The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

[A rope leash]

Welcome to the pile on!

"Actully, the communists do."

Thanks for pointing this out again, Laughingcow. Check out my response to it back on page four or 5ive. Maybe I should have said "Western history..."!

Yes, the commies are ruthless bastards that hate god and religion. It has nothing to do with the scam nature of many religions, people like the red Chinese are just evil. (sarcasm detectors on, please) Never mind that they've been in the civilization business for about ten times as long as we have. As far as I know, there aren't any piled up Christian bodies...as I've asked before, is there any evidence you can link me to that validates the claim that communists kill Christians on a regular basis simply for being Christian? Did the Soviets do this? I am aware of churches being outlawed and shut down, but not of any holocaust of god-believers.

But, yeah ya got me and ya got me good. Now, these evil atheist countries have supressed god and stifled his representatives. What has god done to smite them? Give them our jobs?

I'm not much for ruthless dictatorships, but if all men are equal, then so are all cultures. The Russians and the Chinese have been around and will stay around, apparently without the "necessity" of religion. You can say that communism supressed religion, but there wasn't any bloody war over it. Anyone can have a "relationship with god", it doesn't take a church, so any true believer would have went silent under the oppression, yet would have kept his heart aware.

Communism is not really a form of government so much as it is an economic system, one that tends to leave a lot of power in a very few hands. What should be said is that after they were put in power by popular revolutions, atheist communist dictators shut down religion in places like Russia and China, and no one complained much. I'm sure there are stories of priests and monks tortured to death by evil communists (please link me) but I don't think we are speaking of anything approaching the sort of wholesale genocide found in such western historical bygones as The Crusades, Manifest Destiny, or the Nazi exterminations.

Our current cultural excursions by force are tainted with the bitterness of Jews and Christians occupying and fighting Muslims. By some estimates, our sanctions and wars against Iraq have killed more than a million Iraqis. That's a million Muslims who died because of the militaristic meddlings of a "Christian nation". Compare this to communist suppression of religion, and a little Tibetian knock-down doesn't seem so awful.

Okay, don't get me wrong, I'm not apolgozing for despots. Freedom means y'all can believe whatever you wish. It does not, however, mean you should be allowed to proceed with a scam...and that, as I understand it, is part of the reasoning behind the shutdown of religion in communist countries. I don't think communists are inherently evil, and I don't think they are worried much about religion usurping their power, and I pretty much know they are not actively engaged in any war with the religious. They just want a peaceful culture, like anyone else. As atheists, they see that religion can lead to stupid shit like suicide bombs and abortion clinic shoot 'em ups. Yep, they probably go a bit overboard sometimes in denouncing it, but there aren't exactly hoardes of believers out there protesting about it, either. I imagine it's a bit like the drug war over here...it doesn't really stop anyone from doing what they really want to do if they really want to do it.

But, yeah, I misspoke. If it's a choice between the stake or the rack, I'll take the rack...

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, there is some residual distaste over Theocrat... it wasn't meant towards you. I have no problem with most of what teachers say... honestly... I like the public education system, and I like diversity. As long as there remains a certain criteria in science and math. I would welcome with an open heart, creationism in American Mythology 101 or something of that nature. When I mention tax money, I am mostly referring to the Unconstitutional promotion of protestantism through Faith-based Initiatives, making jail-programs and bible programs, and giving churches money to do this... unacceptable.

Ah. Well I'm totally against the whole "faith based initiatives" thing too, though possibly for different reasons. I believe when churches take money from the government they become beholden to the government. I do think that independent churches do have a very positive effect when they get involved in such things. I've seen hardened criminals soften after receiving Bible studies. But churches should be willing to do that for free. You know, the whole "great is thy reward in heaven" thing. If people want to donate their own money to the cause great. Another reason why we should be allowed to keep more of our own money.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[sophocles07]

That's one of the reasons our nation is so screwed up. First the little kiddies are taught about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, then later it's Allah, Jehovah, Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith, Jesus, Krishna, or Hashem. At some point, it's Big Brother, George Washington and his Cherry Tree (but no mention of the Constitution), Abraham Lincoln and what a demi-god he was, how the we are to obey the authorities as Romans 13 tells us, and to always trust your doctor and don't ask him what that stuff is he's about to inject into you.

Don’t forget Johnny Appleseed.

Yeah, they are provided, almost without exception, with empty gods. It’s fucking astounding to what extent this is true in a society where information is everywhere.

