Atheists are Nazis

[Kurt]

POPE'S UK VISIT: Benedict XVI lands to face storm after top German aide's attack on Britain | Mail Online

The Pope controversially likened the rise of atheism in Britain to Nazi Germany today as he warned against 'aggressive forms of secularism' at the start of his historic state visit.
Risking sparking a new row after one of his aides likened the UK to the 'Third World', the former member of the Hitler Youth invoked Nazi Germany in an attack on 'atheist extremism'.


What a twat!!


Godwin!!

​

 

[Boba Fett]

yep he is indeed,
just because i'm not superstitious, i'm branded a Nazi

Grade A Clown

remind me, how many wars has religion caused?

 

[egb_hibs]

POPE'S UK VISIT: Benedict XVI lands to face storm after top German aide's attack on Britain | Mail Online

The Pope controversially likened the rise of atheism in Britain to Nazi Germany today as he warned against 'aggressive forms of secularism' at the start of his historic state visit.
Risking sparking a new row after one of his aides likened the UK to the 'Third World', the former member of the Hitler Youth invoked Nazi Germany in an attack on 'atheist extremism'.



What a twat!!


Godwin!!

​

Er no. Atheist extremism was implicated in the horrors of the 20th century including nazism and communism is not the same as atheists = nazis.

Perhaps your so used to broad brush charges laid at religions door that you misread this as a similarly undifferentiated remark.


Here's the speech;

Pope's speech: 'Faith remains a mighty force for good in UK' | World news | The Guardian

And the segment you are alluding to;

"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a "reductive vision of the person and his destiny"

Given the coverage given to religious extremism, it's entirely appropriate to remember it's not the wellspring of all evil; ideological extremism seems a part of human nature.

 

[GORDONSMITH7]

POPE'S UK VISIT: Benedict XVI lands to face storm after top German aide's attack on Britain | Mail Online

The Pope controversially likened the rise of atheism in Britain to Nazi Germany today as he warned against 'aggressive forms of secularism' at the start of his historic state visit.
Risking sparking a new row after one of his aides likened the UK to the 'Third World', the former member of the Hitler Youth invoked Nazi Germany in an attack on 'atheist extremism'.


What a twat!!


Godwin!!

​

Fuck me The Daily Mail. Should dig a wee bit deeper than their grubby headlines mate.

BIG G

 

[Kurt]

Er no. Atheist extremism was implicated in the horrors of the 20th century including nazism and communism is not the same as atheists = nazis.

Perhaps your so used to broad brush charges laid at religions door that you misread this as a similarly undifferentiated remark.


Here's the speech;

Pope's speech: 'Faith remains a mighty force for good in UK' | World news | The Guardian

And the segment you are alluding to;

"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a "reductive vision of the person and his destiny"

Given the coverage given to religious extremism, it's entirely appropriate to remember it's not the wellspring of all evil; ideological extremism seems a part of human nature.

Neither is atheism so he should have known better that to make such a stupid remark.

 

[egb_hibs]

Neither is atheism so he should have known better that to make such a stupid remark.

Rubbish. In pure terms, atheism is like theism, a view on a question. But atheism, like theism, leads from initial assumptions to 'ideas for living', with social and moral frameworks and so on. We call these religions in the theistic context.

Atheist schools of thought bumbled around for quite a bit before realising the damage they'd done and reaccepting a watered down Godless Christianity and calling it humanism. Prior to that, various attempts at a rational society based on nature and reason, led to aspirations to perfect man through nature and nurture. The ideas enacted by communism and nazism were de rigeur among the atheist radicals of the late 19th / early 20th c. There has been a massive effort to distance from the latter especially since, but that's the facts of the matter.

This is not to say nazism didn't exploit the history of christian anti semitism - it did. But it directly proceeded from atheist philosophies that emerged and evolved from the french revolution.

 

[Boba Fett]

This is from Adolf Hitler 'Mein Kampf'

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord

An interesting quote from a supposed godless person, granted he wrote the book in 1927, before his rise to power, so his views could have changed by then

 

[vasco de gama]

yep he is indeed,
just because i'm not superstitious, i'm branded a Nazi

Grade A Clown

remind me, how many wars has religion caused?

