Nobody in my entire life ever told me that. Not even the priests. Actually, least of all the priests, because they had better educations than most of their parishioners, and were WAY funnier than you. No offense. 😉
Yes, my experience was more ‘benign’, but I’m hardly alone in that. And if it’s all about personal experience, there’s not much in the way of objectivity there, wouldn’t you say? There is nothing you enjoy or believe in somebody hasn’t had a bad experience with.
My experience with atheism has largely been irritating, off-putting–some of the preachiest people I’ve ever encountered. So therefore, don’t I have just as much right to take the piss out of them? Without being accused of persecution? (No atheist in the western world today has the slightest idea what that word means. My Irish peasant ancestors did.) But I know a lot of amazing people who are not religious. And can I ask, yet again, whatever happened to “Freethinker”? If you have to stick a label on yourself, that’s a much more attractive one. Ask yourself how come in a world where people are abandoning theistic religion, atheism isn’t appreciably growing at all? Because having walked out of one cage, they don’t feel like locking themselves up in another.
I’m all for appreciating different perspectives, and many a self-satisfied theist, here and elsewhere, has tasted my satiric whip. But what I get from most avowed atheists is an absolute determination to avoid seeing any perspective other than their own.
Btw, I’m still waiting for the reading list from your atheist book club. I wasn’t asking to make fun. I was asking because I’m interested.
Penn Jillette, “God No!” – Most people are atheists, because they do not behave as if they believe an omniscient powerful God is watching them.
Dawkins, “The God Delusion” – I did not read it but I heard about it in the meetings.
Dennett, “Breaking The Spell Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” – Also have it on a shelf, unread. Went to meeting.
Stefan Klein, “We Are All Stardust: Scientists Who Shaped Our World Talk about Their Work, Their Lives, and What They Still Want to Know ” – famous scientists have weird ideas about things that are not in their specialty area.
Brian Greene, “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality” – strings or membranes, but definitely not particles make up reality. Also, we need new maths to deal with what physics is postulating.
Ehrman, Bart D., “How Jesus became God” – I have it, still unopened. Perhaps my new year’s resolution?
Herb Silverman, “Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt” – first time I listened to a book. I then bought the book so my kids would read it. They have not.
Robert Sapolsky, “Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst ” – One of the most fascinating books I have ever read. Returned my faith in the idea of humans deciding to do things – somewhat.
Yuval Noah Harari, “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” – Denisovans and Neanderthals were our cousins.
Kurt Anderson, “Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500 Year History.” – Claims America is really weird. Also claims America imported most of its weird ideas from British and German weird ideas. Basically, we are weirdly religious.
Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” – I was the only one in the MeetUp that voted for Trump. So this was meant to open my eyes.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “The Women’s Bible” – a look into how a 19th century intellect might survey that time period’s understanding of the Bible especially as a woman.
Bart D. Ehrman , “Triumph of Christianity” – The only of our patron saint’s books that I have fully read. I do love it. I do enjoy comparing the expansion of Judaism in the Roman sphere of influence based on some of the same principles found in his book.
Richard Elliott Friedman, “Who Wrote the Bible? New Edition” – picked by a NT professor from Elon (who lives in Durham), as I continued my fascination with who wrote the Pentateuch.
Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection” – Ok, Darwinist and Darwinism are words. I thought they were recently made up to mock biologists.
Christopher Hitchens, “The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever ” – Did not read. Some got a real kick out of it. The guy is funny, but is probably the prototype for the arrogant internet atheist.
Sam Harris, “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values” – Great read if you want to try and get a grip on the elusive idea of morals. Great comparison to physical well being. Also the idea of many dimensional problems creating more than one peak of optimization was a clever cover that has helped me grasp everyday problems better. Instead of “which answer is right” or “which answer is more right” we can ask “which right answer is accessible” as well.
Aldous Huxley, “Brave New World” – Written in 1931, it has a scene where people are entranced by television. It was my pick and we voted immediately afterward not to read fiction. In 1931, it had people hopped up on Soma so they could cope with life. It also seemed to predict the sexual revolution and Free Love. How is this supposed fiction not more real than most supposed non-fiction??
