Hitler and Stalin

[Gargoyle]

Simple answer - yes.
*snip*
I suggest you read this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167

My personal conclusion is that the only thing Hitler believed in is whatever passed through his head at any given moment. It would seem he was quite capable of believing 6 contradictory and impossible things before breakfast.

Good thread...
I think Hitler, as well as Stalin, was only interested in subjects that could make them gain political power (and everything else that they might want), not what they actually stood for.
If there was something to gain from religion or whatever - well, fine - lets endorse it! Or the other way around...

 

[elliotfc]

Religious leaders have a long history of persecuting those that don't agree with them. In the name of God, they have killed more people than Hitler or Stalin ever have, and with much greater cruelty.

Of course. There's probably been 1000 religious leaders for every 1 atheist leader.

The "who's worse" argument can be fun. Sure, I'll recognize the bad religious leaders, but I ain't about to try to convince 5 million plus Jews, in the next one, that Hitler wasn't all that bad, relatively speaking.

So if anyone asks about the lack of faith expressed by Hitler and Stalin, I would point out all those "faithful" leaders involved in the "Inquisition" and various other heretical hunts over the last 1700 years.

The gotcha game is fun. See?

-Elliot

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I think Hitler, as well as Stalin, was only interested in subjects that could make them gain political power (and everything else that they might want), not what they actually stood for.

How does that distinguish them from other political figures?

If there was something to gain from religion or whatever - well, fine - lets endorse it! Or the other way around...

Just like most everyone else, not so? Or is that a tad too cynical?

'Luthon64

 

[elliotfc]

Good thread...
I think Hitler, as well as Stalin, was only interested in subjects that could make them gain political power (and everything else that they might want), not what they actually stood for.

Is that why Hitler went after Jews in other countries?

You could do gulags and concentration camps in...nicer ways...or not at all...or something else...I think it was politics plus a hell of a lot of baggage.

-Elliot

 

[Gargoyle]

How does that distinguish them from other political figures?

They had a more "robust" way of expressing it than (some) politicians today - they used the brutal force of the totalitarian state for all the world to see (or what the world choosed to see ). They killed off millions without blinking, and that could not be tolerated by the rest of the world! For long... unless they kill their own people...

To the "modern" politician, democracy is the word! A little "moneydropping" there, "extra" votes there and some propaganda (infotainment ) to the media - voilá!! At least no one got killed... we hope...

Just like most everyone else, not so? Or is that a tad too cynical?

Aaahh, "cynical" has such a negative ring to it, I prefer "realistic"

 

[Trantor]

Of course. There's probably been 1000 religious leaders for every 1 atheist leader.

The "who's worse" argument can be fun. Sure, I'll recognize the bad religious leaders, but I ain't about to try to convince 5 million plus Jews, in the next one, that Hitler wasn't all that bad, relatively speaking.



The gotcha game is fun. See?

-Elliot

While Hitler and Stalin were a pair of cruel and sick animals, at least they never pretended to be good and in the service of the Lord. They were more true. Take your choice, the animal who claims to be an animal or the animal that claims to be doing God's work.

If given the choice in which hands to die, I would take Hitler or Stalin. The death would be quicker. I would not be tortured to repent. I would not have to name other heretical people that would suffer my fate in the torture chambers.

 

[Tanja]

I’ve often thought Communism had a number of odd similarities to Christianity.

This might be a slight derail, but as I grew up in a communist country I often thought of another similarity between communism and christianity, which was, I believe, deliberately done by the communist party.

I grew up in Croatia (then Yugoslavia), and Croatia is a very Catholic country. When you are Catholic child, you go through the "rites of passage" of first communion (around the age of 7-9, if I recall correctly) and then confirmation (around the age of 14).

Now, the communist involved the children in rites of passage around that same age - the first one was to "become a pioneer" at the age of 7, where we had to dress up in blue skirts of trousers, white blouses, red cravat and blue cap with a little communist star, and swear allegiance to Tito and the communist party. The second rite of passage was to become "omladinac" which translates as "Communist Youth", around the age of 14. I guess the Communist party wanted to install a sense of belonging and that the way to do it was to take over the existing rituals in the society...

Funny old communist days...

 

[elliotfc]

While Hitler and Stalin were a pair of cruel and sick animals, at least they never pretended to be good and in the service of the Lord.

