Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 am If we are only considering current American descriptions Atheist vs Theist, then yes. But communism and fascism (There was this famous non-theist guy...Had a funny mustache.) also have killed millions of people.
Stalin's mustache was funny?
Hitler was a theist, he hated atheists and complained about them regularly.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 amThe people who initiated the Crusades/"The Final Solution"/Great Leap Forward all had one thing in common. They adhered to their beliefs to the point were they felt justified in killing "undesirables."
Two out of the three were theists. Most of Mao's death toll in the Great Leap Forward was accidental, due to short sighted policy that led to corruption. Political ideology can be harmful too.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 amI can guarantee you that the majority of people who joined the nazi/communist/Christian groups in their infancy, did not expect their "movement" to lead to the catastrophic loss of life that they all did.
Probably, although the Nazi party's inception was hate for a particular group; the people themselves. Communism also tends to be unforgiving of the elite.
That's a bit different from the others which take issue with the ideology that people hold. You can change your ideology (or at least pretend to) and go along with Christianity or radical anti-theism and keep your head on your shoulders.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 amIf we Atheist bend morality to justify the militant of our group, then we are on a very slippery slope.
Certainly, and if we see real radicals among atheists who use violence, it's our job to stop them. The same way we have to speak up against the A.L.F. and some extreme animal rights groups that are engaging in property damage, beyond the fact that they're just counter-productive and delaying the legitimization of veganism.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 amAnd to be clear, I don't thing you are justifying Atheist doing anything immoral, but I feel you are trying to look for reasons to defend Atheist that perhaps you would not accept as an argument from a Theist.
As long as a theist is only arguing his or her point, and NOT endorsing violence, and just having debates and publishing books, that's well within his or her right. I do expect theists to do more to criticize their violent fringe, rather than just saying it's not their problem.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 amIs your purpose to convince the slim majority who share your grasp of quantum physics that the agreed upon conclusion of quantum physics is in fact correct, are you trying to reaffirm your own beliefs, or are you trying to persuade someone well below your education that you have a theory you adhere to that you believe to be true? :idea:
Just saying that without understanding the arguments, it's not right to call them equally silly.
If you had a few years of quantum physics education under your belt and then you made that judgement, you'd be doing it from a better place.

Just not understanding an argument is not enough to call it silly, that's all.
You should probably just be agnostic to the relative level of silliness.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 amEven if you don't understand THE BIBLE so it doesn't make sense to you, it IS reasonable to believe PREACHERS on the matter, since GOD has given us a lot of practical knowledge and these people are actually in the position to know and understand it.
Sure, if you didn't know anything else. There are important reasons (which I could explain later if you want) to epistemologically prefer science over religion. There are some key differences there, but if you are not aware of those and your religion is all you know, then it makes sense to believe somebody (a preacher) you presume knows more than you do.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by PsYcHo »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:13 am
Stalin's mustache was funny?
Hitler was a theist, he hated atheists and complained about them regularly.

So...what was his religion? I also complain about atheist (despite being one...)

I thought hitler believed in the paranormal. (The swastika being an ancient symbol and all)
brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:13 am
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 amThe people who initiated the Crusades/"The Final Solution"/Great Leap Forward all had one thing in common. They adhered to their beliefs to the point were they felt justified in killing "undesirables."
Two out of the three were theists. Most of Mao's death toll in the Great Leap Forward was accidental, due to short sighted policy that led to corruption. Political ideology can be harmful too.
Goddammit Brim this is exactly what I'm trying to make a point about!!! TWO out of the THREE!!

By your own argument, 2/3 were just as bad as the other one!!!!
brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:13 am
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 amI can guarantee you that the majority of people who joined the nazi/communist/Christian groups in their infancy, did not expect their "movement" to lead to the catastrophic loss of life that they all did.
Probably, although the Nazi party's inception was hate for a particular group; the people themselves. Communism also tends to be unforgiving of the elite.
That's a bit different from the others which take issue with the ideology that people hold. You can change your ideology (or at least pretend to) and go along with Christianity or radical anti-theism and keep your head on your shoulders.
The nazi party(I don't capitalize them for a reason) was not initially based on hate (IMO). It was based on group think. We vs. them. It turned into hate from the most radical of the party. I don't think Atheist are anywhere near that point, but any intellectual person should be concerned when we have members who feel that our way is the "only" way. And (also in my opinion) we have too many people who think not only that it is OK, but preferable to mock and belittle Theist.