It's not just schools, preachers, and parents... it's the whole "dumbing down" system that has brought us to where we are. If I ever were to have kids (it's a little late for me now), the first thing I would teach them is TRUST NOBODY! Don't believe them. Don't believe TV. Research everything yourself, apply logic and common sense, make up your own mind and live the best life you can, and always strive to educate YOURSELF! Keep asking "why?"

If schools could provide something similar to a classical education—which produces the best kind of minds, those critical and zealous in desire to learn and know things (see Jefferson’s model for Virginia University curriculum)—and on a very wide basis so that it would be widespread, instead of this make-shift, half-assed education we today slosh into kids’ heads, a lot of this “dumbing down” could be wiped out or at least combated. But—“alas!”—it seems too far gone to re-institute properly.

(no, not drugs)

Oh, you gotta include drugs.

If I were to ever catch a teacher or some other "authority figure" adult teaching my kid "there is no God" or "there is a God", or "you'll burn in hell if you don't believe right", or "you are going to be worm food when you die" as though any of these propositions were fact, and do so to the point that the kid starts to lose his sense of reasoning for himself, well that "teacher" would sure catch hell from me.

I recall a teacher decorating her room with American-flag posters which contained assorted Biblical quotations during my time in high school (about 6-10 yrs ago). I felt entirely out of place. The problem is, the overall attitude of idiocy in the context resulted in no one even being aware—because they were all, presumably, Christians—of the problems inherent in such a display (and I include in this problem the issue of the outright tackiness and McDonald’s-Protestant fossilized aesthetic of the posters themselves).

 

[A rope leash]

Communist religious oppression

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_china.htm

This link talks about China's "war on religion". What a bunch of assholes! They do see it as a "war on drugs"!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_russi0.htm

Russia is still quite "religious", despite Stalin.

http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm




I learned a lot, thanks!

 

[Theocrat]

What Amazes Me

Except that people like you continue to treat Atheists like shit... I don't see the stupidity you talk about... unless you are referring to the posts by Theocrat.

It amazes me how offended people get when it is themselves who are questioned for intolerance.

I find it very hilarious and hypocritical how "atheists" protest so dogmatically and religiously against the ideas and philosophies of a theistic worldview when they claim they don't believe in a God in the first place.

For instance, I absolutely do not believe in fairies, but I don't label myself an "afairian" or something like that. Why? Because it doesn't matter to me whether fairies exist or not. Their existence or lack thereof is not contingent upon my being nor the way I reason and emote. Yet, I find that so many "atheists" spend so much time trying to debunk theism, in general, and even more, Christianity, in particular when it would just be silly in the first place to do so if God doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist, then why argue and debate against His existence to begin with? Yet, I find "atheists" continue to battle theists over the existence of God, using logic, appealing to science, and indicting theists by arbitrary standards of morality.

This, to me, bewrays the "atheist" that in their heart of hearts, they really do believe in God because their materialistic worldview cannot account for in any objective way universal, invariant, abstract entities such as laws of logic, standards of morality, and the use of induction to make scientific judgments. In other words, "atheists" have to steal these immaterial, metaphysical entities from a theistic worldview in order to use them against the theists to make a case for "atheism."

A renown theologian and philosopher back in the 20th Century once stated that "atheist" claims and arguments against God are similar to an "atheist" sitting in the lap of God in order to slap Him in the face, and I think that's a pretty accurate picture of what an "atheist" does each time he speaks against the God Who created him. You see, the "atheistic" worldview must assume God's existence in order to try to disprove His existence, in the end. In short, "atheism" presupposes theism.

 

[sophocles07]

For instance, I absolutely do not believe in fairies, but I don't label myself an "afairian" or something like that. Why? Because it doesn't matter to me whether fairies exist or not. Their existence or lack thereof is not contingent upon my being nor the way I reason and emote.

This is not a proper analogy.

Atheism is the rejection of a god or gods. This is a major metaphysical issue. Whether fairies exist or not is a matter of whether certain material phenomenon manifest themselves in the world. It would merely be another species of some sort.

Unless we’re talking about some god-like or demi-god like fairies; in that case atheism would cover disbelief in fairies.

Either way, the analogy is ridiculous.

Yet, I find that so many "atheists" spend so much time trying to debunk theism, in general, and even more, Christianity, in particular when it would just be silly in the first place to do so if God doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist, then why argue and debate against His existence to begin with?