Are you saying that the Lord is a real thing? Did Hitler and Stalin believe in the Lord?

They were more true. Take your choice, the animal who claims to be an animal or the animal that claims to be doing God's work.

I'm not interested in that choice, I'll take Jesus.

If given the choice in which hands to die, I would take Hitler or Stalin. The death would be quicker. I would not be tortured to repent. I would not have to name other heretical people that would suffer my fate in the torture chambers.

Right. Because when God makes people die, he makes their death take a long time. God believes in torture. God also makes us name other heretical people. In all the time I've spent in this forum, your post is the first that has made me reconsider everything I believe in. Thank you for this. Hitler and Stalin are preferable to God. You have piercing and insightful points that no theology can possible counter. Trantor, you've done what others could not have done. I am a changed person because of your post. Viva Hitler, viva Stalin, down with the Christian God.

-Elliot

 

[Meffy]

Good. Now on to disbelief in luxury hotels.

Hitler - Stalin
Statler - Hilton

Coincidence? Or ineffable mystery?

 

[Trantor]

Are you saying that the Lord is a real thing? Did Hitler and Stalin believe in the Lord?



I'm not interested in that choice, I'll take Jesus.



Right. Because when God makes people die, he makes their death take a long time. God believes in torture. God also makes us name other heretical people. In all the time I've spent in this forum, your post is the first that has made me reconsider everything I believe in. Thank you for this. Hitler and Stalin are preferable to God. You have piercing and insightful points that no theology can possible counter. Trantor, you've done what others could not have done. I am a changed person because of your post. Viva Hitler, viva Stalin, down with the Christian God.

-Elliot

Elliot, I think you know that I don't believe that God has anything to do with torture. In all cases, it is the work of Man. Hitler, Stalin, the agents of the Inquisition, and agents of the Salem witch hunts, ect. are all very similar. If you read about the 200 years of the Christian Inquisition, you will be amazed at the institution of death that was created and maintained by the Church. Their methods were far more cruel than the Nazi death camps. Slow torture for extracting information on any potential enemy was accepted practice and it was done in the name of God. Millions of people were killed. In some cases, whole cities were almost depopulated because they were considered heretical, and that does not include the damage that was done to the newly discovered North American and South American native populations. I never said God had anything to do with it. Only Man is responsible.

 

[elliotfc]

Elliot, I think you know that I don't believe that God has anything to do with torture. In all cases, it is the work of Man. Hitler, Stalin, the agents of the Inquisition, and agents of the Salem witch hunts, ect. are all very similar. If you read about the 200 years of the Christian Inquisition, you will be amazed at the institution of death that was created and maintained by the Church. Their methods were far more cruel than the Nazi death camps. Slow torture for extracting information on any potential enemy was accepted practice and it was done in the name of God. Millions of people were killed.

Millions eh?

He says millions.

Eh, not worth the time.

-Elliot

 

[arthwollipot]

Do you have a problem with the word "millions" being applied to the victims of the Inquisition?

 

[elliotfc]

Do you have a problem with the word "millions" being applied to the victims of the Inquisition?

Probably about 5000 people died during the course of the Inquisition. 5000 too many? Sure.

Probably about 150,000 witches were burned during the same period of time...350 years or so. You want to combine that with the Inquisition, that's fine.

I don't even know where to begin with the "millions" word. Do the math. How many a day? A week? Where? And when? I'm not the one who ought to have the problem, I've thought it through and done the research. Anybody else can do the same.

This topic doesn't bug me like it used to, as far as my personal problem about this.

-Elliot

 

[Trantor]

You are intitled to your opinion. If you think the Christian Church only killed 5,000 people, your information is nothing but Church propaganda. The Church (Protestant and Catholic) killed people of all kinds. Intellectuals, Jews, competing Christians, native conquered peoples, anyone who tried to challege their control. I remember reading one account where 20,000 people were killed in one town in Europe alone. Native people's deaths were not even taken into account. The death count may have been as high as 20 million or more.

I'm sure it helps you Christians to sleep better, knowing that it was only a few deaths and they probably deserved it anyway. You probably have the Church experts and documents to prove it right?

