Why political systems based on atheism kill several times more citizens

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
This quote is such a joke. Read the Book "Hitler Youth". And you'll see pictures of German school age students of that era learning to throw mock hand grenades and other weapon training. The Nazi schools were basically a boot camp and propaganda outlet for what was to come.

Yes indeed. I guess that's why they made prayer compulsory in schools.


To quote von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth: "He who serves Adolf Hitler, the Führer, serves Germany, and whoever serves Germany, serves God."

Any quote we give you is going to be construed as "political" by you, but from the link above, how about this one:

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

The following is an excerpt from the book "Hitler Youth" By Susan Campbell Bartoletti.

"Desperate to hold on to its young people, the Catholic Church struck an agreement with the Nazi government. The agreement permitted Catholics to practice their faith, but it forbade activities that the Nazis considered to be functions of the state. For instance, the Catholic youth groups were not allowed to wear uniforms, to take excursions into the countryside, or to print or distribute journals.

Despite the agreement, the Catholic Church suffered constant harassment from the Nazi Pary. Hitler's secret police (the Gestapo), hounded Catholic priests, nuns, and other church officials, instructing priests what to say in their sermons and classrooms. They censored Catholic magazines and newsletters.. Priest who criticized the Nazi Party were sent to prison or concentration camps or were murdered outright. A priest who told an anti-Nazi joke was arrested and executed.

When another priest called the race hatred of the Nazis immoral, the Hitler Youth demonstrated in front of the priest's house. The Catholic youth rallied and rang the church bell for and hour and a half.. Thousands of people responded. "[They] came from all sides of the town to protect the priest" said a journalist.. Outnumbered, the Hitler Youth fled and the priest was unharmed.
The Jehovah's Witnesses held out, too, refusing to salute the Nazi flag even though it meant persecution. The Nazis rounded up Jehovah's Witnesses and trucked them off to concentration camps where many were killed."

_____

Yes, it sounds like Hitler was quite a loyal Catholic.

 

[fishkr]

And yet, you still missed the main point. Totalitarian armies in this century had modern weapons. The difference, in terms of destructive power, can be seen in the sudden leap in destructive power near the end of the 19th century, first in the American civil war (with gattling guns and artillery) and then in the first world war, which had a far greater body count than the second. . . . .

. . . . If you want to find an example of an atheist society, find one that isn't twisted by some half-baked religious cult of personality. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Cambodia under Pol Pot are in no way relevant. There is nothing whatsoever in atheism which implies membership in any of these cults!

Fantastic!

+1

 

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by DOC
This quote is such a joke. Read the Book "Hitler Youth". And you'll see pictures of German school age students of that era learning to throw mock hand grenades and other weapon training. The Nazi schools were basically a boot camp and propaganda outlet for what was to come.












The following is an excerpt from the book "Hitler Youth" By Susan Campbell Bartoletti.

"Desperate to hold on to its young people, the Catholic Church struck an agreement with the Nazi government. The agreement permitted Catholics to practice their faith, but it forbade activities that the Nazis considered to be functions of the state. For instance, the Catholic youth groups were not allowed to wear uniforms, to take excursions into the countryside, or to print or distribute journals.

Despite the agreement, the Catholic Church suffered constant harassment from the Nazi Pary. Hitler's secret police (the Gestapo), hounded Catholic priests, nuns, and other church officials, instructing priests what to say in their sermons and classrooms. They censored Catholic magazines and newsletters.. Priest who criticized the Nazi Party were sent to prison or concentration camps or were murdered outright. A priest who told an anti-Nazi joke was arrested and executed.

When another priest called the race hatred of the Nazis immoral, the Hitler Youth demonstrated in front of the priest's house. The Catholic youth rallied and rang the church bell for and hour and a half.. Thousands of people responded. "[They] came from all sides of the town to protect the priest" said a journalist.. Outnumbered, the Hitler Youth fled and the priest was unharmed.
The Jehovah's Witnesses held out, too, refusing to salute the Nazi flag even though it meant persecution. The Nazis rounded up Jehovah's Witnesses and trucked them off to concentration camps where many were killed."