There were other books I have missed. These were the ones I got off my Amazon purchases list.
Okay, first of all–you voted for Trump? Burying the lede much? May one inquire why?
Secondly of all, Hitler was himself an atheist, albeit rather unorthodox. He despised Judaism, Christianity, and pretty much all theistic religion, though he had a weak spot for paganism (like many modern-day atheists). Openly, he had to pretend to still be a Christian, because most Germans were either Lutherans or Catholics, but in private it was a policy goal for him and the inner circle to phase out Christianity entirely, because it was a corrupting Jewish influence on the pure Aryan spirit. One of the few people who rivals Jesus for the number of books written about him, but those books are a great deal less speculative in nature, and his biographers are agreed on the fact that he was not religious, and wanted to see all expressions of Christianity snuffed out, and most of his serious opposition came from committed Protestants and Catholics (though goats being goats, always and everywhere, there were plenty of so-called Christians happily goose-stepping behind him).
I don’t really see how Huxley fits in, since that book strongly prefers the people on the ‘Savage Reservation’ who are still living in the old theistic world, albeit in a more basic ‘primitive’ form. Whatever Huxley thought of religion, he clearly thought what came after it might be worse (so did Nietzsche, and for that matter, Darwin–even Dawkins has expressed some qualms). Now the other Huxley I could see (Darwin’s pit bull.)
I still have a hard time getting past Sam Harris musing idly about the possible necessity of proactively nuking entire Muslim nations. Just a thought experiment, I know.
No Voltaire? Yes, he was a Deist, but we shouldn’t be small-minded about things. (He was a bit small-minded about Jews, but nobody’s perfect.) I would have thought some French writers would be included, since the Gallic influence on modern skepticism about religion is so preeminent. Ah well, c’est la guerre.
All in all, I prefer the less obvious inclusions, but that’s true of most reading lists.
I liked Sam Harris’s Moral Landscape, even though I have heard some interesting responses to it. I have mixed feelings about moral philosophy. There seems to be endless debate over whether such a thing as objective morality exists or whether objective morality could exist if God does not exist. But even if we somehow discovered that objective morality didn’t exist, I don’t think we would descend into a circular firing squad.
I find Steven Pinker’s books on human nature more interesting. The Blank Slate: Our Modern Denial of Human Nature. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.
It’s interesting how Hitler wasn’t Christian but openly pretended to be a Christian. Yet, Hitler was able to motivate Christian Germany to follow him. Shouldn’t Germany’s Christianity acted as an antibody against Hitler’s ideology? Then again, maybe human nature tends towards obedience to authority figures, usually destructive ones. So, Christianity isn’t necessarily more blameworthy in this case than Buddhism. Not sure.
You guys need to read Megan Phelps-Roper’s new book, “Unfollow: Loving and Leaving the Westboro Baptist Church.” I’d also recommend Amber Scorah’s book “Leaving the Witness,” where she talks about her experience growing as a Jehovah’s Witness and ironically finding freedom in mainland China.
If you don’t think circular firing squads exist, you need to read more history.
Violence has declined? For some, no doubt. But gun ownership has sure gone up.
Hitler appealed to nationalism, and to German obedience to authority. If you’d read history, you’d learn that Christianity was the only antibody that gave him any trouble–why else do you think he was so determined to get rid of it? But as in the body, moral antibodies can be weakened, and overwhelmed. And Jesus would have understood very well that identifying with a religion only rarely means living by its tenets. The goats always get in. (And atheism has proven no exception to that rule.) And of course, one must also ask why an atheist would vote for Trump? (Who also pretends to be religious, for the same reason Hitler did.)
I read about the Phelps-Roper’s book. Interesting how it’s okay to identify all religion with its very worst expressions, but you just sort of ‘meh’ about the revelation Hitler was on your side. I definitely do not equate atheism with fascism. But at the end of the day, fascists are narcissists, and narcissists worship only themselves.
Why I voted for Trump.