Um...because religious fanatics would thereby be dying for fantasies, influencing major world political, social, psychological, etc etc situations based on fantases/illusions.

If we could establish that God does not exist, we could get down to some actual human interaction; undogmatic, rational interaction.

It’s like if malaria was ravishing two thirds of the populace and a relatively small group tried to point it out to them for their own good, and the general good. Would it be useless to reveal a fact of the situation which could alleviate suffering and promote the well-being of the community?

I would hope you’d say no.

Yet, I find "atheists" continue to battle theists over the existence of God, using logic, appealing to science, and indicting theists by arbitrary standards of morality.

You have above (apparently) done away with:

1. Logic. (You are aware the syntax of the Bible operates in a logical way, correct? Even this fact should bloom out into some sort of justified rational world-view.)
2. Science (i.e., observation of actual phenomenon and their development, and logical deduction based therein).
3. “Arbitrary standards of morality”. I don’t know what this means, and that’s probably because it doesn’t make any sense. (see Old Testament for actual arbitrary morality.)

This, to me, bewrays the "atheist" that in their heart of hearts, they really do believe in God because their materialistic worldview cannot account for in any objective way universal, invariant, abstract entities such as laws of logic, standards of morality, and the use of induction to make scientific judgments. In other words, "atheists" have to steal these immaterial, metaphysical entities from a theistic worldview in order to use them against the theists to make a case for "atheism."

I’ve responded to this at length in the thread you created on questions for Agnostics/Atheists. You have not responded except to say (quite illogically) “Can chemicals reason and emote in and of themselves in your naturalistic/materialistic worldview, sophocles?”

Here was my original reply to your “queries” on “abstract entities”:

Many believe moral and ethical systems exist innately in man much like the ability to communicate through language is innate. That is, the concepts are not, or should not be, abstracted from their literal manifestations in human action. Meaning: the reaction to something, such as murder or what have you (not homosexuality or something really only based in prejudice or dogma), will produce itself in an individual as saying “this is wrong.” This feeling can be suppressed in favor of other pleasures—much of the time, as Nietzsche says somewhere, the conscience is suppressed by memory in order to attain a pleasure that is got by immoral ways (not unlike the current folk in the Bush administration, you could say). But the fact that it is suppressed is not an argument against the initial, ethical response “being there.”

So “notions of rights, justice, liberty, etc.” are not “nonphysical entities,” just the same as 2+2=4 is not: You can of course “think” of this equation; but it has no meaning (or use) outside of its application and material existence.

And whether or not these moral and ethical abilities exist innately in humans is really not the argument; the fact is that, like the mathematical—and really any thought—is “immaterial” or “nonphysical” according to your definition, it is of no meaning and no use apart from its physical manifestations. So even if man self-created human rights, the concepts are still only abstractions insofar as they have been “taken out” (abstracted) from physical conditions.

(Mathematics itself refutes your idea that without a god no abstract entities or ideals can exist; but above is a longer string of possibilities.)

A renown theologian and philosopher back in the 20th Century once stated that "atheist" claims and arguments against God are similar to an "atheist" sitting in the lap of God in order to slap Him in the face, and I think that's a pretty accurate picture of what an "atheist" does each time he speaks against the God Who created him. You see, the "atheistic" worldview must assume God's existence in order to try to disprove His existence, in the end. In short, "atheism" presupposes theism.

In short, your face probably (if physical characteristics in any way mirror the mind) resembles a very hairy, slightly turdy asshole.

 

[Macon GA]

A rope leash,

Check this out: http://chinaaid.org/2008/02/18/21-m...t-to-labor-camp-in-shandong-at-the-same-time/

Also, I would not exactly call the good old USA a Christian nation any longer. Most professing "Christians" are little more than that. Bush is a prime example. We are not in the Iraq War killing people because we are a "Christian" nation and they are Muslims. We are killing them for their oil. The strongest is winner and takes all (Evolution perhaps????).

We think a barrel of oil is more important than an Iraqi life. This ought to tell you that our nation is in fact not Christian. The fact that we allow millions of babies to be murdered legally, and doctors are paid for doing it, should point to the fact that we are not a "Christian" nation.

I am not sure that God is rewarding the communistic Chinese with our jobs. Perhaps He is pouring out His judgment on our nation, who claims to be Christian, but is most definitely not.