David Bowie - "just because I believe don't mean I don't think as well, don't have to question everything in heaven or hell"

remind me, how many wars, assaults, wife beatings, child molestations and other horrible things have been caused by human (un)thought rather than religion.

It is so incredibly naive and I think a total kop out by many so-called secularists to blame so much of the world's woes on religion. It is not the religion that causes the wars - it is the humans - just like it is not cars that kill folk it is usually the human who either drives it badly or doesn't carry out decent maintenance or built it crappy in the first place.

Or a more relevant analogy would be to say that it wasn't communist ideology that lead Stalin and co to murder millions but human paranoia and megalomania. I believe communism, just like most religions I've encountered (including some pretty wacky religious cults) aims to make the world a better place, but often fail - some more often and more spectacularly than others. Does that mean we should all stop trying, thinking, or believing in whatever we believe? For me a lot of so-called non-believers have done exactly that -they have replaced the positive aspects of religious thought, compassion and action with a great big selfish and ultimately destruction void.

 

[Wolfetone Hibee]

yep he is indeed,
just because i'm not superstitious, i'm branded a Nazi

Grade A Clown

remind me, how many wars has religion caused?

None sir, not even The Crusades.

It's never been the sole cause of a single war in military history bud. Human beings are the problem, not religion though it was been used as a means to motivate the rank and file when humans are fighting over money, resources, land, race or women.

 

[arthurduncan]

I am certainly with EGB in terms of seeing philosophical similarities between the rantings of religious extremists and atheist extremists - extremism is extremism is extremism. I am also with those who might call for a bit of caution in attributing all the world's past ills and wars on religion per se.

I am just not sure though of the points that are made on the basis of these basic assumptions. First, the claim that atheists are actually or practically as bad as religious extemists. Well, go on to any Dawkins inspired website you want or indeed to the great man himself, and then do a proper search for Islamic extremist or similar websites with beheadings and all the rest, and you will probably notice a difference. No doubt there is some appalling stuff on non-religious sites etc., but I am not sure about how genuine the equivalence. This is why I get a bit confused by the hundreds of pro- anti- Dawkins etc., threads on here. Is anyone actually suggesting that a bit of egotistical polemic from a soft Oxford don is really up there with the equivalent religious zealots with their paramilitary arms? I am just not sure what value there is in the pretty superficial comparison of the two (I am no fan of nor apologist for Dawkins, I am just a fan of logic and knowing what people are actually saying).

Other points include the use of the infamous "let's just call it a draw" argument which seems to be emerging in the religion vs science stuff on here. The argument looks a bit like this: religion is full of things which are magical or inexplicable; however, scientists believe in at least one thing which is magical or inexplicable (origin of the universe); therefore both are really no better than the other. Science vs religion = score draw. It's certainly worth being clear that science is not all-powerful and that it has clear limits. But this is the basis of an argument against only a very small proportion of the rationalist population, basically an argument against the dawkins, jones, pinker etc., crowd of scientific extremists. But for the rest of us, even those of us with sympathy and interest in religion or spirituality, the basic point made by @@$@ 200 years ago holds: knowledge is one thing, faith another. Science is the most explanatorily powerful tool mankind has ever seen and it's power lies not with hawking's cod philosophy but in its practical application (in engineering and medicine, computers and technology). There is simply no competition in this area of human knowledge. The problem is if someone says that that's the only field of human interest. Of course not. There is the moral and aesthetic world and here science toils, and religion is historically king. But since Hume, Nietzsche etc., there has been a growing alternative in the moral and aesthetic world to religion, whether you call that humanism or whatever. so there is a difference: there is no imaginable alternative to science in explaining the factual world, but there is a perfectly reasonable one in explaining the world of human relations, the moral world. i agree with EGB that we are not forced to believe in one over the other, religion or humanism, and that there are similarities especially in the extremes. However, I reject those extremes and given the choice between catholicism or protestantism or islam, i probably simply prefer a gentle rationalism, mixed with a mild pragmatism, and topped off with a modest humanism. It leaves me free to make some basic judgements for myself, of course influenced by those around me, and avoids me believing in stuff that no matter how hard I try I just can't get my head around (christian or religious metaphysics, doctrine, church). My suspicion is that the relentless focus on the extremes of humanism and atheism on here is hinting that that is what humanism etc., is all about. This is twisted logic - this is the logic of deconstruction and postmodernism that takes any position beyond its factual claims to its logical extremes, the reductio ad absurdem and the slippery slope arguments gone mad. I see no reason to challenge anyone's religious belief without provocation but if there is a discussion about it I will be pretty clear that for me, self critical thought and an unwillingness to believe in factual magic ("the flesh of christ" etc) means a gentle humanism, etc., is the preferred position.

