The Communist Party

[Theocrat]

Hitler and the "Natural Rights" Hypothesis

This is just absurd. Mass-murder is unacceptable and immoral whether your name is Jesus, Hitler, or NonbelievyMcGodfuck.

Eugenics as it was used by them could very well turn out to be a good thing. As could the drug war, foreign intervention, wealth redistribution, and domestic spying. They're all still unacceptable as they infringe on natural rights, though.

How many Jews and other "non-Aryans" did Hitler murder? I'm sure he was like "It is so immoral for me to kill these inferior creatures, but I just have to do it anyway, even though the whole world may find my actions to be unacceptable." No, that was not Hitler's sentiment. He believed he was doing a moral deed for the good of his society, especially for the Nazi Party. I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever heard of or read a book called Mein Kampf because you seem very ignorant about Hitler's intents to create a national utopia for a particular group of people, namely, the Aryans. His eradication of millions of Jews and other "non-Aryans" was considered a moral deed by most people in his regime, even some Christians, sadly enough. Hitler assumed that he was god of the country (even if he didn't put in those exact terms), and his beliefs influenced his actions to slaughter the innocent. From his moral view, he was not doing an evil thing, and he meant it for good.

One more thing I'd like to touch on is your assertion of "natural rights." There are no "natural rights," for rights are not composed of matter from nature. They are conceptual in essence, universal in application, and invariant in our knowledge of them. Nature does not function in those ways. Now, of course, if your argument is that humans are born with rights "naturally," then I must ask you do these "natural rights" extend to animals, plants, microorganisms, etc.? If so, then I guess we must conclude that we humans violate the "right to life" of microorganisms whenever we scrape our knees, wash our hands, or simply breathe air. Do we violate the "natural rights property" of plants whenever we walk through a forest? These and several other questions must be considered by proponents of the "natural rights" dogma in order to rightly apply it consistently to all living things in our universe. I've not heard a satisfactory defense of this yet.

 

[strapko]

How many Jews and other "non-Aryans" did Hitler murder? I'm sure he was like "It is so immoral for me to kill these inferior creatures, but I just have to do it anyway, even though the whole world may find my actions to be unacceptable." No, that was not Hitler's sentiment. He believed he was doing a moral deed for the good of his society, especially for the Nazi Party. I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever heard of or read a book called Mein Kampf because you seem very ignorant about Hitler's intents to create a national utopia for a particular group of people, namely, the Aryans. His eradication of millions of Jews and other "non-Aryans" was considered a moral deed by most people in his regime, even some Christians, sadly enough. Hitler assumed that he was god of the country (even if he didn't put in those exact terms), and his beliefs influenced his actions to slaughter the innocent. From his moral view, he was not doing an evil thing, and he meant it for good.

One more thing I'd like to touch on is your assertion of "natural rights." There are no "natural rights," for rights are not composed of matter from nature. They are conceptual in essence, universal in application, and invariant in our knowledge of them. Nature does not function in those ways. Now, of course, if your argument is that humans are born with rights "naturally," then I must ask you do these "natural rights" extend to animals, plants, microorganisms, etc.? If so, then I guess we must conclude that we humans violate the "right to life" of microorganisms whenever we scrape our knees, wash our hands, or simply breathe air. Do we violate the "natural rights property" of plants whenever we walk through a forest? These and several other questions must be considered by proponents of the "natural rights" dogma in order to rightly apply it consistently to all living things in our universe. I've not heard a satisfactory defense of this yet.

And you need to explain to me how god split the sea, but never did anything since the bible was written.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

you know..you atheist types really don't understand the motivation or logic of the founders whatsoever. Go read a history book. tones

 

[Theocrat]

How Does That Answer My Post?

And you need to explain to me how god split the sea, but never did anything since the bible was written.

With all due respect, your post is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. This is a standard logical fallacy of those people who can not (or will not) answer the problem(s) or question(s) posed to them. It's called a "red herring" fallacy. Please stick to the discussion. Thank you.