And how about evolutionists? Hitler was one. The logical result of that theory is survival of the fittest.... I see the effects of this across America. If we are little more than animals, evolved from monkeys, why not behave like animals? There can most definitely not be any moral standards, as relativism rules the day. Every man and woman become their own gods and do what they deem to be moral in their own eyes....so who are we to condemn Hitler, or Dahmer, or Manson? After all, they were just surviving.... Isn't that what animals do?

 

[A rope leash]

Religious malformations

The USA may not be a "Chrisitan nation", although a lot of Christians where I live like to call it that...but it is ruled by people who almost to a one are calling themselves Christians. I've never understood why more Chrisitians aren't socialists...that's the real "love your brother" system.

Why don't we all just go back to being animals? Well, supposedly we evolved above that, but we are still animals for the most part. Religion isn't keeping people from doing wrong or immoral things, as far as I can tell. Life still boils down to the survival of the fittest, or in the case of modern civilization, survival of the well-connected. I don't think we can say that Hitler or Dahmer were just trying to survive. We can say that they put some pretty immoral practices into play for their own jollies, and when men of good character were confronted with it, they did the right thing. They would have done this in the absence of religion, as well, if only for their own safety.

Every living creature has a will to live. This is vital to the survival of the species. Getting along and letting others get along insures survival much more than killing one another does, so most of mankind works naturally torward a peaceful existence. However, religion is often used as a cloak as well as an excuse for bad behavior. In all of the discussion here, much of what has been said has applied to the actions of men, not gods. Some men may require a phantom god to keep them morally in lline, but by and large, it isn't working.

Did you know that tornados are found primarily in the Bible Belt of the USA? They are virtually unheard of elsewhere on the planet. Did a god do this, or is it just a quirk of chaos?

 

[beachmaster]

Did you know that tornados are found primarily in the Bible Belt of the USA? They are virtually unheard of elsewhere on the planet. Did a god do this, or is it just a quirk of chaos?

I used to wonder about that when I was a believer. I also pondered later as an unbeliever, why all of those praying family members in West Virginia a couple of years ago who were meeting in church every night praying for the safe delivery of their kin who were trapped in that mine had all of their prayers unanswered and their hopes dashed when the dreadful news came out that they all died (except one I think)... and how many of them were able to continue justifying their faith. Didn't Jesus say "ask any thing in my name and it will be done"? I do recall reading later that several of those people did in fact lose their faith after that tragedy.

Those were die hard believers praying for their family. Where was their god? Why did Jesus' words about asking something in his name turn out to have no effect at all on the outcome? I'd heard all of the answers to these types of questions before and they just don't satisfy. Answers like "they didn't pray in faith", or "God did answer them, but the answer was NO!", and lots of other attempts to justify why God doesn't answer people's prayers in line with what the bible says.

That's not the sole reason I became an unbeliever, but it was one of the reasons. There were dozens more reasons for me.

I will say that ever since I became a non-believer, I continue to have that "still small voice", which now I attribute to my "higher self", rightfully or not.

 

[sophocles07]

And how about evolutionists? Hitler was one. The logical result of that theory is survival of the fittest.... I see the effects of this across America.

I always find it ridiculous when anyone attempts to apply a theory of species to inter-species relations.

Is it in the interests of the human species to tear each other apart attempting to “get rich” or whatever other little snide goal “social Darwinism” could come up with?

It’s obvious to anyone who takes a look at this for a minute that cooperation among the population of the species insures, to the greatest extent that we can harness natural selection, that we stay put on earth. REASON should be our greatest tool for not being wiped out; meaning: it is LOGICAL to cooperate.

If we are little more than animals, evolved from monkeys, why not behave like animals?

Why not “act” like a sperm cell or a fetus? Because you’re not that anymore; you’re an adult.

We didn’t evolve from monkeys, that’s not the theory.

There can most definitely not be any moral standards, as relativism rules the day. Every man and woman become their own gods and do what they deem to be moral in their own eyes....so who are we to condemn Hitler, or Dahmer, or Manson? After all, they were just surviving.... Isn't that what animals do?

If every man makes his own morals (which he doesn’t, but if he did) he has every right to condemn Hitler, etc. As Nietzsche says it is the MAN OF POWER who enforces his vision on the world; that is, you have an obligation as a human being to define and judge, not only individual men, but reality itself.

But, I also think there is a lot for the argument that man has an innate ethical sense, as with language. So let’s not get too far into “moral relativism.”