Theist are not our enemy.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:13 am
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:55 amAnd to be clear, I don't thing you are justifying Atheist doing anything immoral, but I feel you are trying to look for reasons to defend Atheist that perhaps you would not accept as an argument from a Theist.
As long as a theist is only arguing his or her point, and NOT endorsing violence, and just having debates and publishing books, that's well within his or her right. I do expect theists to do more to criticize their violent fringe, rather than just saying it's not their problem.
..... I expect any group (Atheist/Agnostics/nazis/communist/truthers/flat-earthers) to not endorse violence.

That doesn't change the fact that just because our particular group doesn't advocate violence generally, it will not reach that point if we don't make any acts of violence seen as reprehensible in the community.

I would still defend a damn nazi. (if he/she) were being attacked by anyone..

providing the nazi wasn't harming anyone or their property.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:13 am Just saying that without understanding the arguments, it's not right to call them equally silly.
If you had a few years of quantum physics education under your belt and then you made that judgement, you'd be doing it from a better place.

Just not understanding an argument is not enough to call it silly, that's all.
You should probably just be agnostic to the relative level of silliness.
I must admit, I do not have years of studying quantum physics under my belt.

Do you have years of being indoctrinated under Christianity under your belt? ( ;) )

I tell you what; bring me a definitive piece of quantum mechanical proof, and I'll trade you my definitive Christian proof!

And I don't think both of them are equally silly. I prefer one.

But if you are actually interested in convincing people to switch to your point of view, you need to stop spending so much time arguing over minutia, and focus more on gently swaying people to your side! :twisted:
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 am So...what was his religion? I also complain about atheist (despite being one...)

I thought hitler believed in the paranormal. (The swastika being an ancient symbol and all)
He had some weird beliefs, but generally involving God, Jesus, and Aryans as the master race chosen by god or something.
His hatred of Jews was largely theologically driven.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 amGoddammit Brim this is exactly what I'm trying to make a point about!!! TWO out of the THREE!!

By your own argument, 2/3 were just as bad as the other one!!!!
In terms of consequence they were all pretty harmful, but in terms of character there are some significant differences.

Hating Hitler makes a lot of sense. Hating Mao makes much less sense; he's a more complicated and sympathetic character who made some serious mistakes. But it's almost important to remember that he was driven by political beliefs, not militant atheism.
PsYcHo wrote:Personally, I hate militant Atheist more than militant Theist...
When we speak of hating people, not just having a gripe with certain ideas, I think we need to consider character pretty carefully.

We can also look at the evolution of these characters.
The typical militant atheist may start out pretty hateful, mostly because he or she was burned by religion or religious people, but over time usually mellows out and realizes that the problem is the religious dogma, and that there are a lot of well-intentioned religious people who have been brainwashed to think homosexuality is evil etc.

Militant theists have a tendency to isolate and radicalize.

This may just be in the nature of our current social environment, but it's also an important consideration.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 amThe nazi party(I don't capitalize them for a reason) was not initially based on hate (IMO). It was based on group think.
We vs. them. It turned into hate from the most radical of the party.
What? Where are you getting that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

It's not like it was something else that just got corrupted. Anti-Semitic sentiment was at the root of the party's ideology. Hitler became leader of the party in it's second year of operation, and his mentor who was the leader in the first year was arguably as bad.

Sure there was group think there, but it was racist group think founded and led by racists.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 amAnd (also in my opinion) we have too many people who think not only that it is OK, but preferable to mock and belittle Theist.
There is a theory that by mocking religion it helps to counteract the cultural protection from legitimate criticism religion has, because of its perceived sacred nature. Atheists have long been criticized, but criticizing religion has been regarded as unacceptable. No other idea is so immune to discussion.

