jryan
-
Posts
750 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jryan
-
-
Hitler was not a believer in God in any meaningful way. His "faith" was in the Aryan ideal superman. It was like a form of humanism in which the only humans were Aryans.
His private journals there seems to be little if any belief in an actual God.
He was also in to a religious form Scientism in which science and natural order were the defining goals of humanity, as displayed in some of the quotes above.
Claiming Hitler believed in God puts too much weight on public proclamations which in all other ways were demonstrably a calculated lie on his part.
0 -
Interesting."We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922(Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
This also has some information about this 'hitler was an atheist' myth: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1417
And more places. If you insist, I'll look 'em up.
~moo
So you tell me. Would Hitler lie in a private journal about the scourge of Christianity and tell the truth publicly about his love of Christianity?
“…the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61
“It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61
“In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 6
“Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145
“As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 394
“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 418
“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 75-76
“When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145
“Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 343-344
“Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 146
“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 322
“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7
“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 144
“It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 314
“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7
“We must recognise, of course, that, amongst us, Christianity is coloured by Germanism.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 46
“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 62
“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 51
“By nature the Duce is a freethinker, but he decided to choose the path of concessions. For my part, in his place I’d have taken the path of revolution. I’d have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out—reserving the right to apologise later: “Excuse me, it was a mistake.” But the result would have been, they’d have been outside!” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145
“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59
“But, even so, it’s impossible eternally to hold humanity in bondage with lies. After all, it was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed on our peoples by princes who had an alliance of interests with the shavelings. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 143
“Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 667 (Talk about Islamo-fascism!)
“The priests of antiquity were closer to nature, and they sought modestly for the meaning of things. Instead of that, Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force. Such a religion carries within it intolerance and persecution. It’s the bloodiest conceivable.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 322-323
“One cannot succeed in conceiving how much cruelty, ignominy and falsehood the intrusion of Christianity has spelt for this world of ours. If the misdeeds of Christianity were less serious in Italy, that’s because the people of Rome, having seen them at work, always knew exactly the worth of the Popes before whom Christendom prostrated itself.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 288
“With what clairvoyance the authors of the eighteenth, and especially those of the past, century criticised Christianity and passed judgment on the evolution of the Churches!” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 88
“When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59
“The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their successes, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393
“This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393
“It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn’t facilitate our exercise of power…. I’m convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pp. 58-59
“It is to these private customs that peoples owe their present characters. Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 60
I suggest you read the book I linked to before you start taking Dawkins word for anything. It is certainly an inconvenient text for Dawkins anti-Christian dogma... but it's very real.
Also, that "Christianity couldn't content itself.." quote doesn't sound very Christian or religious. It actually reads, as many of my quotes read, like something Dawkins would write.
For Hitler the heathen altars were what he wanted. His cult was the deification of Aryan men.
0 -
I agree, it is more complicated than that. I was just trying to point out it wasn't just Clinton who was pushing the production of the f-22 and f-35. It seems the article you cited says the same thing. Although, I will concede it was mainly Clinton who did push the f-35. Sorry for the implied rudeness, it was more an attempt to prod you to present an opposing argument because I love debate but again I apologize.
Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts mergedOh you are right Jryan
If you take the number from 1983 though debt by dollars,
1,371 billion
GDP that year was 3,441 billion
3.4/1.3 = 0.39 and that is 39% debt per GDP, so infact you were right that the numbers are debt growth, but when you do the math, the debt per GDP was even worse.
So I apologize for misreading those numbers and I take credit for that mistake, but thanks for pointing it out because it strengthened the point.
Reagan 1983 increase in debt per GDP by 39%
Obama increase in debt per GDP by 11%
You nee dto recheck your numbers and conclusions there, Mr. Womble. Your still not comparing the same things.
0 -
We have all heard about Crashtheteaparty.org by now.
The most famous of these supposed racist outbursts happened at the steps of the Capitol where Tea Party activists supposedly shouted racial and sexual slurs at Congressman as they went to sign the health care bill. These accusations quickly vanished into the ether after CNN reviewed all the tape they had and found no such slurs hurled, and the spitting to be accidental.
Given that this group exists, and claims to have operatives at all events, and major accusations have been found to be baseless, how reliable do you consider the evidence to be out there of racist signs and shouts at the Tea Party rallies?