So, I am with Cardinal Kasper and EGB on the rejection of an aggressive secularism or atheism but that is nowhere near enough to force me or anyone else into the arms of the Catholic Church or even faith as at least one of those two would hope. I pretty much utterly reject the current and historical doctrine of the Catholic Church in the same way Kasper rejects aggressive secularism and see them as of a piece. This does not mean a score draw or impasse because in the end this is just the rejection of the two extremes of a much richer spectrum leaving me with the majority of us to make simpler and more modest choices.

 

[egb_hibs]

This is from Adolf Hitler 'Mein Kampf'

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord

An interesting quote from a supposed godless person, granted he wrote the book in 1927, before his rise to power, so his views could have changed by then

If Hitler believed in a deity at all, it was very much a pagan one; an embodiment of the German volk, and the metaphysical mission he foresaw for them.

The nazi credo orginated from a mad brew of neo paganism, and the scientism that had dominated victorian and edwardian atheist radicalism; go check on George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells and other such luminaries of that era.

From them you'll find links to others whose names currently escape, and it's all there; eugenics, liquidation of the unfit, scientific racism, virulent anti semitism and anti christianity as well as expressed admiration for fascism as it emerged, alongside bolshevism - until all the post war revisionism, there were in many cases, no qualms among left wing radicals as recognising both as embodiments of their ideals.

I have said before, the defining quality of atheist left wing radicalism has been the aspiration to transform man into god; an almost crassly freudian response to the rejection of man as a creation of god. The pursuit of the new man, shaped through nature or nurture was consistent across nazism and communism, each of which contained enthusiasts for both. Each side of the equation led to genocide; nature in europe, nurture in Cambodia.

Once more, this does not mean atheists are disposed to become nazis. But social and political philosophys that have been consciously a-theistic, have always led to mayhem. This has both negative and positive drivers i think; a positive effort to achieve a utopia of perfected humanity and a negative driver in that restraints are removed.

Thankfully humanism is now the dominant philosophy. One that can't claim the same rigour in attempting to ground it's premises purely in scientific reason, it being the 'alcohol free lager' of christian denominations, but which is consequently much less brutal.

We'll see if that holds as the horrors of c20 recede into the past. Eugenics is already back, practised in utero, and I won't be surprised to see it return more fully. The shrill voices of those wishing to marginalise religion, close faith schools and so on, are echoing some of the first steps common to these 20th century movements.

These tropes are powerful btw, and sucked in religious people despite their complete contradiction of christian teaching; individual failings happened all over germany and full blown syncretic combinations of catholicism and orthodox christianity and volkisch nationalism were present in croatia and romania respectively, while the nazis scientific racism and post marxist analysis of the jewish problem was able to exploit europe's traditional anti semitism, a toxic brew of christian prejudice and plain old out group hatred, an eternal aspect of human nature, which has otherwise been somewhat softened by monotheism.

 

[arthurduncan]

like ex-smokers and ex addicts, the shrill voices of those struggling in the vacuum left by god's death sound at times manic and crass. EGB's analysis of the fall of the West is astute if a little over-stated for me. Nietzsche thought only that we need push toward that genius that is in each of us, the agile dancing spirit that combines truth with the will, and therefore creates values that the cattle can follow. Christ was such a spirit, perhaps the greatest of all. Nietzsche is the prophet of the age we live in, of individual egos exercising their wills on the world and seeking more to gain followers than to gain truth. I think we are yet to see fully the vision of a middle path down which neither a transcendent god nor a voracious ego are the foundations of the true, the good and the beautiful. :coffee:

P.S. Hibs to win 2-1 tomorrow

 

[egb_hibs]

Great post Arthur. Some points below....

