>“are you still unable to understand what is offensive about your post?” Yes.
Permit me to try to assist you.
> What I have found, and this will be “controversial,” is that every human being _knows_ the Creator. Every single human being. “Atheists” pretend not to out of a sense of rebellion.
What this does is state unambiguously that atheists are insincere (every single one) when they profess to be atheists. Their profession is based on a moral failing–namely rebellion.
Calling people insincere, ascribing their belief to their own moral fault, is offensive.
Now, sometimes it may be warranted to give offense. But that generally requires actually looking at the individual who is to be offended and forming the offensive judgement on what that one has actually said an done. I might describe an individual theist as lazy, or stupid, or insincere, or disingenuous, but I would never say, all theists, every single one is just too dumb and emotionally weak to admit the obvious fact, which we all see, viz. that there is no God. That would be not only offensive but a grossly rash and unsubstantiated judgement–one for the record I do not accept for a second.
Calling an entire, and quite numerous, class of people–a class that includes many very bright minds who have made very serious defenses of their position–insincere is not just offensive but intellectually unserious and lazy in the extreme.
Perhaps we could say, it is not simply that it is offensive, but that it is an offense that is so manifestly leveled unfairly and irresponsibly.
> It takes some severe emotional pain, later suppressed, to think that the universe is a random and coincidental mess in light of the blatant and obvious evidence to the contrary that is all around us
This pathologizes those who disagree with you, and it is offensive for analogous reasons to the ascribing bad faith to them as a group. Essentially, it amounts to, my position is so obviously true that I don’t need to take those who disagree with me seriously. I can dismiss them, and their arguments, out of hand; the only reason they could believe what they believe is that they are psychologically broken, so I don’t need to try to take their reasons for thinking what they think seriously; I don’t need to examine them, to understand them; I certainly don’t need to rebut them or answer them; in fact I don’t even need to hear them.
Now, it is possible that there may be some statistical link between, for example, atheism and some form of abuse or trauma in childhood. That can be the subject of a serious discussion. Atheists and theists alike can have their thinking influenced by factors that are not strictly rational; we all engage in motivated thinking from time to time. But any such trend or link is speculative until it is backed by data, and there is a big difference between suggesting such links, influences, and biases and saying that the entire class of people is just denying what is too obvious to require explanation.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“If the claim is that certain movements and individuals who were ideologically committed to atheism committed horrific crimes then, who can argue?”
Depending on the claimed “movements and individuals,” someone could argue that those “movements and individuals” _weren’t_ “committed to atheism.”
“the claim that Hitler was an atheist. It is contradicted by his own statements”
As you know, Hitler was a big liar.
“he is on record as characterizing atheism as an example of ‘Jewish-Bolshevism.'”
Reference?
“Hitler… his personal faith seems to have been a sort of hyper-social darwinist deism where God acts through the the brutal, unforgiving laws of Nature”
In Hitler’s view, was “Nature” God?
“as far as anyone can tell, Hitler never personally killed anyone”
I believe that “Hitler… personally killed” Raubal.
Daniel Hartsfield, _The Private Room: Geli Raubal, Hitler’s Household, and the Limits of the Official Record_ (2026)
“The horrors of the Holocaust were carried out by ordinary Germans who found some way to reconcile their horrific acts with their faith”
Konrad Heiden, _The Führer_ (1901-1966), page 495 after searching for: sport
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For centuries it had been true that the cleavage into two sects of approximately equal strength– if Austria was included– had helped to tear Germany apart:
But now: “As soon as a man puts on the brown shirt”, said Rosenberg, “he ceases to be a Catholic or a Protestant; he is only a National Socialist”– and what else could this mean except that the National Socialist had ceased to be a Christian?
At all events, this is exactly what Rosenberg had meant by his words.
In a society where the individual was nothing and the nation everything, God could be nothing unless he was the nation; this was no philosophical hair-splitting, but a state of mind prevailing among large masses.
The Church-weariness and faithlessness of considerable sections of the Protestant Church membership, especially in the big cities, was clear from the emptiness of the churches.
But the beer halls and sport stadiums could no longer hold all the people who thronged to political meetings.
“The regular German Army wore the motto Gott mit uns on their standard uniform belt buckles during World War II. Odd if the regime was committed to atheism wouldn’t you say?”
No.
If Hitler and/or Fatherland Germany were considered God, then saying “Gott mit uns” would be perfectly in accord with Nazism.
Hitler, cited in
Heiden, Konrad. 1944. _Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power_,
translated almost entirely by Ralph Manheim, with Norbert Guterman translating the last chapter and part of the prior chapter (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company), 788pp.
Heiden also wrote _A History of National Socialism_.
On 758:
Germany is our God on this earth.
“So what is the actual point of the comment about atheist mass killers?”
The point is to ask more questions.
Is there anything in atheism that says that Stalin’s mass-liquidations were immoral/ wrong/ bad?
“When someone hits you over the head with a club it hardly matters whether the club has a crucifix on it or a hammer & sickle”
I’d like to think that Christianity says clubbing people is immoral.
“Is it that atheists will naturally tend to become Stalinists?”
No.
“How do you explain people like Ayn Rand, conservative libertarian atheist and staunch anti-Stalinist?”
I don’t understand the question.
“Not to mention the Dalai Lama, whose flavor of Buddhism rejects belief in the concept of a supreme, eternal, personal Creator God”
I don’t know what’s meant by asking someone to “explain” “the Dalai Lama.”
“Perhaps there is something else going on? Something deeper than merely lack of belief in God?”
Going on in what, exactly?
“What was more totalitarian than the Medieval Roman Catholic Church?”
Totalitarian North Korea.
“you couldn’t even escape after you were dead”
What could “the Medieval Roman Catholic Church” do to you “after you were dead”?