Strangely, no records were ever kept on precise death numbers - surprise, surprise. In Cuba there are no original natives left, I wonder why? Let me tell you - they would not convert - they where ALL killed, then burned. Problem solved.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

You are intitled to your opinion. If you think the Christian Church only killed 5,000 people, your information is nothing but Church propaganda. The Church (Protestant and Catholic) killed people of all kinds. Intellectuals, Jews, competing Christians, native conquered peoples, anyone who tried to challege their control. I remember reading one account where 20,000 people were killed in one town in Europe alone. Native people's deaths were not even taken into account. The death count may have been as high as 20 million or more.

Sorry but that's total crap. Try coming up with something other than "I read in a book once" - how about citing an historical study of some kind?

If your contention is that everyone who died in the chriatian era at christian hands is a victim of persecution of the church then having read an article somewhere in a book ain't gonna cut it.

Elliot is correct on his numbers about the Inquisition and the estimate of deaths attributable to witchcraft trials.

I'm sure it helps you Christians to sleep better, knowing that it was only a few deaths and they probably deserved it anyway. You probably have the Church experts and documents to prove it right?

well I'm just another atheist on the block so I don't care one way or another

Strangely, no records were ever kept on precise death numbers - surprise, surprise. In Cuba there are no original natives left, I wonder why? Let me tell you - they would not convert - they where ALL killed, then burned. Problem solved.

If no records were kept as you claim - how did you dream up your numbers then?

 

[headscratcher4]

I've oft thought it was a question of technology. The various churches and religous based persecutions of history were limited because you could only directly kill so many manually...History is repleate with examples of relative efficincy when push came to shove, however, for example anti-semetic progroms in Germany in the middle ages or in Russia (fostered by "believers" one assumes) didn't do too badly given they only had fire, knives, swords, etc. For example, using starvation as a weapon (a'la Stalin) is pretty old hat in political/religous warfare -- Stalin was simply great at it.

My point is, if the inquisitions, witch-hunters, various anti-heritic crusaders, anti-semetic progrom perpetraiters, sectarian, reformationist regimes had had access to furnaces, train lines, electrified fences, machine guns, poinson gas, adding machines, etc. There is no telling how efficinet they could have been.

Imagine Phillip II of Spain, being able to bring those kinds of resources to either the Inquisition in Spain...or the one he allowed to devestate the Indian cultures of the new world?

Imagine how the Tudor state (Mary, seeking protestant traitors or Elizabeth seeking Catholic traitors) could have made use of the technology the Nazi's had available to root out dissent?

Imagine various mid-evil and counter-reformation Popes armed with the tools of a modern police state in their effort to hunt down heritics...or Luther to hunt down Catholics or inspire anti-semetic progroms.

I guess what I am saying is that historically, religiously based regimes, dictators, kings, Popes, etc. may have killed fewer people...but I don't think that it is for lack of trying.

 

[elliotfc]

You are intitled to your opinion. If you think the Christian Church only killed 5,000 people, your information is nothing but Church propaganda.

Re-read what I said. I was talking specifically about the Inquistion...which itself is a big vague, which inquistitions, what were and what weren't inquisitions, and all that.

The Church (Protestant and Catholic) killed people of all kinds. Intellectuals, Jews, competing Christians, native conquered peoples, anyone who tried to challege their control.

I disagree, but I think your dogma on this is unassailable. Anyone who tried to challenge their control? Really? Would you like some example of persons who tried to challenge the control of the Church and were not killed by the Church. I can give you at least 100s of examples, 1000s if I dug deep enough, or you could maybe be a bit less ridiculous in your dogmatic assertions. Think before you speak in absolutes.

I remember reading one account where 20,000 people were killed in one town in Europe alone. Native people's deaths were not even taken into account.

I'm interested in this account, if you can track it down.

The death count may have been as high as 20 million or more.

Could you break that down? Into eras? Locations? Who was directly responsible (priest, king, pope, bishop, order)?

I'm sure it helps you Christians to sleep better, knowing that it was only a few deaths and they probably deserved it anyway. You probably have the Church experts and documents to prove it right?

I didn't say anything about deserved, but that's more speculative dogma on your part.

I don't think it was a few deaths. I said 5000 too many. Again, read my posts carefully, that's helpful if we're going to have a discussion.

If you want to talk about *documentation*...well, your charge is particularly hopeless. Can you document 20,000,0000 deaths by the Church?