 

[Kade]

A rope leash,

Check this out: http://chinaaid.org/2008/02/18/21-m...t-to-labor-camp-in-shandong-at-the-same-time/

Also, I would not exactly call the good old USA a Christian nation any longer. Most professing "Christians" are little more than that. Bush is a prime example. We are not in the Iraq War killing people because we are a "Christian" nation and they are Muslims. We are killing them for their oil. The strongest is winner and takes all (Evolution perhaps????).

We think a barrel of oil is more important than an Iraqi life. This ought to tell you that our nation is in fact not Christian. The fact that we allow millions of babies to be murdered legally, and doctors are paid for doing it, should point to the fact that we are not a "Christian" nation.

I am not sure that God is rewarding the communistic Chinese with our jobs. Perhaps He is pouring out His judgment on our nation, who claims to be Christian, but is most definitely not.

And how about evolutionists? Hitler was one. The logical result of that theory is survival of the fittest.... I see the effects of this across America. If we are little more than animals, evolved from monkeys, why not behave like animals? There can most definitely not be any moral standards, as relativism rules the day. Every man and woman become their own gods and do what they deem to be moral in their own eyes....so who are we to condemn Hitler, or Dahmer, or Manson? After all, they were just surviving.... Isn't that what animals do?

I'm trying to understand this... really I am... this little section is so wrought with absurdly false claims that I don't know where to begin... I use to live in Georgia, and I don't recall anyone this manifestly ignorant...no offense...

Evolutionists is a derogatory word, simply because people understand the evolutionary model of origins, doesn't mean they deserve to be called whatever Evolutionists means...

and Hitler? Did you go there? Hitler was a Christian until he died... the logical result of evolution is not "survival of the fittest", your education has failed you.

Rampant Free Market is dangerous for this very reason, and Christian ideology has memetically become stable against certain ideas... in a sense, Christianity has evolved past "good works" into a heaven/hell reward/punishment ideology whose adherents willfully block any attempt to subvert potentially unstable and dangerous ideas... The modern understanding of "fittest" has nothing to do with what you think it does... nor does someone who believe in natural selection actually going to resort to such a thing...

We condemn the evil people in our society because they do us harm, because they hurt others, and the upset the balance and pursuit of free and peace loving peoples... this is simply common and natural law... I could go into this more deeply, but again I have that sinking feeling, that I am dealing with someone incapable of compromise or comprehension.

 

[A rope leash]

Hard to see both sides from over here...

http://chinaaid.org/2008/02/18/21-m...t-to-labor-camp-in-shandong-at-the-same-time/

These house churches were decribed as "evil cults" by the Chinese authorities. I really have no way of knowing that they really weren't evil cults. It sounds almost like the way Americans treat a crack house. Are there still opium dens in China?

So, what's the crime with an evil cult? Well, you get a group of fools to think impossible things are true, and then you tell them that the safety of their souls depends on their adherence to the "truth" of the matter. You then lead them and their children through a life of ritual and submission, and education in the matters of impossible things. If your lucky, you can rake them for more than ten percent of their incomes. It makes a real nice house to praise god in...god the impossible. I guess it's not hard to see why the commies would see it as a crime. They're real prick hard-asses, though...they definitely need to lighten up.

But, religion as it is practiced here in the capitalist USA is just another accepted scam, like gasoline and taxes. Marx said that religion was the opiate of the people. Perhaps in an atheist-capitalist society we would have open-market religion, and an opium den or two...taxed heavily, of course.

Enough about men! Let's talk about what god does!

 

[Dr.3D]

I don't see anybody posting a thread titled The Atheists Hatred of Theists.
This is probably because it would be a true statement.
Theists..... well at least Christians, don't hate!
Anybody who says they do does not know much about Christians.
Anybody who says they are a Christian and hates is not really a Christian.

Seems to me this thread was posted by an Atheist who hates 'Theists' and thus wanted to see how many replies this silly thread would get.

 

[Kade]

I don't see anybody posting a thread titled The Atheists Hatred of Theists.
This is probably because it would be a true statement.
Theists..... well at least Christians, don't hate!
Anybody who says they do does not know much about Christians.
Anybody who says they are a Christian and hates is not really a Christian.

Seems to me this thread was posted by an Atheist who hates 'Theists' and thus wanted to see how many replies this silly thread would get.

They do hate... just read the thread.

Are you really that blind? This country DESPISES atheists..

http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted

In every poll ever given on the subject, it was the atheists who were most tolerant of other religions and ways of life... by that standard, atheists never say that Christians shouldn't exist... but Christians LOVE to tell us that we shouldn't exist... nor should even be considered citizens of this country...