 

[Truth Warrior]

With all due respect, your post is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. This is a standard logical fallacy of those people who can not (or will not) answer the problem(s) or question(s) posed to them. It's called a "red herring" fallacy. Please stick to the discussion. Thank you.

With all due respect, the subject of this thread is The Communist party.

 

[SnappleLlama]

With all due respect, the subject of this thread is The Communist party.

I was thinking this, too. Another thread destroyed.

 

[gls]

Time for some jokes people in the Soviet Union used to tell one another...

A socialist, a capitalist and a communist agreed to meet. The socialist was late. 'Excuse me for being late, I was standing in a queue for sausages.'


'And what is a queue?' the capitalist asked.


'And what is a sausage?' the communist asked.

Why is the Soviet Sun so joyful in the morning ?

Because it knows that by evening it will be in the West.

'Who's your father?' the teacher asked Vovo.


'Comrade Stalin!'


'And who's your mother?'


'The Soviet native land!'


'And what do you want to become?'


'An orphan!'

On Armenian radio there came a question from abroad: 'Is it true that in the USSR the pay does not correspond to the work?


'Incorrect. It corresponds quite well. They pretend to pay and we pretend to work.'

 

[Theocrat]

Bringing It All Back

With all due respect, the subject of this thread is The Communist party.

Yes, and Hitler relates to that because we are discussing how his views of governance in the Nazi Regime relate to the "atheistic" principles espoused in communism, which is the core of the Communist Party. So, the discussion I've brought up is indeed relevant.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, and Hitler relates to that because we are discussing how his views of governance in the Nazi Regime relate to the "atheistic" principles espoused in communism, which is the core of the Communist Party. So, the discussion I've brought up is indeed relevant.

And since you are a Theocrat discussing atheism, that makes the theistic strapko post and question indeed relevant also.

 

[Pennsylvania]

//

 

[Theocrat]

Two Birds, One Stone

And since you are a Theocrat discussing atheism, that makes the theistic strapko post and question indeed relevant also.

Not exactly, TW. We're discussing "atheism" within the context of communism/the Communist Party. Strapko just wanted to take a jab at God and the Bible, while refusing to answer the questions in my post which he quoted himself! That is the issue, my friend.

I'm not attacking your post here: I've heard (I believe it was) Lenin say "Marxism is materialism" so it is probable that he was an Atheist, among with many of his adherents. However, in pure Marxist ideology, I've never heard anything that was inherently tied to the non-existence of God/gods. Perhaps you have an example?

Inherent in Karl Marx's ideas is a lack of respect for God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. This can easily be seen from the ten planks of Marx's "Communist Manifesto:"

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Also, in Marx's "Communist Manifesto," he notes as a criticism to his beliefs that "Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis." This was well understood by those who were citizens and victims under Communistic regimes. For instance, Stalin prohibited churches from charitable ministries and had their buildings turned into museums, believing that churches would become competition to the State for the people's allegiance.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I'm not attacking your post here: I've heard (I believe it was) Lenin say "Marxism is materialism" so it is probable that he was an Atheist, among with many of his adherents. However, in pure Marxist ideology, I've never heard anything that was inherently tied to the non-existence of God/gods. Perhaps you have an example?

Religion is the opium of the masses.
Karl Marx

 

[Pennsylvania]

//

 

[Truth Warrior]

Not exactly, TW. We're discussing "atheism" within the context of communism/the Communist Party. Strapko just wanted to take a jab at God and the Bible, while refusing to answer the questions in my post which he quoted himself! That is the issue, my friend.

