What's new

Boston Marathon explosions......

You mean, after you stick your head into that sand? I already quoted Hitler extensively on atheism and God (linked below for your easy reference), it's clear he despises atheism and accepts some sort of God. Of course, you probably have some wort of conspiracy hypothesis regarding Hitler's Table Talk. Can't have evidence disturbing that world view, now, can we?

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?15876-Boston-Marathon-explosions&p=556859&viewfull=1#post556859

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?15876-Boston-Marathon-explosions&p=556919&viewfull=1#post556919

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?15876-Boston-Marathon-explosions&p=557256&viewfull=1#post557256

Hitler, nevertheless was an atheist. Maybe he didn't claim to be bound to the formal logic of other "atheists", maybe it meant nothing to him to be either a believer or a non-believer in the Irrelevant. God had no place in his thinking. Yes, he didn't find it useful to carry a label, or to take a side in something he absolutely found irrelevant. Hitler did read Nietzsche, whose primary thrust was that great men might rightly hold themselves above the fray of all such notions as God and Morals. If you have the power, you make the rules. People who don't have the power are at your disposal, for whatever purpose you may have.

The current crowd of UN governance pushers might include some dedicated believers in the non-existence of God like yourself, who may have values and ethics above and beyond the case in many other folks. . . . . but those who do control it have the same philosophy as Hitler. It is the right of the elite to do what "must" be done, whatever it may be. They don't feel it necessary to address the issue of "God" any more than Hitler did, but they have the same disdain for anyone who does, whether a lowly christian or an educated professing "atheist".

It's called the arrogance of power for a reason. One of the things people with unlimited power have found to be a universally useful tool, is the exercise of raw, unreasoned and unprincipled power. "Because I say so" is the the mantra of tyranny across the ages. Having the will to just kill any opponent or anyone at all for no reason at all, is the demonstration a tyrant needs to make to prove his point. Once people realize he has the power to do senseless things with impunity, they will "conform" to whatever is asked, without question or quibble.

That's why I support the essential concept of limited government answerable to the governed.
 
I find it pathetic that you both had to go to such lengths to make basic statements about something you both apparently know. You must both be politicians.

When you start reading "Hitler was a Mormon" several times a month, used as an attack against Mormons, get back to me on that.
 
When you start reading "Hitler was a Mormon" several times a month, used as an attack against Mormons, get back to me on that.

I missed the part where someone elses opinion of Mormons was my problem.
 
Yeah, he accepts himself as God, not those God(Hitler)-deniers one-upping him on killing more Jews.

This is something that many totalitarian despots have held in common. No regard for anything above their own designs/purposes/power. It is truly an arrogant claim equivalent to presuming to be the relevant "God", and it often is the case with people who believe they hold unlimited power. Not many cases of folks who believe they are God's "right hand" on the world stage in the past century. However, this second class of actual believers in God who presume to be serving God have killed their own millions across history. Can't be too sure if they actually did believe in God, or merely claimed to, though. For sure they were somehow mistaken.

Stalin did kill more Jews than Hitler, but it was no "Final Solution". Many of his useful idiots were Jews, and unless they got too much power and stayed safely useful, they had fine "careers". It's just that in the forty million folks hauled away to the camps to die miserable hopeless deaths, there were probably a lot of Jews.

Mao killed even more people than Hitler and Stalin combined, I believe. It's just there's nobody left to tell the story.

But the wars of expansion of Islamic crusaders, and the Christian crusaders, across the centuries. . . . and all the conquests around the world under colonial flags. . .. were all in some sense for the glory of God in the minds of the principal protagonists. . . The Spanish, Portuguese, and Arabs.

The British today might still think they rule over distant sandy strands according to the Divine mandate of the Throne of David. . . .. well, whatever it is that rock in Winchester Cathedral really is.

I have my doubts about what God might think of the whole charade.
 
When you start reading "Hitler was a Mormon" several times a month, used as an attack against Mormons, get back to me on that.

You gotta admit though many atheists consider those three people I mentioned as atheists many times. If the criteria for an atheist was as such then Hitler would also be categorized as an atheist. But with your criteria, and my criteria as well Hitler was not an atheist. If people are saying Hitler was an atheist several times a month trust me atheists say the same about Sagan, Twain etc.

Here is a link of a pretty vocal popular atheist Penn Jillette saying Mark Twain was an atheist for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc&t=16m59s

(I linked the link instead of embedded to I can link to a specific time)
 
This was generally a very good post, but I disagree here. In America, the solution to bad speech is good speech. The solution to bad ideas are good ideas, well-stated and plainly. I agree that no one should be persecuted for their religious belief (or any other sort of belief). However, I think it's possible to call out religious beliefs without it rising to the level of persecution. If I followed TheBlackSwordsman/Stoked/JazzSpazz/PearlWatson/Bronco70/etc. around every thread, calling out their religion in every (or even many) unrelated threads, that would be harassment and persecution. That it happens in the occasional thread means it is not harassment and not persecution.

What is it they say about it being in the eye of the beer holder? There lies the rub, I think; Is anything in this thread over the top, or even close to "persecution"? In my opinion, no. What about TBS though? What do you think Dalamon would have to say about it? I am all for "calling out" on just about everything, but there is a very thin line when it comes to ones faith, or lack thereof. I suppose it is a weakness of mine, and I'm sure it stems from listening to the mass of idiots blame Mormonism for all of their woe. I try not to get butt hurt over it, but knee-jerk reactions have always been my bane. That being said, what is offensive or persacutive (new word!) to me is nothing to a guy like babe. I see your point, and on most levels, I agree with you.
 
You gotta admit though many atheists consider those three people I mentioned as atheists many times. If the criteria for an atheist was as such then Hitler would also be categorized as an atheist.

Sagan didn't believe in any supernatural force or person. Einstein did not believe in any supernatural person, but may have accepted some sort of unifying supernatural presence. Twain pretty clearly believed in some sort of person, but AFAICT one so far removed from humanity that we would consider them basically immoral/amoral (ala The Mysterious Stranger) and not interested in worship. Hitler accepts some sort of supernatural person that takes an interest in people and wants us to behave a certain way.

If you use "atheist" as an objective category, any reasonable definition would include Sagan and some would include Einstein, but I don't see that for Twain (deist, probably) or Hitler (theist). However, as I said, a person should have the right to choose their own identity. Regardless, the four cases are not equal, much less identical. If you use "atheist" in any objective way, Sagan is an atheist, Twain and Hitler are not.

But with your criteria, and my criteria as well Hitler was not an atheist. If people are saying Hitler was an atheist several times a month trust me atheists say the same about Sagan, Twain etc.

Here is a link of a pretty vocal popular atheist Penn Jillette saying Mark Twain was an atheist for example.

I don't think anyone is surprised that Jillette said something ignorant.
 
When you start reading "Hitler was a Mormon" several times a month, used as an attack against Mormons, get back to me on that.

Talk about tribalism.

You are unwilling to acknowledge differences within the God-denier cult, so you must accept and defend them all. The excommunication process involves grasping at God-accepting straws.

I find it highly amusing.
 
Sorry, I forgot that you were never bothered by what other people said. It's why you're so well known for never objecting to other people's positions.

For some one that tries to seperate and distinguish every little nuance of every sentence you sure do seem to use broad statements alot.
 
For some one that tries to seperate and distinguish every little nuance of every sentence you sure do seem to use broad statements alot.

When you offer a micro-aggression, you should not be surprised to receive one. Grow a sense of humor.
 
Back
Top