0 -
Can you start a thread on that, jryan? I've been pondering it myself and I think it's worth a discussion of its own.
Sure! I gotta run for a while, but I can get the ball rolling.
0 -
Screed? Look at what you just wrote, jryan... pot. kettle. black.
It was smart of you to ignore the part about the plots that were uncovered that cast strong doubt on all of your photographic evidence. Calling foul on the "screed" comment was your only plausible defense.
Edit: But since you have built a considerable amount of writing haranguing Tea Parties, it would qualify as a screed. So you lose there, too.
If you don't like it then take it up with crashtheteaparty.org. They are the ones that have been fooling you.
0 -
I wouldn't mind it if he were water boarded.
0 -
Ah I am glad you brought that up Jryan let us compare the first year of Obama (11% increase) to some of the individual years by Reagan for example
1983 15% increase in debt per GDP
1985 12.3% increase in debt per GDP
1986 13.9% increase in debt per GDP
All three of these years Reagan, posted a higher increase in debt than Obama has in his first year.
Maybe Jryan you should take a look at the links before you make a misinformed comment like the one above?
That isn't Debt/GDP that is debt growth.
0 -
As a quick response, the 11% is not comparable to the any of those numbers by year as all of them are for 4 year stretches. His numbers won't look very good if the economy doesn't do an about face in the next 12 months. He could hit 20% in just two years.
0 -
The number of death threats against Obama is 400% higher than the number Bush had:
Just sayin'.
The secret service has corrected that misconception:
Secret Service: Threats against Obama no higher than normal
Just sayin'
Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts mergedOh really Pangloss, do we have to go back and forth putting words in each others mouth? I guess we do...So you're saying no conservative protesters have ever done anything like that to Obama... like made death threats...
Comparisons to Hitler...
Burned him in effigy...
Really?
No Pangloss, actually what I said was this...
Still waiting...
The funny thing is, bascule, we have hard evidence that there are liberal front groups out their posing as conservatives and displaying hate speech. So you lose. We can not rely on your evidence as PRO-OBAMA supporters have tainted it.
Go complain to them for screwing up your screed.
0 -
Here's a compilation of "riled up masses"... it seems that if the GOP wants to match liberal anger they have a lot of work to do:
0 -
I think it's fair to say that nazi propaganda portrayed Jews as
1 sub humans and
2 a different religious group.
They also showed the "Aryan" race as superhuman and they attributed this AFIIK to God's will.
#2 is not safe to say. The Nazi opposition to Jews was entirely due to #1 as Hitler hated Christianity just as much as Judaism. In fact he found Christianity to be the more damaging of the two, as religions go. You can see from Hitler's personal writings what he thought of Christianity:
“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.” -It's a fascinating book, in a very chilling way.
0 -
Why can't I choose to believe in an absolute morality that makes it morally correct for me to behave one way and others to behave another way?
I'm sure you can. But can you name one instance where that is the case? It's one of the underlying reasons why I asked the question, actually. I can't think of a hard communal moral code that doesn't ask that all people operate within the same guidelines.
0 -
I don't understand this part. What does morality being relative have to do with hypocrisy? If there's an inconsistency, that's hypocrisy. If there isn't, there isn't. What difference would it make whether or not one believes there is an objective external truth in morality?
My point is that there never has to be an inconsistency when you are defining the rules yourself. If you are setting the moral rules then saying others should behave one way while you behave another is not hypocritical if you simply believe it's morally correct for others to behave differently than you do.
0 -
I always liked the Woody Allen line from "Love and Death": "A great Philosophers once said that sex without love is an empty experience.... but as empty experiences go it's probably at the top..."
My religion teaches that sexual pleasure without allowing the possibility of procreation is immoral.
I find that both compelling and hard to follow.
Most of human troubles revolve around actions that abdicate responsibility in the pursuit of personal pleasure. Drug use, alcohol use, recreational sex... all hold the promise of controllability and easy pleasure, but usually all of them end up biting most people, and most people drift away from such cheap pleasures as they get older and wiser.
So my faith tries to impose wisdom before I am wise but accepts that I will fail in meeting the goal, and will one day see the wisdom.