1) Hilary is damaged goods. She has been deified by the right as EVIL (not the Every Villain Is Lemons type either). Notice that conservatives do not mention in public “the devil made me do it.” They make references to Hilary when accused of sexual misconduct in Supreme Court nominations. They refer to Hilary in congressional hearings about whether to impeach Trump. Trump announced new investigations into Hilary’s emails as his call to Ukraine and its implications were first being presented in media coverage. Her as president would not bring our country together. IT would only serve to further radicalize the right.
2) Hilary voted for the Iraq invasion. Almost everyone did. Bernie did not. Trump lambasted such foreign invasions for more than a decade before getting elected. Weighing the balance, I knew the Trump rhetoric against immigrants was bad. But US interference in foreign nations brought wars that killed fathers, brothers, and sons, and left a power vacuum where mothers and children were victims of unspeakable terrors. I weighed unstoppable immigration into the US versus the horrors of war that I felt Hilary endorsed in the name of promoting her ideals. She kept her opinions close, always. She would only say that she saw Syria as permanently fractured, which meant to me running Sunni weapons through Syria to destabilize regions in Russia. I also voted for Ron Paul because of his non interventionist ideals, especially the goofy morality basis for sanctions.
3) Disenfranchised. As a Bernie supporter, I felt like her alliance with Debbie Wasserman was an abuse of power akin to what we now have with Trump. Of course the DNC is not a government entity. Winning the DNC nomination is a corporate powergrab (cf superdelegates) with a public show of community engagement. OR at least that was my thought as I deliberated at the poll station (I was undecided going in). I really feel this is the one point where I may have been the most vulnerable to the Russian attempts to influence the election. I may have been targeted to reinforce the feeling that since Bernie did not win, Hilary should pay the price.
4) TPP. Bernie was against it. To many sweet deals for foreign workers, not our workers. Trump was against it. THEN Hilary was against it. I did not believe her. Bernie and Trump are actually aligned in many ways as far as helping the common working man. Trump wanted to do it with tariffs, especially against China, and I was fine with that. I once turned off the radio as an NPR anchor grilled a Trump supporter on tariffs, acting as if it would destroy economies, then immediately followed with a report about Chinese steel being traced through Vietnamese ports to avoid Obama-era tariffs.
I regret that the public ever turned against TPP after learning it was basically a united front to face China down in economic battles. Also, for all the rhetoric about China as a cheater, it has a principled argument that it is still a developing nation due to its economic strength on a per capita basis. Also, its currency manipulations were miniscule, barely moving their currency compared to what it would have traded if not manipulated.
4) I though Trump was playing down to the crowd. I liked him as a non-interventionist already, so I suppose I was simply rationalizing his behavior. Add in the fact that the media always takes things conservatives say as racist, and this makes it far easier to rationalize his statements. Ever watch “Cops”? There are lots of drugs and bad people coming over that border. Just stating a fact here, not trying to simplify immigration or justify the drug war.
Why am I writing all this down, anyway? Because I regret now that I voted for Trump. I think a lot of people do. I would even vote for the Bankers of America Pay Your Debts You lazy Slouches Candidate, Joe Biden, over Trump. Yes, I would vote for the Teach Your Black Children Values Candidate, Joe Biden, over Trump. I really think I could even vote for the Honorable Last Line of Defense Against Universal Healthcare, Joe Biden, over Trump. Or I could just stay home and not vote for Trump…
As far as Hitler’s religiosity, a skimming of what has been written about it leaves me with the impression that he was a Jesusist who thought Paul and later the churches had destroyed his message. I fell little responsibility to try to reconcile Hitler with Jesus. As an evangelical youth I could not understand how our church let military vets into our congregation who clearly did not obey Jesus’ message on soldiering. So I had long given up on trying to reconcile what people want to take with religion with what I personally got out of religion.
In 1918, in the NYT (it can be found in the Library of Congress, online), an article purported 6 million Jews faced elimination. This was not from your atheist Hitler. It was from the Catholic Poles and Orthodox Russians. So the case that an atheist German leader is the face of evil is pure post WW2 propaganda, imho. (The deaths of many millions of Jews is not to be minimized here, we are simply talking about if the blame is going to a single atheist leader or to the mostly religious masses who carried out the massacres for the Germans and the Russians, and the Lithuanians, btw.)