Strangely, no records were ever kept on precise death numbers - surprise, surprise. In Cuba there are no original natives left, I wonder why? Let me tell you - they would not convert - they where ALL killed, then burned. Problem solved.

All killed? The Siboneys, right? How could they have all been killed, have you ever read anything by de Las Casas?

-Elliot

 

[Trantor]

Sorry but that's total crap. Try coming up with something other than "I read in a book once" - how about citing an historical study of some kind?

If your contention is that everyone who died in the chriatian era at christian hands is a victim of persecution of the church then having read an article somewhere in a book ain't gonna cut it.

Elliot is correct on his numbers about the Inquisition and the estimate of deaths attributable to witchcraft trials.



well I'm just another atheist on the block so I don't care one way or another



If no records were kept as you claim - how did you dream up your numbers then?

This is a pointless argument. Why don't you do a goggle search and see what's out there. There a lot of different numbers, many supplied by supporters of the Church. So, I guess you are saying that when Christians met native people, stole their gold and other valuables, then tried to convert them to Christianity under the threat of death - they really were not the subject of Christian persecutions. Strange thinking there.

 

[elliotfc]

I've oft thought it was a question of technology. The various churches and religous based persecutions of history were limited because you could only directly kill so many manually...History is repleate with examples of relative efficincy when push came to shove, however, for example anti-semetic progroms in Germany in the middle ages or in Russia (fostered by "believers" one assumes) didn't do too badly given they only had fire, knives, swords, etc. For example, using starvation as a weapon (a'la Stalin) is pretty old hat in political/religous warfare -- Stalin was simply great at it.

But the primary motivation wasn't to kill as many people as possible. Stalin's motivation was to *kill millions*. And so he did. The religious based persecutions sought to enforce their own teachings and repress alternative teachings. If they could have done that without killing anyone, they would have. As for technology...surely they had better technology than burning people at the stake. Public executions were a part of it...but not for Stalin. That's because Stalin wanted to kill millions, you don't do that with public educations.

It's silly for me to do this in a sense...I'm not trying to defend horrible and atrocious behavior of the church and churchmen of the past. At the same time I don't want it equated with Hitler and Stalin. I guess you can make the association. Why? What's the point? Understand why what happened, happened. Bean counting and who's worse arguments, it's just a way for individuals who have particular beefs to lash out.

You don't like the Church. I get it. The Church has done some despicable things. I get it, and I agree. Everybody agrees. How much farther do you need to push this, and why?

My point is, if the inquisitions, witch-hunters, various anti-heritic crusaders, anti-semetic progrom perpetraiters, sectarian, reformationist regimes had had access to furnaces, train lines, electrified fences, machine guns, poinson gas, adding machines, etc. There is no telling how efficinet they could have been.

I disagree that they would have perpetuated such efficient killings as we have seen in the past century.

Imagine Phillip II of Spain, being able to bring those kinds of resources to either the Inquisition in Spain...or the one he allowed to devestate the Indian cultures of the new world

Imagine how the Tudor state (Mary, seeking protestant traitors or Elizabeth seeking Catholic traitors) could have made use of the technology the Nazi's had available to root out dissent?

I can imagine it I guess...I don't know enough about their personalities. Are you saying Phillip and Mary had hatred and fear within them commensurate to that of Hitler and Stalin? Maybe. If so, that has to do with them, and not religion. Where in Christianity does it say that it is good for rulers to efficiently kill millions?

I guess what I am saying is that historically, religiously based regimes, dictators, kings, Popes, etc. may have killed fewer people...but I don't think that it is for lack of trying.

I agree that you have no problem imagining this.

That you are so eager and driven to imagine this says more about you, then them, in my opinion. I don't know enough about the natures of these people to make the extensions that you make.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

This is a pointless argument. Why don't you do a goggle search and see what's out there. There a lot of different numbers, many supplied by supporters of the Church. So, I guess you are saying that when Christians met native people, stole their gold and other valuables, then tried to convert them to Christianity under the threat of death - they really were not the subject of Christian persecutions. Strange thinking there.

OK, now that's outside of the inquistions. I'm not going to defend this behavior. As long as you stay specific Trantor, we'll have a better time understanding each other, no?

-Elliot