Now that I am getting into middle age I am seeing many of the people in my life that I used to carouse with in my youth either leaving that lifestyle behind, dying from the abuse of one or more of those easy pleasures, or living a rather pathetic life, unwilling to grow up and wondering how they got to the age they were having failed to find meaning in their lives.
0 -
I have a quick question that I think may lead to an interesting discussion. As the title sayd, it is the connection between atheism, moral relativism and hypocrisy.
First, I wonder with it is possible to be morally hypocritical as a moral relativist. I would argue it is not since morality is relative, a person need only have an explanation for their personal contradiction and internally they are again morally sound.
Second, I wonder what effect atheism has on moral relativism and individual moral course corrections.
I realize that the first most obvious discussion would lead toward humanism, which is a secular moral philosophy. But I do wonder how much sway Humanism actually has anymore with atheists in general. I have seen a drift in atheism away from Humanism and towards Environmentalism (as a philosophy of Environmental needs superseding Humanity's needs).
So I guess the set of questions would be:
1) As an atheist do you see a higher moral authority than yourself?
2) If no, how do you regulate your own moral compass? Also, do you think it is possible for you to be hypocritical?
3) Do you lean towards Humanism or Environmentalism? Do you have examples for when you would choose Humanist goals and when you would choose the environment?
0 -
Atheism also gives me the freedom to decide for myself about morality. I don't need to take someone's word for it that people who eat shellfish are evil.
In the same way, it would be difficult for anyone to convince me that some group of people were "subhuman" and could legitimately be wiped out. On the other hand if I thought that their destruction was God's will then I might well kill them.
This sounds good but isn't really compelling when viewed historically.
Most of the greatest atrocities in the 20th century were done after ridding the communities of religion. Chirstianity worked well for Hitler in the 20s when his primary goals were to make everyone think that Germany had strong moral character.... but as you read the writings of Hitler and his henchment as they approached their violent uprising you see that either as a pragmatic or preexisting condition the Nazis loathed Christianity, and could only justify their terrors with a wholly anti-Christian dogma.
Likewise Communism shut down the Churches in all countries where it found root and were all decidedly atheistic movements.
That isn't to say that atheists are all Nazis or communists... but I would question the intrinsic value of deciding your own moral code as it is a prone to abuse as religious code -- which at least, when used for nefarious purposes, can be said to be hypocritical.
Which brings up another interesting topic that I will start a new thread for...
0 -
However, per the thread topic, it's not my understanding (or lack thereof) of papal infallibility about which you need to worry. It's the understanding (or lack thereof) among the members of the court.
I would guess that the Catholic Supreme Court Justices, being that they are actually Catholic, understand Papal Infallibility.
0 -
You've asked a truly interesting question, however, a large part of me wonders if there is a more pertinent one... Do the justices place the infallibility of their constitution at a higher priority than the infallibility of their pope, and if not, how will (can/does/has) that impact their rulings on cases brought before them?
You misunderstand "Papal Infallibility".. but that's not a knock on you, most people don't understand it and give it more importance than intended.
Oddly enough, Papal Infallibility has only been used twice in the history of the Church. In both cases it was used to defend liberalization measures in the Church (Vatican Council 1 and 2).
0 -
No reason to go that route on a throw away comment.
Just vote him out.
0 -
Is it just the 1% that separates the compassionate, caring, loyal, positive thinking, hard-working father and husband who likes giving back to his community from the brutal, selfish, promiscuous, dishonest crack dealer who beats his wife and kids? Is the "nature" of those two guys really the same?
That's a fine question that I don't think anybody really wants to discuss honestly. We are a culture of redemption, but accepting a difference in "nature" between the just and the wicked would lead one to believe that redemption may not be possible.
0 -
No, but I see the laying of the transcontinental railroad, transcontinental telegraph lines, and transatlantic telegraph lines as progress. There was certainly plenty of progress happening at the same time which fundamentally altered human behavior. We no longer needed a pony express to get messages across the country quickly. We could use electricity instead.
It's interesting you mention that since the railroad and telegraph would not have been possible without the "pacification" of the West... and the need for the railroad would not have existed without the subjugation of the western tribes.
Note that I also share the view of the railroads and cities as good things. But they were only possible and necessary through the employ of our baser human instincts.