But I sense a continuing thread in your argument against atheism and what you see as its leaders. You should really take a second look at what Dawkins said and why he said it concerning molestation. He was downplaying his personal situation as a child. Its his own situation and how he deals with it is his personal business. He was the victim, and yet his lack of desire to talk about it to the media is interpreted as somehow having controversial views.
Wow, three in a row. You’re on a roll!
1)Not a political forum. And you’re nutso, but that’s the norm here (I always have to be the weirdo). I’m going to use you as ammo against Bernie supporters on another forum, btw. They keep insisting Bernie is nothing at all like Trump. You tell ’em, kiddo.
2)Hitler was not a Jesuit. If that’s what you mean by ‘Jesusist.’ If not, I have no idea what you mean. He thought of Jesus as a Jew, which is correct, and you must know how he felt about Jews. He was deeply dishonest in his public utterances because he knew how politics works (and was determined to get rid of that too), but there’s plenty of records of his private thoughts on Christianity, and he despised Jesus. I know you won’t read any decent history, because c’mon–you voted for Trump. It’s a miracle you read anything.
3)I think you mean violence is down for white people leading comfortable middle class lives in the developed world, and after all, nobody else matters. (That’s also why you voted Trump. Otherwise, what’s the wall for?)
Stephen, you’ve been oddly quiet on this thread for a bit.
Penny for your thoughts right about now.
Starting to see my point about some atheists?
Violence is down almost everywhere, more than making up for the hotspots of violence. Actually, most hotspots of violence are only on par with the brutality of life in the 1700’s or so. As we become wealthy, we value life. So I get your supposition that the data reflects the West. But liberalism has made most of the globe much wealthier over the last 30 years or so, and this – or something- seems to have quieted down our chimp tendency to genocide each other as often as we have the energy to do so.
As far as my neglect to read all the books chosen by the club, I am easily distracted by new ideas in investigated the creation of the Pentateuch and Maccabean era history. That is where I spend my time and energy and, until I recently wrote up my budget, money.
And I saw this this morning and thought of you, buddy.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Pinker oversimplified the data to sell books and you’ve oversimplified Pinker. Here’s some complexity, just to confuse things.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
We have no confirmable data for ancient times–for the Pax Romana, to name one example. We can only make valid comparisons in modern times.
Also, the lower rate of death in war is at least partly due to the huge advances in field medicine. You’re assuming all deaths in war are due to violence, and ignoring that a vast number of war deaths were due to infection, and transmissable diseases. The Black Death killed more people than any war. The Influenza Outbreak in the early 20th killed almost four times as many people as WWI. Granted, there’s a lot more proxy wars now, because the great powers have hesitated to come to grips since the two world wars. Will that hold true indefinitely?
And of course, attempted genocide became a much larger reality in the 20th century, and it’s still very much a looming threat–that you smugly ignore, because nobody’s coming for you. (Yet.)
Policing is far more efficient, meaning that people are more likely to weigh the odds when they contemplate murder. People live longer, and have a lot more entertainments to distract them. Frankly, a lot of people have become too indolent and timorous to kill anyone. (I name no names.)
It’s not about wealth–how can it be? Most people are still not wealthy. It’s about better government, and the international community–both of which are under attack–not least from the guy you helped make President.
I should not have to mention that in an increasingly unstable world, run by unhinged dictators, nuclear and biological weapons could overturn Mr. Pinker’s stats in a matter of minutes. Kim Jong Un could do that all by himself. Or should I call him Little Rocket Man?
FMV, I’m afraid you and I have come to the parting of the ways here. If I’m not talking to Steefen, who merely engages in dodgy pseudo scholarship, I don’t see how I can go on conversing with you. Have a nice life. Stay out of malls in states with weak gun control. 😉
Did you read the link? The major criticism seems to be that while each of us is probably less likely to die, the total sum of the dead is greater. This is simply due to the huge populations – again due to advances in medicine.