I'm not sure if I agree with that theory or not. Street epistemology seems to work much better than mockery; questions stick, insults polarize.
I'm not convinced that mockery is always wrong, though, because comedy has some value in carrying ideas too, particularly when the people you're mocking won't make arguments.
When theists step up and engage in argument instead of claiming to be beyond criticism, then mockery would probably be harmful.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 amTheist are not our enemy.
Certain kinds of theism seem to be quite hostile to science and progressive values. They either need to be reformed or go extinct, because they can't exist in the modern world when they promote violence over discussion.

Are theists generally the enemy? I don't think so. I think they can be allies against the extremism. But their ability to convince each other to more moderate faiths seems to be limited. Going for the foundation seems to be an effective tactic, even though it may dissolve the religion of moderates too.
It's important to remember that in any case the theism is the target to be dissolved and not the people who have been led to believe it (let's not go breaking bad here).
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 amThat doesn't change the fact that just because our particular group doesn't advocate violence generally, it will not reach that point if we don't make any acts of violence seen as reprehensible in the community.
And we should make it reprehensible to prevent that. But I don't think we need to go all out SJW and call mockery and jokes violence. We don't really see a significant level of violence from atheists because of atheism right now, and I don't think that jokes necessarily lead to violence.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 amI must admit, I do not have years of studying quantum physics under my belt.

Do you have years of being indoctrinated under Christianity under your belt? ( ;) )
I've studied some theology. Not sure how far indoctrination goes to providing a knowledge of Christian metaphysics.
Reading Aquinas, standard Catholic and Protestant apologia (including all existing arguments for god), and having a few long arguments with Jehovah's witnesses and other career apologists will probably do more along those ends. What the laity assumes is not necessarily what theologians argue.
PsYcHo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 amI tell you what; bring me a definitive piece of quantum mechanical proof, and I'll trade you my definitive Christian proof!
I've read all of them already.

My point is just that hating "militant atheists", at least in terms of what modern society considers a militant atheist, maybe isn't always fair.
There are good arguments there, I just don't agree that fighting religion is a great use of resources or as pressing a concern. Religion is coming over to accepting climate change, and reform is probably the path of least resistance. That said, good cop and bad cop probably get more done together than either could alone.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:He had some weird beliefs, but generally involving God, Jesus, and Aryans as the master race chosen by god or something.
His hatred of Jews was largely theologically driven.
Do you have evidence that Hitler was a theist and that his hatred of Jews was largely driven by this? Are you implying he was a Christian? Hitler took away rights of Christians and secularists... If not, what do you mean by "theologically driven"?

Hitler has made statements saying he believes in 'God', but that's what anyone trying to gain support of mass amounts of people would say, so I don't think that's reliable evidence.

Idk what Hitler's religious beliefs were... It's kinda irrelevant. Nazism is a dogma, and the negative aspects of religion are due to it being dogmatic (not that Nazism is equal to religion generally, ofc not, they just both have dogma)... Dogmatic thinking is the problem.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:43 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote:He had some weird beliefs, but generally involving God, Jesus, and Aryans as the master race chosen by god or something.
His hatred of Jews was largely theologically driven.
Do you have evidence that Hitler was a theist and that his hatred of Jews was largely driven by this? Are you implying he was a Christian? Hitler took away rights of Christians and secularists... If not, what do you mean by "theologically driven"?
It depends on how you define "Christian". He called himself Christian.
Are Mormons Christian? Are Muslims?
Hitler's beliefs were theistic and Christian-like in some ways, but they were also heretical and rejected most canonical doctrine.
I do not think we could call him a deist, because he seems to have believed in providence and creation (he did not accept "macro" evolution).
Adolf Hitler wrote:nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an ape like condition to his present state.
For more of what he probably believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
It's difficult to determine his personal beliefs, but many of them were undoubtedly carried over into his public advocacy as his power grew.
That's a good starting point, at least to show his confirmed differences with mainstream Christianity.