_____

Yes, it sounds like Hitler was quite a loyal Catholic.

No true scotsman still, eh DOC?

Interesting that you would spend a couple of days commenting on other threads, including a related Hitler theme here, and not address this.


I believe it addresses this post of yours, and several others in the thread linked.

Now, if you could so kindly stop harping the no true scotsman fallacy? It makes you seem rather simple to continue to repeat a flawed argument that has been repeatedly explained in this thread.

 

[Herzblut]

Being a member of Hitler Youth didn't seem to have much effect on this bloke's Christian beliefs.

No reason why it should.

Herzblut

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Post 181: More of the same 'they persecuted religious people, so atheism is evil' nonsense spouted and refuted numerous times in this thread alone.

The worst thing is that your own post actually states that the Nazis persecuted said religious elements because they were dissenters, not because they were religious. In the case of the Jehovah's witnesses, they refused to salute the Hakenkreuz flag. In the case of the Catholics, they were not telling their flocks what the Nazis wanted them to.

So basically, you're just stating that the Nazis persecuted dissenters like all dictatorships do, and somehow trying to make it look as if this proves atheism is evil.

 

[joobz]

Interesting that you would spend a couple of days commenting on other threads, including a related Hitler theme here, and not address this.

Well, You had presented ample evidence of Hilter's use of christianity in his rule. Why would DOC comment there? it's much easier to tell lies in other threads than admit to being pwned.

 

[fishkr]

Plumjam,

Amazing tenacity. Your arguements in this thread remind me of the Knight in Mony Python's "Holy Grail" who lost both arms and legs and still wanted to do battle . . .

M

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well yes, there is a separate style communism known as "Christian communism." They even have a article on Wiki

Not to mention the accounts in the New Testament that I cited.

Separate from what?

The Christian communism pre-dated the Soviet variety.

But Soviet style communism sure equaled atheism.

I am an atheist. I am not a Soviet-style communist. So the equality breaks down. (A gentle way of saying, you're simply wrong.) Unless you think "A equals B" and "B does not equal A" can both be true. If so, this conversation is pretty pointless.

The Christian church was founded as a communist system. There is NOTHING inherent to atheism that necessitates communism and vice-versa.

 

[Tricky]

The Christian church was founded as a communist system. There is NOTHING inherent to atheism that necessitates communism and vice-versa.

Very true. Most of the early colonies in the US, though they may have been of the Christian religion, were essentially communistic in structure. Since it was so important that as many as possible survive, capitalism wasn't a wise option.

 

[Elentar]

Well, Elentar, I must honestly say I feel quite honoured that you answer me, and in full. What I usually get are pretty much knee jerk responses by religious novices of Richard Dawkins and the Great Randi who seem like they'll never realise that that's what they are.
The part about the average person being less likely to die in the 20th century than previously.. well, who knows really? it just seems to me that modern weapons and technology have aided mal intent to be transferred into mass killing like never before, like the Armenian massacre, the First World War, the Second World War, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Holocaust, Korea, Vietnam, Stalins purges, the gulags, Maos cultural revolution, Maos famines, Pol Pots return to year Zero, Iran Iraq war killing one million, sanctions on Iraq killing one million...etc... I would say that maybe a very conservative estimate of all those killed in only these instances (obviously i've missed many in the 20th C) would be... hmm... 149 million?

And again, you miss the point.

149 million in a population of billions works out to a far lower percentage than in earlier centuries, as Pinker notes in the article I cited. The population of the earth has exploded in the last two centuries, but the level of violence has lagged steadily behind that explosion. This is not only due to fewer wars (Europe, before and during the Religious wars following the reformation, was in a state of near constant conflict) but due to a steady decline in crime and incidental violence. This too must be taken into consideration; the retreat of religion has been accompanied by a startling decrease in civil and domestic violence. This remains true to this day. A study financed by interests looking for a correlation between religion and morality found the opposite--higher levels of dysfunctionality, divorce, abortion, domestic violence, and crime amongst the religious than the secular. This same correlation appears in history.

