But was he a good man who did evil because of religion? As the Steven Weinberg quote that acbytesla cited suggests?
If not, who were these good men who did evil because of religion? Can you, acbytesla, or Mr. Weinberg list some examples?
But was he a good man who did evil because of religion? As the Steven Weinberg quote that acbytesla cited suggests?
If not, who were these good men who did evil because of religion? Can you, acbytesla, or Mr. Weinberg list some examples?
Whether he was an evil man or a good man... his evil deeds were enhanced amplified extended aided and abetted by the religion and other men who were not evil themselves because he was able to rally them behind their religion which gave him FIAT to do his evil deeds.
Besides... trying to say that religion does not cause evil unless someone is already evil is hilarious... because all they are doing is saying that religion does not have the power to make evil people good but rather enhances evil people's evil.... which... in and of itself is an admittance that religion is a force of evil but not of good.
And asking for examples of a good person who did evil because of religion is a FALLACY ... how exactly are we going to prove that a person doing evil because of the whole essence of his religion is an evil or good person... the apologist will always be able to say aha... he was evil already.
BUT... the catch is... if religion is supposed to be a divine force for good then it should be able to make evil people good and never be able to enhance the evil of evil people... nevertheless... what we have in REALITY is that religion has been and is utilized as a propellent catalyst and tool for doing evil.
Moreover religion has as part and parcel of its tenets and scriptures all the RALLYING behind and COMMANDING and justification and extolling and sanctifying evil deeds in the name of the religion. As evinced irrefragably by the scriptures and HISTORY of the religion.
What Weinberg meant is that normal people who are living their normal lives get RECRUITED and rallied behind acts of evil because their religion makes it easy to BRAINWASH them into believing that what they are doing is FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
As an example ... albeit most likely not a true one... is Paul... he did acts of evil persecuting people and participating in the stoning to death of a man.
But... according to the fairy tale ... he was indeed a good man who was duped into doing those acts of evil and once he saw the light ... literally... he rejected the religion that compelled and financed and employed him to do evil.... and started doing evil of a different sort behind a different religion.
Last edited:
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,508
The whole German country that led into the Third Reich. I'm assuming that not all of these individuals started out evil.
This is why I pointed out the Milgram experiment.
Here are a few examples... but before you click to show them... ask yourself... is killing your son for being obstinate or killing your daughter for making love to her boyfriend or chopping off the hand of your loving wife... evil??:
Last edited:
Here are currently millions of good men and women doing evil on daily basis because of their religion...
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Well, how about a woman? Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (more commonly known by the name "Mother Teresa") who essentially began as a good woman with good intentions who later graduated to becoming an evil, mass murderer driven by her religious beliefs.
Last edited:
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
That's a great example.
Whether Mother Teresa was a force for good or for evil, that is a separate discussion. But to the extent that some people do believe her to be overall a force not for good but its obverse ---- a view that I believe many hold here --- to that extent this is a very good example of the "good people do evil because of religion" thing.
eta: Not to derail this thread into a discussion on "Mother Teresa" --- she's now been promoted, and should be called "St. Teresa", shouldn't she? --- but since I commented on her, this, very briefly, is my view on her: On the one hand, that she should devote her whole life to caring for the poor and the diseased, I find that very admirable. On the other hand, all of the other stuff that she was guilty of, and that we needn't get into the details of here, all of that was without a shadow of a doubt utterly reprehensible. What I'm undecided about is whether, in sum, after totting up both sides of the ledger, whether overall her work ended up as beneficient or as "evil".
(But of course, no matter whether the account total comes up a debit or a credit, but absolutely, in as much as without doubt she did "evil" --- forcing her dying "patients" to endure unnecessary pain is certainly "evil", no matter how you define that word --- and clearly did that evil on account of her religion, to that extent this is an excellent example of good people [or at least, not-evil people] doing evil for the sake of their religion.)
Last edited:
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Do you really expect me to believe that Hitler was a God fearing Christian?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You completely missed the point those trying educate you, were making.... as usual!
Last edited:
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
So the answer is "no".
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that an atheist used religion to cement his hold on power.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,900
It's up to you to prove that a Nation that has been Christian for over a thousand years became Atheist just in time for the Third Reich, and afterwards became Christian again.
Most of Hitler's success in becoming Fuehrer can be attributed to the Churches centuries of demonizing Jews and spreading the blood libel.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Actually, the answer is that your question was a stupid one in the first place because it missed the point. NOBODY here was claiming that Hitler was a "God fearing Christian".. That was just strawman bull-**** that you pulled out of your nether regions!
Hitler was NOT an Atheist. Not even close!
Yes, Hitler always said he was going to have a "reckoning" with the Churches once he dealt with his "other problem" (the Jews), but the point is that, just because you are anti-church, doesn't make you anti-religion or an Atheist.
Hitler, and Himmler as well, were utterly obsessed with the idea of the German people's religious history of the polytheistic Germanic Pantheon, revering gods such as Woden and Tyr . They were, in that sense, religious fanatics. The Ahnenerbe was created for the purpose of collecting artifacts relating to the great religions of Europe, and proving that the German people were descended from the Germanic tribes, and it is THIS religious philosophy that eventually led to the Holocaust. They tried to prove something that wasn't true, and when they found they were unable to prove it, they did what any "good" religion does, they wrote lies and a false history.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
You changed the question.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
This is irrelevant. YOU claimed Hitler was an Atheist, you need to back up this claim with evidence (HINT: You won't be able to, because there isn't any, because it is wrong!)
The facts are that Hitler was neither a Christian, nor an Atheist, - he was in fact a pantheist, an adherent to a religious philosophy based on the work of the 16th century philosopher and cosmologist Giordano Bruno, and the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. Pantheism is the belief that reality and divinity are identical and interchangeable - Pantheists recognize God, not as a personal deity, but as a universal one, i.e. Nature = God.
Hitler was convinced that he would best serve his God (as in Nature) by annihilating what he considered to be the Untermenschen, inferior people (which included Jews, Gypsies, the mentally ill and those with birth defects), and in promoting the welfare and reproduction of what he considered to be superior humans - the Aryans. His obsession with the Germanic Tribes and Gods stemmed from his pantheistic religious beliefs - he thought the German people were descended from fair haired, blue eyed Scandinavian peoples.
There is a fascinating book called "Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich" by Richard Weikart. I read it some years ago. I suggest you obtain a copy and read it so you can learn something about the subject because at the moment, you are spouting off about stuff you clearly know nothing about!
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
ftfy.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Nope, its irrelevant to everyone... except you!
And as I expected, you just ignored the educational part of my post. Never mind - you clearly wish to remain ignorant.
Even if religion were only a tool for manipulation and justifying atrocities, that's still equally bad.
Where's the positive? It's only use is in making people content with their ****** life, because they think there's more after the end.
Where's the positive? It's only use is in making people content with their ****** life, because they think there's more after the end.
porch
Muse
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 816
RE your example experiments: Off the top, you have to realize that the Stanford Prison Experiment wasn't an experiment so much as a drama workshop. A thought provoking exhibition maybe, but highly uncontrolled; interpretation of the results subjective. One can recreate a similar workshop, but it's not a replication of a scientific study.
But even if Stanford was somehow legit science, it shares an insurmountable problem with Milgram, if you are using them as examples of "religion getting good people to do bad stuff", ie, neither scenario invoked religion at all. The Milgram experiment didn't get Catholics to go to a pretend confessional and have the priest order them to do something unethical. It was a pretend laboratory setting, with White Lab Coat Guy whispering in their ear. So, Milgram is an example or religion not being necessary for good people to do bad things.