EHH. Just tell him that it was a miracle beyond human understanding and comprehension, and move on.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

ehh. just tell him that it was a miracle beyond human understanding and comprehension, and move on. :d

lmao!! :d

 

[revolutionist]

How many Jews and other "non-Aryans" did Hitler murder? I'm sure he was like "It is so immoral for me to kill these inferior creatures, but I just have to do it anyway, even though the whole world may find my actions to be unacceptable." No, that was not Hitler's sentiment. He believed he was doing a moral deed for the good of his society, especially for the Nazi Party. I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever heard of or read a book called Mein Kampf because you seem very ignorant about Hitler's intents to create a national utopia for a particular group of people, namely, the Aryans. His eradication of millions of Jews and other "non-Aryans" was considered a moral deed by most people in his regime, even some Christians, sadly enough. Hitler assumed that he was god of the country (even if he didn't put in those exact terms), and his beliefs influenced his actions to slaughter the innocent. From his moral view, he was not doing an evil thing, and he meant it for good.

You are saying that hitler thought that the eradication was "moral," but morality is not covered in the NAP. Force is. Hitler knew that what he was doing is force. The definition of force is pretty cut and dry.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

What is nap? tones

 

[revolutionist]

What is nap? tones

Non Aggression Principle

 

[strapko]

How many Jews and other "non-Aryans" did Hitler murder? I'm sure he was like "It is so immoral for me to kill these inferior creatures, but I just have to do it anyway, even though the whole world may find my actions to be unacceptable." No, that was not Hitler's sentiment. He believed he was doing a moral deed for the good of his society, especially for the Nazi Party. I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever heard of or read a book called Mein Kampf because you seem very ignorant about Hitler's intents to create a national utopia for a particular group of people, namely, the Aryans. His eradication of millions of Jews and other "non-Aryans" was considered a moral deed by most people in his regime, even some Christians, sadly enough. Hitler assumed that he was god of the country (even if he didn't put in those exact terms), and his beliefs influenced his actions to slaughter the innocent. From his moral view, he was not doing an evil thing, and he meant it for good.

One more thing I'd like to touch on is your assertion of "natural rights." There are no "natural rights," for rights are not composed of matter from nature. They are conceptual in essence, universal in application, and invariant in our knowledge of them. Nature does not function in those ways. Now, of course, if your argument is that humans are born with rights "naturally," then I must ask you do these "natural rights" extend to animals, plants, microorganisms, etc.? If so, then I guess we must conclude that we humans violate the "right to life" of microorganisms whenever we scrape our knees, wash our hands, or simply breathe air. Do we violate the "natural rights property" of plants whenever we walk through a forest? These and several other questions must be considered by proponents of the "natural rights" dogma in order to rightly apply it consistently to all living things in our universe. I've not heard a satisfactory defense of this yet.

About the mass murder part relating to Hitler: Throughout the bible "god" killed a bunch of people, way more then Hitler(how do you know god wasn't talking to Hitler like he did to moses?) About the natural rights part and moralness of humans without gods rights part; this question is to long to answer and there is a lot of philosophy written about this.

Now... this is where my question is relevant, are you ready? Ok here goes: You asked a question, I quoted you and replied with a question of my own; so ill tell you what is going to happen, I am going to play the I cannot answer your question card; you though! Mr. Enlightened person answer mine, because your job is now to prove what you claim and know to be TRUTH.

1) Why are there so many miracles, supernatural stuff ex: Virgin birth, resurrection, global flooding, Animals on a boat, splitting of seas and yet since the bible was written NOT ONE miracle happened since the bible was written, it is like god all of a sudden died and stopped existing and said: "you know what, they got a book on me now, no point splitting seas rofl lol lol. God in the bible was a very active being, I guess he lost his touch since the bible dropped.

2) 2nd flaw, you claim in order for society to be saved or be prosperous people need to follow the Bible; well we see the flaw here... like the Constitution the bible means nothing if people do not follow it. Which is funny, when presidents claim to uphold the constitution and also claim to be christian and they don't uphold either. If everyone followed the founding documents of this country America would be once again prosperous, and the bible wouldn't be needed.