News0 min ago
'Atheist Alliance.'
72 Answers
The Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have been getting a rather bad press of late, at best confused, and at worst corrupt. Meanwhile atheism pursues its bloodless purity. The most determined atheist in Britain, the Archbishop of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, has spoken of his desire to "destroy Christianity". Shortly before Christopher Hitchens died, Dawkins presented him with "an award in my name, at the Atheist Alliance Convention". Surely even non-believers might experience a shudder at the news of an Atheist Alliance. Allied to what, a belief in non-belief?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As for Religion informing massacres you can't get much more dramatic than "Kill them all God will know his own"
http://
I wouldn't think there's compelling evidence one way or another for whether religion increases or decreases the chances of someone being a mass murderer
http://
I wouldn't think there's compelling evidence one way or another for whether religion increases or decreases the chances of someone being a mass murderer
vulcan42 //If Hitler was an atheist, why did the uniform belt buckles, even those of the SS, have "Gott mitt uns" on them?// I agree with jake, it hardly matters, but, the phrase was on the belts of the German soldiers of the FIRST world war, and goes back through he centuries to 'Nobiscus Deus' -the battle cry of the roman Empire, and even earlier. It was not on the belts of the Waffen SS, those closest to Hitler, he had their's changed to 'Meine Ehre heise Treue' ( My honour is loyalty) indicating their loyalty to him above everything. I still maintain that this lunatic was irreligious and I never said or implied that this was the reason for the atrocities he committed, and anyone gullible enough to believe anything written in Mein Kampf, or said in any of his speeches would be very naive indeed.
His use of the word 'God' had no currency whatsoever, no more than when an atheist uses the the word 'Goodbye' without realising what they are actually saying is "God be with you".
His use of the word 'God' had no currency whatsoever, no more than when an atheist uses the the word 'Goodbye' without realising what they are actually saying is "God be with you".
@ Khandro
If you agree with Jake that Hitlers religiosity was irrelevant, why did you introduce it into the conversation in the first place?
"In Germany, since Bismark, the church and the state have been completely separated. Hitler and Mussolini were both irreligious, (elsewhere Stalin and Franco too), so perhaps it's the atheist leaders we should beware of, (Winston Churchill was a Christian)"
This is your post, and the inference is clear - that atheism is, in your opinion, dangerous.Otherwise, why bother to introduce it at all? Now you backpeddle and obfuscate.
Re Hitlers religiosity - It matters little what you stubbornly believe - factually speaking, the balance of evidence supports Hitler as someone who was definitely not atheist.It is clear from his actions, from recollections of conversations with his peers, and from his writings that he had some sort of faith, although probably not an orthodox one.
You still have yet to comment on your misrepresentation of the quote from the Dawkins conversation with Hitchens. Why?
If you agree with Jake that Hitlers religiosity was irrelevant, why did you introduce it into the conversation in the first place?
"In Germany, since Bismark, the church and the state have been completely separated. Hitler and Mussolini were both irreligious, (elsewhere Stalin and Franco too), so perhaps it's the atheist leaders we should beware of, (Winston Churchill was a Christian)"
This is your post, and the inference is clear - that atheism is, in your opinion, dangerous.Otherwise, why bother to introduce it at all? Now you backpeddle and obfuscate.
Re Hitlers religiosity - It matters little what you stubbornly believe - factually speaking, the balance of evidence supports Hitler as someone who was definitely not atheist.It is clear from his actions, from recollections of conversations with his peers, and from his writings that he had some sort of faith, although probably not an orthodox one.
You still have yet to comment on your misrepresentation of the quote from the Dawkins conversation with Hitchens. Why?
Hitler was certainly nothing if not opportunistic, but it is entirely clear from his views both those designed for public consumption and those uttered in private (ignoring those from the, at very best, extremely contentious and, at worst, unquestionably fraudulent "Table Talk") clearly indicate someone who was at least deistic.
As always, the discussion of whether Hitler believed in God is not really the key issue. Most of those who did his bidding *did*, and indeed it is clear that for both Protestant and Catholic soldiers, they engaged in the most appalling atrocities against their fellow man. Years of anti-Semitism from Luther and various Popes clearly helped feed a hatred of the Jews. Far from stopping them from carrying out terrible deeds, it is beyond reasonable question that for many their faith was an encouragement.
As for saying that when Hitler said 'God' it meant no more than an atheist means in saying 'goodbye', zounds and gadzooks! I fear you overreach yourself. 'Goodbye' is a word long since divorced from its etymology, 'God' very much less so. That it is used is a reflection of the fact that people don't believe it has any effect, not they're unaware of it's meaning. It's ruddy silly to pretend otherwise.
As always, the discussion of whether Hitler believed in God is not really the key issue. Most of those who did his bidding *did*, and indeed it is clear that for both Protestant and Catholic soldiers, they engaged in the most appalling atrocities against their fellow man. Years of anti-Semitism from Luther and various Popes clearly helped feed a hatred of the Jews. Far from stopping them from carrying out terrible deeds, it is beyond reasonable question that for many their faith was an encouragement.