As a former Christian myself, I know this to be true...

Consider your own bible perhaps, and it's occasional bit of wisdom:

Matthew 7:3-5

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

 

[Macon GA]

Come on.... Hitler was NOT a Christian:

• Darwin's idea that evolution means "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" eventually led to Nazism and the Jewish holocaust- even though Darwin himself would have been appalled at the thought."

• In Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

• When Hitler came to power in 1933, he installed a dictatorship with one agenda: enactment of his radical Nazi racial philosophy built on Darwinian evolution. He sought, in Darwin's terms, to preserve the "favored" race in the struggle for survival. Brute strength and intelligence would be the driving force of the Nazi plan.

• The first task was to eliminate the weak and those with impure blood that would corrupt the race. These included the disabled, ill, Jews, and Gypsies. Second, the Nazis sought to expand Germany's borders in order to achieve more living space, or "Lebensraum," to make room for the expansion of the "favoured" race. Third, the Nazis set about to eliminate communism because of its threat to the Aryan race and because, according to Hitler, communism was the work of Bolshevik Jews.

• The plan quickly unfolded. An order to sterilize some 400,000 Germans was issued within five months of Hitler's rise to power. The order, set to take effect on January 1, 1934, listed nine "categories of the unfit" to be sterilized: feebleminded, schizophrenia, manic depression, Huntington's chorea, epilepsy, hereditary body deformities, deafness, hereditary blindness, and alcoholism. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935 to prohibit marriage between Jews and Germans and to strip Jews of their German citizenship.

• Instead of letting chance factors dominate reproduction decisions, Hitler proposed that the scientists use the power of the state to influence these decisions so that the gene pool would shift to what “informed conclusions” concluded was the desired direction. Consequently, Hitler encouraged those individuals that he perceived as having Aryan traits to mate, and discouraged “interbreeding,” supposing that this policy would gradually cause the Aryan race to evolve “upward”. He believed that the Nazi race programs would further evolution by intelligently deciding which traits were not beneficial, and preventing those with them from reproducing.

• The Nazis established eugenic courts to ensure that the eugenic laws were enforced. To identify the unfit, German eugenicists compared the individual health files of millions of Germans with medical records from hospitals and the National Health Service. The American firm, IBM, aided the effort by automating a national card file system that cross-indexed the defective.

• After Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, the Nazis became even more aggressive toward the weak. Approximately 100,000 Germans, labeled "useless eaters" by the Nazis, were killed. The victims were patients in nursing homes and medical facilities, as well as Jewish mentally disturbed and disabled. The Nazis ordered all of these exterminated. Ultimately, some 11 million people (and possibly more), six million from Jewish descent, were killed by the Nazi death machine.

• An important argument that Hitler used to support his programs of racial genocide of the Jews, Blacks and other groups was that they were genetically “inferior” and that their interbreeding with the superior Aryan race would adversely affect the latter's gene pool, polluting it, and lowering the overall quality of the "pure race."

• "Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, outlines in simplified fashion the route from Darwin to Hitler: First, Darwinism undermined traditional morality and the value of human life. Then, evolutionary progress became the new moral imperative. This aided the advance of eugenics, which was overtly founded on Darwinian principles. Some eugenicists began advocating euthanasia and infanticide for the disabled. On a parallel track, some prominent Darwinists argued that human racial competition and war are part of the Darwinian struggle for existence. Hitler imbibed these social Darwinist ideas, blended in virulent anti-Semitism, and-there you have it: Holocaust."

 

[Macon GA]

Kade,

I am a Christian and have NEVER thought the things that you stated in your above post.

I don't buy "natural law." Animals aren't monogamous and they have been known to eat their young. Without God, and without "natural law," what is left?

 

[Dr.3D]

They do hate... just read the thread.

Are you really that blind? This country DESPISES atheists..

I'll pray for you brother!

I love you and I'm a Christian.

 

[Macon GA]

Here are some Hitler quotes for you:

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... 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.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:

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. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:

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.
21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:

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.... .... 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. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with 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.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

 

[Macon GA]

Strangely enough, some of Hitler's quotes sound like some of the things that I have been reading in this thread.

 

[Dr.3D]

Kade,
Animals aren't monogamous and they have been known to eat their young.

Actually, ducks are animals and they mate for life. Or at least till somebody kills one of them and then they look for another mate.