You might also notice that many of the deaths you mention were the work of religious zealots in the traditional sense, not just the work of Messianic cults of a non-traditional nature. I will take that as a concession.

The first non-traditional messianic figure, by the way, was Napolean. The religious impulse runs deep, and emerges in unexpected ways--in hero worship, in the idolatry of movie stars, in fanatical devotion to cult leaders, in the willingness to believe in the bogus claims of fraudulent psychics and similar con-artists, and in the emergence of virulent political ideologies led by charismatic demagogues. We're against all of them here. You want to make exceptions, tell us that it's alright to be crazy as long as it's your kind of crazy. The door you open for Jesus is the one that Bin Laden and his ilk slip through.

We're not the only ones you don't understand. Within the pages of the Bible, scattered amongst the ravings, myths, fables, tribal legends, blatant lies, borrowed allegories, and just plain lunacy, are the warnings of people who realized that they'd grabbed a dragon by the tail, and that the monster of divine superstition was going to turn and eat them, or was eating them already--the voices crying out in the wilderness against the marriage of religious, political, and economic power (the three temptations offered to Jesus in the desert, if that hasn't been explained to you--read Dostoyevsky.) And the monster changed form, and it did eat them--at Masada, in Medina, at the hands of the Inquisition and Christian persecutors, in the Russian progroms, and in the concentration camps.

And the same monster wants to eat us all, and you're telling us we should just lay down and let it, so long as it asks us nicely, and wears the face you approve of.

As in Revelations, if you cut off one head, it grows another, only now the head isn't called Jesus, it's called Napoleon, or Hitler, or Jim Jones, or Charlie Manson, or Osama Bin Laden. And you can't reason with it because it's all a mystery, because you know, a mystery isn't susceptible to reason and evidence, it just is, and you have to take our Great Leader's word for it, or else. Of course, nothing is so useful to the Great Leader as the claim to occult authority, and God is, after all, the biggest name in the occult. Which is why born-agains are so worried about the occult, and why Stalin shut down the church. Can't have competition. It's also why fundamentalists hate Harry Potter and Dungeons and Dragons--they make fun of the occult, make it a joke or a game. They can't have that. The occult is their business. And a damn profitable one at that.

So, we're going to keep lopping off the heads, because we know the monster wants to eat us. People like James Randi and Richard Dawkins recognize those heads when they see them. You, on the other hand, say we should have pity on the monster, leave it a few heads, the ones you like, because they're so pretty, and you forgive them for all the people they ate.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[plumjam]

most people seem to be conveniently ignoring the main point of the OP.. i.e. that political movements based on atheism end up having to accommodate their version of heaven/paradise/salvation within space and time. To this end this gives them the sense that they have a kind of carte blanche to eliminate any obstacles lying in the path to this heaven on earth (the ends justify any means). if you're creating a kind of heaven then it's fine, and even a moral imperative, to crack a few eggs on the way, is the reasoning.

this helps to explain the extraordinary ruthlessness of such political systems in comparision to systems which place heaven/paradise/salvation outside of space and time (theism-based)

the fact that the 20th Century had better technology for killing people seems irrelevant to me. the vast majority of those killed by their own governments were killed with pretty old technology (hanging/shooting/famine-by-intentional-negligence/torture/gulags etc) Non-communist countries had the very same technology, but never indulged in the same level of criminality against their own citizens.

the population objection doesn't work either. in the communist era the total population of communist nations was always in a minority compared to total world population. yet they accounted for the vast majority of repression and murder of one's own citizens.