The idea that we are more dangerous because there are 4 times as many of us – and still the death due to war TOTALS have declined since 1950. I think the article you posted is a huge win for Pinkerists such as I. Hope is in humanity. Still, the Singularity is coming, so perhaps its leadership will go well for humanity. Reason instead of tradition was one of the drivers mentioned by Pinker. The Singularity should have that, I think.
As far as Hitler lying as he spoke to the masses, that goes right to the heart of my original post. I find Hitler not particularly bright, but surrounded by some of the brightest minds on the planet. Thus his very contradictory statements and messy beliefs. Of course, if someone were to dig up old posts of mine, even in this forum, I have some different views already on those issues. I have never read of Hitler evolving as a person though.
I am a conservative Republican, with dissents from the Republican party on some issues. I support same sex marriage, legalized abortion and moderately high levels of immigration (especially high skill, Science Technology Engineering Medicine [STEM] immigration).
But I did not vote for Trump. I didn’t vote for Hillary either.
Okay. Yes, this is not a political forum.
I wonder if it is kosher to continue debating Steven Pinker’s books, “Enlightenment Now” and “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined” on this forum here.
But hey, I brought it up, right? I enjoy a good scrum regarding Pinker’s work.
I agree with FocusMyView on this. The murder rate in the United States declined dramatically from the early 1990s until about 2014, when the Ferguson, Missouri disruption started. Then we had an increase in the murder rate, but I think that was short lived. So, even as Christianity has declined in the United States, the murder rate has gone down, not up. This means that perhaps we don’t have to fear the decline of Christianity as much as we thought?
Similarly in Germany. In the first half of the 20th Century, Germany was much more Christian than it is today and it butchered Europe in two destructive world wars. Now? Germany is mostly non-religious and is much more peaceful. Same is true for all of Europe. Europe is less religious than it was hundreds of years ago and much more peaceful.
I think the Islamic world would improve dramatically if it could just listen more to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett (and Bart Ehrman and Steven Pinker too).
FocusMyView said
Did you read the link? The major criticism seems to be that while each of us is probably less likely to die, the total sum of the dead is greater. This is simply due to the huge populations – again due to advances in medicine.
The idea that we are more dangerous because there are 4 times as many of us – and still the death due to war TOTALS have declined since 1950. I think the article you posted is a huge win for Pinkerists such as I. Hope is in humanity. Still, the Singularity is coming, so perhaps its leadership will go well for humanity. Reason instead of tradition was one of the drivers mentioned by Pinker. The Singularity should have that, I think.
As far as Hitler lying as he spoke to the masses, that goes right to the heart of my original post. I find Hitler not particularly bright, but surrounded by some of the brightest minds on the planet. Thus his very contradictory statements and messy beliefs. Of course, if someone were to dig up old posts of mine, even in this forum, I have some different views already on those issues. I have never read of Hitler evolving as a person though.
Ah, so you’re not Pro-Hitler. You’re just Pro-Goebbels, Himmler, Goring, etc. If Hitler had just left them to run the country (and the war) things would have been so much better. Only the best people. Who all followed Hitler like whipped dogs. He was no genius, but he was a hell of a lot smarter than Trump.
I read the entire article, yes. You seem upset about it, so I won’t bring it up again. You Pinkerists are so sensitive. 🙂
Spiral said
I am a conservative Republican, with dissents from the Republican party on some issues. I support same sex marriage, legalized abortion and moderately high levels of immigration (especially high skill, Science Technology Engineering Medicine [STEM] immigration).But I did not vote for Trump. I didn’t vote for Hillary either.
Okay. Yes, this is not a political forum.
I wonder if it is kosher to continue debating Steven Pinker’s books, “Enlightenment Now” and “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined” on this forum here.
But hey, I brought it up, right? I enjoy a good scrum regarding Pinker’s work.
I agree with FocusMyView on this. The murder rate in the United States declined dramatically from the early 1990s until about 2014, when the Ferguson, Missouri disruption started. Then we had an increase in the murder rate, but I think that was short lived. So, even as Christianity has declined in the United States, the murder rate has gone down, not up. This means that perhaps we don’t have to fear the decline of Christianity as much as we thought?