The "not all is progress" attitude is pretty common among postmodernists. This culminated in the atomic bomb, which so far has remained mankind's ultimate achievement which is considered counterprogressive by postmodernists.I think we are confusing behavior with human nature. While I think it is possible to see a nominal sway in the aggregate human behavior, I don't ever consider it permanent and for all sways to the negative a positive ill follow, and vise versa. This current stint of a few decades does nothing to change my mind on that.
I certainly recognize that along with technological progress comes ways to use it counterproductively and destructively. With great power comes great responsibility.While the Spiderman quote is appropriate and "true", in practice I find far more evidence for the counter to that: "Power Corrupts".
Indeed, the current progressive movement in the US and Europe is decidedly COUNTER to the notion of responsibility, and directly contributing to a growth in state power. The eventual outcome of such a movement should not come as a surprise.
0 -
The point was that we have indeed changed sociologically, as evidenced by us not killing each other nearly as much.
Did you watch the video, or just read the summary blurb? Pinker is not just talking about wars but about violent deaths in general, so global (de)militarization is not the sole factor here.
I did watch it. I even want to believe it. But I can't. Even Pinker must qualify it with "possibly".
I guess I would need to read his study as I also have serious reservations about his ability to even quantify the claims he makes about general violence in the modern world much less any time in recorded history... let alone the prehistoric era... which is the majority of man's existence.
As such it seems like a feel good and a pat on the back that we aren't even sure we deserve.
0 -
We've gone from a species of hunter gatherers to farmers to network-connected city dwellers. I'm not sure what else there is to discuss if you can't recognize this simple fact. Science has revolutionized our lives.
I think you are missing my point. I have never said that we have not advanced technologically but we have not advanced sociologically.
I mean, for example, would you see the conquering of Native Americans, or Africans in the 1800s as progress? It was done through better technology, after all. Those cultures where the conquering Western culture took root now thrive unlike the areas where it didn't. Was that progress? Is the end of Western Empirical powers a regression? Have we shown that third world nations can progress without the seed of Empire?
Also, on another front, ancient societies grew at a pace that their technology allowed... as we improved our ability to survive extremes, humanity moved from the warmer areas of the world to inhabit harsher climates, or adapt to harsher climates visited on us. Is this boom in human population a real change in human nature, or humanity's ongoing effort to bend nature to humans? I don't see this as a change from Ancient Egypt, or Mesopotamia, or Greece. It is technological growth, but it is still predicated on the same human behavior we see present in ancient humans tanning animal hides to keep them warm in colder climates.
It is a progression of innovation, but not of human nature, which has always been innovative.
Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts mergedhttp://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.htmlTake a look. Interesting talk.
It is interesting, but not entirely honest, I don't think. Oddly, I would argue that Iraq is a poor choice for "horrors", while Darfur may be appropriate. But your underlying assumption is faulty, I think. Since I and Dr. Pinker agree on the idea that global violence is variable, and that we are living today is "probably the most peaceful time in history", do you assume then that this will continue? I harbor no such belief.
I would argue that population growth as global militarization are the primary contributors to this peace. Increased population and more efficient weapons have greatly reduced the number of men needed to wage war and pinpoint enemies... and reduce the number of dead as a result. But that doesn't stop war. It makes it cleaner, I suppose..
But even then, as seems to be a trend in human history, we are so sure of our naturally peaceful future that the peace loving nations of the west are disarming and ridding ourselves of the very tools we have used to ensure this short reprieve from more globalized violence.
As such, I think we will be lucky to make a full 100 years without another large scale global war breaking out again.
Edit: By the way, such optimism also existed at the turn of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries... and surely numerous other short breaks in history.
0
Liberal Groups seeks to defame Tea Party
in Politics
Posted · Edited by jryan
Somehow it's gone from reporting a mans claim, and providing evidence of liberal interference at the events, and the lack of corroboration of the most publicized outburst to me spreading misinformation?
The actual disinformation of this subject comes form you, bascule. You spend a considerable amount of effort posting photos reportedly from tea party rallies that you then use to justify your accusations against the tea party movement as a whole. Your accusation that I am spreading misinformation is what they call in Psychology "projection".
What untruths would those be, bascule?
And you find some photos on a liberal blog of people holding up signs and to you that is concrete evidence.
Hahahahah!