 

[JoeEllison]

most people seem to be conveniently ignoring the main point of the OP.. i.e. that political movements based on atheism end up having to accommodate their version of heaven/paradise/salvation within space and time. To this end this gives them the sense that they have a kind of carte blanche to eliminate any obstacles lying in the path to this heaven on earth (the ends justify any means). if you're creating a kind of heaven then it's fine, and even a moral imperative, to crack a few eggs on the way, is the reasoning.

this helps to explain the extraordinary ruthlessness of such political systems in comparision to systems which place heaven/paradise/salvation outside of space and time (theism-based)

the fact that the 20th Century had better technology for killing people seems irrelevant to me. the vast majority of those killed by their own governments were killed with pretty old technology (hanging/shooting/famine-by-intentional-negligence/torture/gulags etc) Non-communist countries had the very same technology, but never indulged in the same level of criminality against their own citizens.

the population objection doesn't work either. in the communist era the total population of communist nations was always in a minority compared to total world population. yet they accounted for the vast majority of repression and murder of one's own citizens.

Most of what you have posted is incorrect, and we have demonstrated that it is incorrect. Restating the same incorrect ideas again doesn't somehow make them any less false. You can keep pretending that the Nazis were atheists, which is clearly not true. You can pretend that the Soviet Union was "based on atheism", which is also not true. You can even dishonestly assert that theistic-based societies were less ruthless, and we've shown that to be false as well.

So, bringing up your original false premises does nothing but remind us that the thread was started on false pretenses.

 

[joobz]

most people seem to be conveniently ignoring the main point of the OP.. i.e. that political movements based on atheism end up having to accommodate their version of heaven/paradise/salvation within space and time. To this end this gives them the sense that they have a kind of carte blanche to eliminate any obstacles lying in the path to this heaven on earth (the ends justify any means). if you're creating a kind of heaven then it's fine, and even a moral imperative, to crack a few eggs on the way, is the reasoning.

I see this. but the exact same arguement can be made from a thiestic standpoint. The witch trials were based upon the notion that if they were wrong in accusing a witch, then the accused would go to heaven...no harm no foul.

 

[plumjam]

I see this. but the exact same arguement can be made from a thiestic standpoint. The witch trials were based upon the notion that if they were wrong in accusing a witch, then the accused would go to heaven...no harm no foul.

conducting some witch trials is not the same thing as constructing a whole social/political/ideological system

 

[JoeEllison]

conducting some witch trials is not the same thing as constructing a whole social/political/ideological system

Would you care to show where in history a nation built a "whole social/political/ideological system" around atheism?

 

[Tricky]

conducting some witch trials is not the same thing as constructing a whole social/political/ideological system

The only difference is scale.

But on the "culture" thread, we saw your agreement on this:

Safe-Keeper, then you're also saying it isn't the religion to blame, but the people involved.

Precisely

If you agree it isn't religion to blame for a thing, but the people involved, do you also agree that it isn't the lack of religion to blame, but the people involved?

 

[plumjam]

The only difference is scale.

But on the "culture" thread, we saw your agreement on this:

If you agree it isn't religion to blame for a thing, but the people involved, do you also agree that it isn't the lack of religion to blame, but the people involved?

you're misinterpreting what i wrote. i was saying 'precisely' as an expression of support for Tai's post
so yes, i am saying that it would be the religion or the atheism, not the people involved

 

[articulett]

Well, You had presented ample evidence of Hilter's use of christianity in his rule. Why would DOC comment there? it's much easier to tell lies in other threads than admit to being pwned.

or put everyone on ignore like T'ai does.

or reincarnate as a sock puppet to pretend there are more stupid people out there than there are--kind of like when cats get their hair to stand on end and they look bigger and more "seriously menacing"....

 

[joobz]

conducting some witch trials is not the same thing as constructing a whole social/political/ideological system

ok. Is the ideological erradication of infidels and the establishment of a theocratic state the same thing?

Is the public acceptance of (and religiously approved) stoning women to death in the streets over adultry(when the man gets off scott free) the same thing?

 

[JoeEllison]

so yes, i am saying that it would be the religion or the atheism, not the people involved

So, you are admitting that Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust. Thanks for the refreshing show of honesty.