Similarly in Germany. In the first half of the 20th Century, Germany was much more Christian than it is today and it butchered Europe in two destructive world wars. Now? Germany is mostly non-religious and is much more peaceful. Same is true for all of Europe. Europe is less religious than it was hundreds of years ago and much more peaceful.
I think the Islamic world would improve dramatically if it could just listen more to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett (and Bart Ehrman and Steven Pinker too).
Stephen? Any input from you here? Hello? Earth calling Stephen!
I think Hitler and Trump both have significant deficiencies in deciphering truth from fiction. As dumb as Trump seems to be, I cannot find evidence that Hitler was any better. What both seemed to enjoy was letting loose their dogs of terror upon the masses, then calling them back if it annoys them on a particular day. That Hitler and Trump are very effective speakers is true.
While Hitler did write down his secrets to effective speaking, I wonder if that was self observation of what naturally started in his hate filled belly and protruded through his lips, or if it was planned, diagrammed, and executed to fool the masses. I question this for for a few reasons. 1) Studies show humans tend rationalize rather than reason and plan. 2) We have already established a lack of clear thinking. 3) His passion shows through so clearly. Its hard to imagine it is staged. He is a true believer in whatever Hitler ideas were driving his Hitler speech patterns in that Hitler moment.
Here we are talking about Hitler on the internet. But surely his intent was to save the children of Germany form corrupting influences, was it not? Heritage, race, or ethnicity seems to be an impressive driving force in our daily lives and international relations.
The data provided by Pinker is once again at the very root of this original post. Its about the truth and how we perceive it. Is the media lying about the world going downhill fast? What is their intent? We must remember that the first intent of media is to make money. Homelessness gets clicks. Old bridges falling down gets clicks. Bank robbers gets clicks. White police officers shooting unarmed black men gets clicks (interesting study done by a Harvard professor on this). So we are overwhelmed by bad news. The intent of the media to say the world is falling apart is to get clicks (make money). Is this completely terrible? I would say no. It brings problems front and center so we can fix them.
I did not mean to elevate any of the war criminals employed to conduct war. I meant the broader groups brought into his galas to celebrate the advancing German ideology from time to time.
FMV, you really should read a decent book about Hitler, if you’re curious. Most of what you’ve said has been wrong. And no, Hitler didn’t do anything to ‘save the children.’ He murdered millions of them.
I’d recommend Volker Ullrich’s Hitler: Ascent, and Joachim Fest’s biography is also very perceptive. The latter grew up during the rise of Naziism, and his memoir Not I, has a title drawn from the Gospel of Matthew. His family were devout Catholics, and he watched his father sacrifice everything rather than join with the Nazis. “If all others desert thee, Not I.” It was a very dark time, for good people in particular–always a rare commodity. We’re not there yet. But you got us a lot closer with that thoughtless vote of yours.
Then again, I’ve learned most people don’t really want to think. Theist or Atheist. Thinking hurts. So we come up with a reasonable facsimile thereof, to comfort us. It doesn’t work out so well. Jesus knew that. Happy New Year. And goodbye.
Stephen? Any input from you here? Hello? Earth calling Stephen!
Anybody but me notice the time of year? It’s Christmas and New Year’s. I have an actual life. Jeez posting on the internet is way down on my list of priorities. But it’s nice to be missed.
Hitler still? Hitler was in no sense an atheist but no one would accuse him of being an orthodox Christian. Hitler was a psychopath. But I’m not aware that he ever personally tortured or killed anyone himself. The people actually who carried out the Holocaust by and large were normal folk, many of whom were convinced that their mission was blessed by God. True, there were many ethical Christians, but of course one does not have to be a Christian to be ethical.
But I find the whole Hitler/Stalin/atheist trope fascinating. Because when you think it through, it’s hard to see what the point being made actually is.
All atheists are fascists? Clearly not.
All secular societies become fascist? Clearly not.
So when believers and their fellow travelers bring up Hitler and Stalin what exactly is the point they are trying to make?
