The Stalin/Pol Pot/Hitler Killed Because of Atheism Fallacy
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You might notice that Pol Pot is quite possibly a good example of a bad one.SAM said:
It would bolster your case against atheism, as long as you left out the context of his rise to power and any comparison of him with his enemies and his atrocities with theirs.
It would be better than the truly absurd contention that Hitler was atheistic (and that's goofy even overlooking your expanded sense of "theism" elsewhere, which would include Hitler as a type specimen of a theist regardless of his belief in a Deity).
The institutional Christianity of his day often supported communistic and collectivist political principles, often tolerated Jews, and sometimes criticized martial values.SAM said:
This degenerate weakness of the Church had nothing to do with its God, or the true God of the Aryan people.
Compare them to Martin Luther's criticisms of the Church.SAM said:
Or just reread, slowly and with care, the numerous responses already made on this thread and any of a dozen others.
Or consider that the people he was talking to were theists, mostly Catholic Christian, themselves.
Or that the people who did the actual killing of the Third Reich were Christian theists almost to a man, rallying under the "Kinder, Kirche, und Kuchen" slogan, and helping to cleanse their Church, as well as their Kitchen and Children, of the degeneracy of communistic - that is, Jewish and atheistic - influence.
Last edited:
They were? Wasn't Himmler neo-pagan and Goebbels Lutheran?
Of the comments he made that you quoted above (taken them on a bit of "faith" that they're accurate), none are actually stating that he disbelieves the core doctrines of Christianity. Indeed, the only thing that can be concluded is that he was disatisfied with Christianity as an organization. Or, as someone above noted, wanted change in a way similar to Martin Luther.
Sorry. Hitler was a Christian and a Catholic. Period. His behavior and actions were religiously motivated and he exploited religious belief to futher his Old Testament style genocide.
Sorry. Hitler was a Christian and a Catholic. Period. His behavior and actions were religiously motivated and he exploited religious belief to futher his Old Testament style genocide.
I'm not even concerned about individual craziness, those people could be exceptions. Just look at the bloodiness of the Catholic/ Protestant conflict, not just in Ireland, but for the last couple hundred years. That could not be interpreted as anything other than religious.
Only if you ignore the bloodiness of the Romans and the barbarians before that. Not to mention the "secularists" who wiped out and settled the colonies.
But not Catholics. I think Hitler was probably an atheist who could not "come out" during his time. His thinking of the time was strongly supported by the scientific community [which according to you, was dominated by atheists] and only the horror of the holocaust made them all take a collective step backwards. One may even say that Stalin's gulags were also lauded by the "scientific" community of the time, which had descended into social Darwinism as the dogma of the day [hence the sterilisation of the retarded] and was strongly opposed only by the church. In fact, when Ota Benga was displayed in the zoo by evolutionists as an example of the lower evolutionary order, it was the clergy who decried his treatment and insisted he be released. So it would appear that those who call Hitler a Christian ignore his support for the sciences of the day and his opposition to the church.
What does that even mean? The Romans did their share of religious violence, first against Christians, and later as the seat of power of the Church.
Much violence against the Indians was thought of as justified because they were "savages", meaning they were not Christians.
Much violence against the Indians was thought of as justified because they were "savages", meaning they were not Christians.
What does that even mean? The Romans did their share of religious violence, first against Christians, and later as the seat of power of the Church.[/quote
So the Romans fought the Christians until they became Christians and then tehy fought non-Christians and this is a sign of religious warfare?Whats your excuse for the barbarians?
Was it the Christians who thought that? Weren't the "founding" fathers non-religious? The Indians fought on the side of the British against the secular non-religious Americans, did they not?
This is exactly what happened.
I don't think the origins of that conflict were religious.
The history of westerners in America did not start with the founding fathers. That was several hundred years later.
The founding fathers made a secular society, but the people still had the attitude that non-Christians were savages destined for hell if they didn't accept Christianity. A secular society is not a non-religious society. Some Indians fought with the British, some with the French, and some with the rebels. Later on, some fought with the Confederates.
I agree that a secular society is not a non-religious society. But then which societies are? So with 100% of societies being religious, defining any war as "religious" is rather strange. One may as well say that all wars are caused by testosterone.
Religious violence seems to transcend mere "war", which I admit are often fought for a variety of reasons, many of them secular.
The Pilgrims fled England to avoid religious persecution (execution). Without religion-inspiried conflicts, there might never have been an America settled by Europeans.
The Pilgrims fled England to avoid religious persecution (execution). Without religion-inspiried conflicts, there might never have been an America settled by Europeans.
Worse than the gulags, you mean? Or Cambodia? Or Vietnam?
I doubt it, the British were sending their convicts to the Americas anyway.
Yes, worse. Even if you think Stalin had irreligious motivations, he didn't last. Religious violence often lasts centuries because it outlives one particular despot.