I am certainly with EGB in terms of seeing philosophical similarities between the rantings of religious extremists and atheist extremists - extremism is extremism is extremism. I am also with those who might call for a bit of caution in attributing all the world's past ills and wars on religion per se.

Indeed. Extremism is a universal. No need for caution on the last bit though; this attribution of blame is simply ahistorical bunk and also a rejection of darwin as much creationism is. Darwin's explanation of nature, more than explains the carnage strewn history of humanity. Religion has been an imperfect brake on our nature, not the cause of our violence.

I am just not sure though of the points that are made on the basis of these basic assumptions. First, the claim that atheists are actually or practically as bad as religious extemists. Well, go on to any Dawkins inspired website you want or indeed to the great man himself, and then do a proper search for Islamic extremist or similar websites with beheadings and all the rest, and you will probably notice a difference.

The inventors of the contemporary suicide bombing and it's main practitioners have been atheist marxists. Dawkins and co don't need to kill anyone; they have the power of the establishment on their side, whereas islamism is a movement of the disenfranchised. The american Dawkins, Sam Harris, believes it might be necessary to kill people because of their ideas. I am wholly unconvinced that modern militant atheism would not become violent given the right circumstances; although that risk is much reduced while people are not trying to create coherent atheist social philosophies, an obsession which is in remission right now. Moreover, if you count abortion as violence, which I do (though not comparable to murdering a born person), the decline of religion has coincided with the rise of the most violent societies since antiquity.

No doubt there is some appalling stuff on non-religious sites etc., but I am not sure about how genuine the equivalence. This is why I get a bit confused by the hundreds of pro- anti- Dawkins etc., threads on here. Is anyone actually suggesting that a bit of egotistical polemic from a soft Oxford don is really up there with the equivalent religious zealots with their paramilitary arms? I am just not sure what value there is in the pretty superficial comparison of the two (I am no fan of nor apologist for Dawkins, I am just a fan of logic and knowing what people are actually saying).

the atheism 'religion' of marxism continues to be implicated in more violence than islamism. I have already acknowledged that humanism is much more benign, though the likes of dawkins are now turning it in a more intolerant direction.

Other points include the use of the infamous "let's just call it a draw" argument which seems to be emerging in the religion vs science stuff on here.

There is no religion v science argument apart from in the minds of flat earth creationists and the dawkinsjugend. As you say, science is just a tool; it doesn't have a 'view' on anything.

The argument looks a bit like this: religion is full of things which are magical or inexplicable; however, scientists believe in at least one thing which is magical or inexplicable (origin of the universe); therefore both are really no better than the other.

Careful, you are conflating science with atheism, a dawkinsian trope. What is actually the case is that atheist conceptions of the universe ultimately rest on magical propositions inexplicable by science. Moreover, atheist philosophy's like humanism consequently lack even the internal consistency of religion; this isn't just about the origins of the universe. 'gentle' humanism, in practice rejects the darwinian account of nature, evident in all the disasters of unintended consequence that come from liberal social policy which is largely informed by humanism

Science vs religion = score draw. It's certainly worth being clear that science is not all-powerful and that it has clear limits. But this is the basis of an argument against only a very small proportion of the rationalist population, basically an argument against the dawkins, jones, pinker etc., crowd of scientific extremists. But for the rest of us, even those of us with sympathy and interest in religion or spirituality, the basic point made by @@$@ 200 years ago holds: knowledge is one thing, faith another. Science is the most explanatorily powerful tool mankind has ever seen and it's power lies not with hawking's cod philosophy but in its practical application (in engineering and medicine, computers and technology). There is simply no competition in this area of human knowledge.

Agreed.

The problem is if someone says that that's the only field of human interest. Of course not. There is the moral and aesthetic world and here science toils, and religion is historically king. But since Hume, Nietzsche etc., there has been a growing alternative in the moral and aesthetic world to religion, whether you call that humanism or whatever. so there is a difference: there is no imaginable alternative to science in explaining the factual world, but there is a perfectly reasonable one in explaining the world of human relations, the moral world.

