also, there are no public schools that teach “fairy tales” or the Bible as fact. So it really should not concern you.

Maybe not yet but over and over again it’s been tried. Even our own president said that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools as an alternate scientific theory but there’s no science involved in the theory. This creates a big problem for many people because once psuedo-science is taught in one school then it opens the door for more pshuedo-science.