As for saying that when Hitler said 'God' it meant no more than an atheist means in saying 'goodbye', zounds and gadzooks! I fear you overreach yourself. 'Goodbye' is a word long since divorced from its etymology, 'God' very much less so. That it is used is a reflection of the fact that people don't believe it has any effect, not they're unaware of it's meaning. It's ruddy silly to pretend otherwise.
vetuste_ennemi - “... Birdie/Lazy Gun, what relevance does Hitler's religious belief or lack of have? ...”
I agree that Hitler's religious belief is largely irrelevant. It just gets my goat when people wrongly assert as true that which has been proved demonstrably false. As I have stated before on this website, I am afflicted with an almost pathological intolerance for people who deliberately tell lies!
I agree that Hitler's religious belief is largely irrelevant. It just gets my goat when people wrongly assert as true that which has been proved demonstrably false. As I have stated before on this website, I am afflicted with an almost pathological intolerance for people who deliberately tell lies!
WaldoMF; I am merely pointing out that Hitler would use the name of God or the Devil for use to support his twisted ideology, it had nothing to do with conviction. LG; If you care to look back you will see I raised the issue in response to jom's statement; //Our parliament is infested with unelected clerics, the head of the C of E is officially of higher rank than the elected prime minister.// also I have told you from where I take my quotation (The Observer).
Khandro //If you care to look back you will see I raised the issue in response to jom's statement; ///Our parliament is infested with unelected clerics/// //
That is a completely different issue from Hitler.
The church has way too much power in what is supposed to be a secular institution, particularly considering they proudly boast they make decisions not on consideration of the facts but on their faith (ie their prejudice).
One of the best examples of faith getting in the way of rational decision making was the war in Iraq. Both Tony Blair and George Bush openly stated that they had prayed to God for guidance.
Never mind that the experts sent by the United Nations specifically to investigate the supposed weapons of mass destruction reported that they did not exist. No, our leaders decided to go instead with their prayers to an imaginary deity.
And what did the reality show. No WMDs, just like the inspectors said. Iraq is trashed. Millions are dead. Trillions have been wasted on nothing. Countless lives ruined.
So how well did it do to rely on prayer for guidance? To ignore the expert advice? These barstewards should have been driven from the office when they said that they were relying on prayer instead of observed reality. Both aught to be in jail for abrogation of duty.
There is no place in government for those who hold the advice from their imaginary friend above all else. It does incredible damage.
That is a completely different issue from Hitler.
The church has way too much power in what is supposed to be a secular institution, particularly considering they proudly boast they make decisions not on consideration of the facts but on their faith (ie their prejudice).
One of the best examples of faith getting in the way of rational decision making was the war in Iraq. Both Tony Blair and George Bush openly stated that they had prayed to God for guidance.
Never mind that the experts sent by the United Nations specifically to investigate the supposed weapons of mass destruction reported that they did not exist. No, our leaders decided to go instead with their prayers to an imaginary deity.
And what did the reality show. No WMDs, just like the inspectors said. Iraq is trashed. Millions are dead. Trillions have been wasted on nothing. Countless lives ruined.
So how well did it do to rely on prayer for guidance? To ignore the expert advice? These barstewards should have been driven from the office when they said that they were relying on prayer instead of observed reality. Both aught to be in jail for abrogation of duty.
There is no place in government for those who hold the advice from their imaginary friend above all else. It does incredible damage.
//The church has way too much power in what is supposed to be a secular institution, particularly considering they proudly boast they make decisions not on consideration of the facts but on their faith (ie their prejudice).
One of the best examples of faith getting in the way of rational decision making was the war in Iraq. Both Tony Blair and George Bush openly stated that they had prayed to God for guidance.
Never mind that the experts sent by the United Nations specifically to investigate the supposed weapons of mass destruction reported that they did not exist. No, our leaders decided to go instead with their prayers to an imaginary deity.
And what did the reality show. No WMDs, just like the inspectors said. Iraq is trashed. Millions are dead. Trillions have been wasted on nothing. Countless lives ruined.
So how well did it do to rely on prayer for guidance? To ignore the expert advice? These barstewards should have been driven from the office when they said that they were relying on prayer instead of observed reality. Both aught to be in jail for abrogation of duty.
There is no place in government for those who hold the advice from their imaginary friend above all else. It does incredible damage.//
Whoever it was who said "God is dead" is very much mistaken. He is (to the detriment of us all) 'alive' as ever and continues to work in mysterious ways in the minds of those who still harbour the Delusion.
Never take for granted "What 'God' can do". "Fool me once . . .
One of the best examples of faith getting in the way of rational decision making was the war in Iraq. Both Tony Blair and George Bush openly stated that they had prayed to God for guidance.
Never mind that the experts sent by the United Nations specifically to investigate the supposed weapons of mass destruction reported that they did not exist. No, our leaders decided to go instead with their prayers to an imaginary deity.
And what did the reality show. No WMDs, just like the inspectors said. Iraq is trashed. Millions are dead. Trillions have been wasted on nothing. Countless lives ruined.