I don't think they compare. Religions ask us to believe in things they hold to be true, atheist humanism asks us to believe in things that it's own conception of reality says are untrue. Neither may be true, but the latter is not even coherent

i agree with EGB that we are not forced to believe in one over the other, religion or humanism, and that there are similarities especially in the extremes. However, I reject those extremes and given the choice between catholicism or protestantism or islam, i probably simply prefer a gentle rationalism, mixed with a mild pragmatism, and topped off with a modest humanism. It leaves me free to make some basic judgements for myself, of course influenced by those around me, and avoids me believing in stuff that no matter how hard I try I just can't get my head around (christian or religious metaphysics, doctrine, church).

If you can live with the contradictions - and that is isn't a dig - anyone that can't accept any contradictions is usually an extremist - there are a lot worse positions to take.

My suspicion is that the relentless focus on the extremes of humanism and atheism on here is hinting that that is what humanism etc., is all about. This is twisted logic - this is the logic of deconstruction and postmodernism that takes any position beyond its factual claims to its logical extremes, the reductio ad absurdem and the slippery slope arguments gone mad. I see no reason to challenge anyone's religious belief without provocation but if there is a discussion about it I will be pretty clear that for me, self critical thought and an unwillingness to believe in factual magic ("the flesh of christ" etc) means a gentle humanism, etc., is the preferred position.

On the contrary - I'd say the attacks on extremist atheism are properly directed; at extremism. The attacks on religion meanwhile, are often more broadbrush. I don't consider precision to be distorting versus imprecision.

So, I am with Cardinal Kasper and EGB on the rejection of an aggressive secularism or atheism but that is nowhere near enough to force me or anyone else into the arms of the Catholic Church or even faith as at least one of those two would hope. I pretty much utterly reject the current and historical doctrine of the Catholic Church in the same way Kasper rejects aggressive secularism and see them as of a piece. This does not mean a score draw or impasse because in the end this is just the rejection of the two extremes of a much richer spectrum leaving me with the majority of us to make simpler and more modest choices.

This is fine, while we are all allowed to do our own thang, which the moderate version of secularism permitted. The more jacobin incarnation of today, seems intent on not allowing us to rub along like that.

 

[egb_hibs]

like ex-smokers and ex addicts, the shrill voices of those struggling in the vacuum left by god's death sound at times manic and crass. EGB's analysis of the fall of the West is astute if a little over-stated for me. Nietzsche thought only that we need push toward that genius that is in each of us, the agile dancing spirit that combines truth with the will, and therefore creates values that the cattle can follow. Christ was such a spirit, perhaps the greatest of all. Nietzsche is the prophet of the age we live in, of individual egos exercising their wills on the world and seeking more to gain followers than to gain truth. I think we are yet to see fully the vision of a middle path down which neither a transcendent god nor a voracious ego are the foundations of the true, the good and the beautiful. :coffee:

P.S. Hibs to win 2-1 tomorrow

nietzche was also the prophet of fascism, something that all attempts to exculpate him will not erase. If required I can point you in the direction of compendium of the writings of the original fascist thinkers; nietzche is all over it, as he is all over neo nazism to this day.

ps thankyou for the kind words; i don't consider myself to be astute, i think it is glaringly obvious to all who don't have ideological blinkers that prevent them seeing it.

 

[egb_hibs]

None sir, not even The Crusades.

It's never been the sole cause of a single war in military history bud. Human beings are the problem, not religion though it was been used as a means to motivate the rank and file when humans are fighting over money, resources, land, race or women.

It's not far off none. But I think I would give the Albigensian crusade, on balance to religion; it's catholicism's darkest hour imho. Though even there temporal power was a big part.

I consider this to be looked at the wrong way around; ideologies should be (mostly not exclusively) judged by how they restrain the naturally explicable routes of human violence. Christianity has been a far more successful on this basis than any other I am aware of. C20, the first 'post religious' century, at least in western terms, was the most violent century since pre history.