Matthew 10:28 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“And you shall not be afraid of those who kill the body
that are not able to kill the soul;
rather be afraid of him who
can destroy soul and body in Gehenna.”
“what unites these modern states and historic Christianity but their ideological absolutism and totalitarianism?”
I don’t understand the question.
Medieval Europe and North Korea both had humans as rulers.
Humans have on occasion sought to control others to an extreme degree.
“The real enemy of ideological absolutism and totalitarianism, whether religious or atheistic, is the Enlightenment based, secular, libertarian, democratic state”
Do you consider Western European countries to be “Enlightenment based, secular, libertarian, democratic” states?
Do you believe that France will fall to Islam within the next 50 years?
Are we under any obligation to answer any questions or respond to any posts directed towards us?
We are here to have conversations and dialogue. Doesn’t that imply that every word and every exchange in these dialogues should be consensual, a matter of choice, and not obligatory?
Someone can ask another person a very nice question. Very nicely put and very respectfully worded. Still, is the person being asked the question under any obligation or outside compulsion to answer?
A person can just not feel like it. They can want to think about it. They can be too tired. They can be choosing to spend their time elsewhere, whether on the Forum or somewhere else. They can be confused by the question. They may not like the way the question was worded. They can feel bombarded by questions if there are a number of them. They may want some space from the questioner because of the way they have been treated by them in the past. They may have missed a question. They may feel that the questioner is playing out some kind of one-upmanship, saying “look at me, I’m smarter than you” or for any other reason.
There are probably other reasons that a person may choose not to answer a question as well.
We are here to have intelligent dialogue. That includes questions and differences of ideas, opinions, and perspectives. Questions will be asked and answered as well. But shouldn’t every word and every letter that a person chooses to post be a matter of absolute choice and not a matter of outside bullying, obligation, and/or psychological intimidation?
Is it one of the rules here that if someone asks you a question, you have to answer and have to answer imidiately or within a short or specified time frame?
Is this one of the rules, written or implied, of this Forum?
DavidFord said
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Too numerous to mention”
Does anybody reading this care to tell me the URLs to 3 posts containing “intelligent questions posed to” me to which I have not yet responded?
Helen Young said
Are we under any obligation to answer any questions or respond to any posts directed towards us?
We are here to have conversations and dialogue. Doesn’t that imply that every word and every exchange in these dialogues should be consensual, a matter of choice, and not obligatory?
Someone can ask another person a very nice question. Very nicely put and very respectfully worded. Still, is the person being asked the question under any obligation or outside compulsion to answer?
A person can just not feel like it. They can want to think about it. They can be too tired. They can be choosing to spend their time elsewhere, whether on the Forum or somewhere else. They can be confused by the question. They may not like the way the question was worded. They can feel bombarded by questions if there are a number of them. They may want some space from the questioner because of the way they have been treated by them in the past. They may have missed a question. They may feel that the questioner is playing out some kind of one-upmanship, saying “look at me, I’m smarter than you” or for any other reason.
There are probably other reasons that a person may choose not to answer a question as well.
We are here to have intelligent dialogue. That includes questions and differences of ideas, opinions, and perspectives. Questions will be asked and answered as well. But shouldn’t every word and every letter that a person chooses to post be a matter of absolute choice and not a matter of outside bullying, obligation, and/or psychological intimidation?
Is it one of the rules here that if someone asks you a question, you have to answer and have to answer imidiately or within a short or specified time frame?
Is this one of the rules, written or implied, of this Forum?
I would think the only obligation any one of us do have is the courtesy of disciplining our responses and inquiries enough to place them in the appropriate threads and not just post them to whatever thread happens to be at the top of your list of Unread and Recently Updated Topics.
Robert said
Helen Young said
Are we under any obligation to answer any questions or respond to any posts directed towards us?Of course not.
We are here to have conversations and dialogue. Doesn’t that imply that every word and every exchange in these dialogues should be consensual, a matter of choice, and not obligatory?
Of course.
Someone can ask another person a very nice question. Very nicely put and very respectfully worded. Still, is the person being asked the question under any obligation or outside compulsion to answer?
Yet again, of course not.
A person can just not feel like it. They can want to think about it. They can be too tired. They can be choosing to spend their time elsewhere, whether on the Forum or somewhere else. They can be confused by the question. They may not like the way the question was worded. They can feel bombarded by questions if there are a number of them. They may want some space from the questioner because of the way they have been treated by them in the past. They may have missed a question. They may feel that the questioner is playing out some kind of one-upmanship, saying “look at me, I’m smarter than you” or for any other reason.
There are probably other reasons that a person may choose not to answer a question as well.
We are here to have intelligent dialogue. That includes questions and differences of ideas, opinions, and perspectives. Questions will be asked and answered as well. But shouldn’t every word and every letter that a person chooses to post be a matter of absolute choice and not a matter of outside bullying, obligation, and/or psychological intimidation?Yet again, of course.
Is it one of the rules here that if someone asks you a question, you have to answer and have to answer imidiately or within a short or specified time frame?
No.
Is this one of the rules, written or implied, of this Forum?
No. Not sure why you’re asking essentially the same question so many times.
Because it needs to be clearly clarified.
The Forum’s policies and expected conduct need to be stated clearly, and perhaps repeatedly, to ensure complete clarity.
> We are here to have conversations and dialogue.
Yes, and a dialogue generally requires responding to what other people write.
If I recall correctly, I pointed out to you in one of our first exchanges that no one expects everyone to be on hand to answer questions on any given timeline, but when someone asks you a direct question in a thread, and if you then repeatedly refuse to answer it, even while you continue posting to that thread and even directly addressing the poster whose questions you are ignoring, the dialogue eventually stops looking like a dialogue and starts looking like a monologue.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)