So how well did it do to rely on prayer for guidance? To ignore the expert advice? These barstewards should have been driven from the office when they said that they were relying on prayer instead of observed reality. Both aught to be in jail for abrogation of duty.
There is no place in government for those who hold the advice from their imaginary friend above all else. It does incredible damage.//
Whoever it was who said "God is dead" is very much mistaken. He is (to the detriment of us all) 'alive' as ever and continues to work in mysterious ways in the minds of those who still harbour the Delusion.
Never take for granted "What 'God' can do". "Fool me once . . .
For those of you who are wondering to what Khandro is referring, here is the relevant part of my earlier post.
//When you consider how easily nazism took hold in catholic Italy and catholic/protestant Germany perhaps a little more rational thinking would improve our lot and avoid blind obedience to religious dogma and politicians who take advantage of the resulting mental laziness//
I think the reason for what I said is quite clear, it was only an example of how blind obedience to religion dulls the intellect and compromises humanity. I did not intend it to become an issue in it's own right but the subsequent discussion has illustrated how theists try to blame atheism for the sins of religion. Quite ironic isn't it.
//When you consider how easily nazism took hold in catholic Italy and catholic/protestant Germany perhaps a little more rational thinking would improve our lot and avoid blind obedience to religious dogma and politicians who take advantage of the resulting mental laziness//
I think the reason for what I said is quite clear, it was only an example of how blind obedience to religion dulls the intellect and compromises humanity. I did not intend it to become an issue in it's own right but the subsequent discussion has illustrated how theists try to blame atheism for the sins of religion. Quite ironic isn't it.
////When you consider how easily nazism took hold in catholic Italy and catholic/protestant Germany perhaps a little more rational thinking would improve our lot and avoid blind obedience to religious dogma and politicians who take advantage of the resulting mental laziness//
I think the reason for what I said is quite clear, it was only an example of how blind obedience to religion dulls the intellect and compromises humanity. I did not intend it to become an issue in it's own right but the subsequent discussion has illustrated how theists try to blame atheism for the sins of religion. Quite ironic isn't it.//
If ever there was a sin it lies with that which proposed the concept . . . religion. By subjugating the process of reason to blind unquestioning obedience religion has rendered believers incapable or rationally discriminating and determining right from wrong.
I think the reason for what I said is quite clear, it was only an example of how blind obedience to religion dulls the intellect and compromises humanity. I did not intend it to become an issue in it's own right but the subsequent discussion has illustrated how theists try to blame atheism for the sins of religion. Quite ironic isn't it.//
If ever there was a sin it lies with that which proposed the concept . . . religion. By subjugating the process of reason to blind unquestioning obedience religion has rendered believers incapable or rationally discriminating and determining right from wrong.
mibn; As you are non-involved in any religion, how do you know that all those who are, are "blind and unquestioning"?
We're all involved, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, as I was no less so as a child growing up in a religious household. It was my unwillingness to don the readily made available blinders and believe unquestioningly that saved me from religion . . . not that opening my eyes and mind to my own ignorance was easy.
I encourage an ongoing debate because (as I reckon you would agree) there are none so blind as those who believe they've already seen the light.
We're all involved, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, as I was no less so as a child growing up in a religious household. It was my unwillingness to don the readily made available blinders and believe unquestioningly that saved me from religion . . . not that opening my eyes and mind to my own ignorance was easy.
I encourage an ongoing debate because (as I reckon you would agree) there are none so blind as those who believe they've already seen the light.
mibn; from what you have said it seems that, for whatever reasons, you have become diametrically opposed to your upbringing. This I can understand, but it seems that your opposition has placed you 'in extremis' which is sad. I don't want to sound patronising, but believe me, all the "religious" are not blind and unquestioning.
This thread has wobbled, but it has shown, which is as I suspected, that there is no more conformity among atheists than there is among the religious, and that the Dawkins' 'Atheist Alliance' is belly-up.
This thread has wobbled, but it has shown, which is as I suspected, that there is no more conformity among atheists than there is among the religious, and that the Dawkins' 'Atheist Alliance' is belly-up.
Khandro - “... that there is no more conformity among atheists than there is among the religious, and that the Dawkins' 'Atheist Alliance' is belly-up...”
Of course there is more conformity amongst the atheists on matters of religion than there is amongst the religious on matters of religion. With reference to this thread, what has lead you to conclude that there is little conformity amongst atheists on matters of religion? It would seem that you are drawing your above conclusion based on a preconceived notion rather than on the objective evidence displayed on this thread. I would really like to know how you have arrived at this conclusion based on the answers given here to your initial question.
Of course there is more conformity amongst the atheists on matters of religion than there is amongst the religious on matters of religion. With reference to this thread, what has lead you to conclude that there is little conformity amongst atheists on matters of religion? It would seem that you are drawing your above conclusion based on a preconceived notion rather than on the objective evidence displayed on this thread. I would really like to know how you have arrived at this conclusion based on the answers given here to your initial question.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.