I will stipulate for the record that there are atheists who are assholes. But what I can’t understand is why this considered a damning admission. What else would you expect? Atheists are human beings and don’t claim to be anything but. On the other hand Christians claim to be in touch with a higher wisdom and claim to be guided by a supreme supernatural force unlimited by time and space. So when they display the normal human characteristics how can critics not suspect their claims to superiority?
Here’s the thing:
As you see it, Christianity as a whole, and therefore Christians as a whole, are responsible for every awful thing ever done in the name of Christianity (which sure as hell doesn’t include the Holocaust or the Stalin purges or Pol Pot’s genocide of his own people, and really the list goes on a long long way, just for the 20th century alone). They get no credit for all the progress that occurred on Christianity’s watch, or for the fact that Christians spent their first few centuries actually trying to live as Jesus commanded, and reportedly coming close to succeeding, now and again. Power corrupted them, sure–as it corrupts everyone. But you selectively hold them responsible, even while conceding that there are some nice Christians and some gaping a-hole atheists (I’m guessing you’ve met quite a few in real life.)
Christians are not allowed to say (for example) that Torquemada was just a psychopath, and not representative of Christianity as a whole. His death list is a whole lot smaller than Hitler’s, he probably also never killed anyone himself (the Inquisition handed prisoners over to ‘the secular arm’ for punishment).
But you really have some chutzpah saying Hitler never ‘personally’ killed anyone. Neither did Charles Manson. What the hell was that supposed to prove? I suppose now you’ll say Trump never ‘personally’ took children from their parents and locked them in cages? It’s called ‘conspiracy to commit murder’ doofus. If you order someone to kill, you have killed. Pilate didn’t personally nail Jesus to the cross. I have at times questioned your mental lucidity, but I’d say that question has been answered now.
My point is this–you can’t have it both ways. There are many brands of Christianity (and Islam, and Judaism, and Buddhism, and Hinduism, and etc). There are also many types of atheism. If you’re going to draw broad conclusions on Christianity, based on the actions of relatively few people, you have to do the same for your own diverse group.
Hitler wanted to destroy all organized theistic religion. He did not believe in anything resembling the Judeao-Christian God. He did claim to believe in science, and his primary influence in believing ‘lesser races’ must be destroyed, or at least prevented from interbreeding with ‘superior’ Aryans was a twisted form of Darwinism, which was by no means limited to Nazi Germany. Social Darwinism lives on today, you can see it everywhere. So when you’re readying the flames, remember to consign Origin of Species to the pile of books to be burned. If Hitler wasn’t an atheist, what was he? Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all of influenced by Marx, who likewise wanted theistic religion (including that of his ancestors) destroyed, went to extremes to make that happen–so what were they?
If I can admit some forms of Christianity have been evil, that most Christians have failed to live up to their beliefs, why can’t you accept atheism has already been twisted into an instrument of persecution and intolerance many times, and that atheists do not, by and large, behave according to the ideals of rationality and tolerance that they’re supposed to embrace? Seems like collective judgment is common to both groups, but it was never supposed to be.
Jesus knew, as you seemingly do not, that the goats always get into the works of any organized system of belief, any identifiable group working towards the same end. But he was about individuals, not groups. Christianity, as it was taught to me, says you are responsible for your own actions. You will be judged by your deeds, not your words, not your professed beliefs. What you have done, and what you have failed to do. You and you alone bear the brunt. Your worst enemy faces you every day in the mirror, and you try once again to rise above your own weaknesses.
And while most Christians under Naziism failed this test miserably, and went along with authority, as their society had conditioned them to do for centuries (before Christianity, in fact), there were also many who showed almost unimaginable courage, who risked and lost their lives hiding people from the Nazis, who resisted in every way possible, and who understood damned well that Adolph Hitler was a murderer, and that if they went along with him, they were murderers too, even if they never ‘personally’ killed or tortured anyone.
And they were better than you and me. Admit it, damn you.
PS: I believe in secular societies as well. (I’d use the term ‘civil society’). I don’t think they all become fascist. But they all have the potential, and that potential is being activated as we speak. It will take all the good people in America, theist and atheist alike, to stop it. Which side are you on?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)