And as to antisemitism specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Secular_v_religious_influences
There's a lot of disagreement among historians, but the bulk of bias here where a link to religion is denied seems to be to declare Christianity innocent in the tragedy and accuse Darwin. People don't want to believe that Christian beliefs could have inspired the Nazi holocaust.
EquALLity wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:43 pmHitler has made statements saying he believes in 'God', but that's what anyone trying to gain support of mass amounts of people would say, so I don't think that's reliable evidence.
Not on its own, no. See above. The lack of definable atheistic materialistic beliefs about the origin of man make it extremely unlikely that he was an atheist. He did not believe that Aryans were related to other primates in any capacity.
He also carried on with this assertion of god belief well into power, while there WERE other Nazi figures who were atheists. He could have come out clearly as an atheist at any number of points later in his career without consequence, or spoke more clearly of it privately.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:It depends on how you define "Christian". He called himself Christian.
Are Mormons Christian? Are Muslims?
Hitler wasn't an honest person.
Hitler's beliefs were theistic and Christian-like in some ways, but they were also heretical and rejected most canonical doctrine.
I do not think we could call him a deist, because he seems to have believed in providence and creation (he did not accept "macro" evolution).
Just because you don't believe in evolution doesn't mean you believe in god.

Are you saying he is Christian? As in, in your opinion and definition, was he Christian?
If so, what evidence do you have of that?
For more of what he probably believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
It's difficult to determine his personal beliefs, but many of them were undoubtedly carried over into his public advocacy as his power grew.
That's a good starting point, at least to show his confirmed differences with mainstream Christianity.
Or the Nazis created that to combine their ideology with popular religion to give themselves credibility... Seems more likely than Hitler being Christian based on his policies.

His public advocacy? He took away rights of Christians...
And as to antisemitism specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Secular_v_religious_influences
There's a lot of disagreement among historians, but the bulk of bias here where a link to religion is denied seems to be to declare Christianity innocent in the tragedy and accuse Darwin. People don't want to believe that Christian beliefs could have inspired the Nazi holocaust.
You said that his anti-Semitism was largely due to Christianity... Do you have evidence of this?

Btw... The first sentence of that Wikipedia article: "Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian, while a small minority have claimed he was a Christian."
So... According to most historians, he was not a theist, let alone a Christian.

More:
Wikipedia wrote:Although personally skeptical, Hitler's public relationship to religion was one of opportunistic pragmatism.[40] In religious affairs he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes."[107] He typically tailored his message to his audience's perceived sensibilities and Kershaw considers that few people could really claim to "know" Hitler, who was "a very private, even secretive individual", able to deceive "even hardened critics" as to his true beliefs.[87][108] In private, he scorned Christianity, but when out campaigning for power in Germany, he made statements in favour of the religion.[109]
Blame Darwin?
They attribute Hitler's actions to his belief in social Darwinism, a worldview that treats evolution as if it were a moral system... as if survival of the fittest is ethical. That's not blaming Darwin... obviously Darwin wasn't saying evolution is a moral system, he was just describing the world accurately with evolution.
Do you disagree with this?^
Not on its own, no. See above. The lack of definable atheistic materialistic beliefs about the origin of man make it extremely unlikely that he was an atheist. He did not believe that Aryans were related to other primates in any capacity.
I didn't say he was an atheist. Like I said, he persecuted secular groups.
He also carried on with this assertion of god belief well into power, while there WERE other Nazi figures who were atheists. He could have come out clearly as an atheist at any number of points later in his career without consequence, or spoke more clearly of it privately.
There were other figures, but he was the leader, so it makes sense that he would go along with popular religion, as is explained in the Wikipedia quote.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:55 pm Hitler wasn't an honest person.
Maybe not always, but despite the exaggerations of propaganda he was pretty upfront about most of the things he believed. He grew up Catholic, and he had a lot of attachment to some of the concepts in Christianity.
EquALLity wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:55 pmJust because you don't believe in evolution doesn't mean you believe in god.
It pretty much does if he rejected human (or at least Aryan) evolution from common ancestors. He seemed to believe some account of combination of limited evolution and creation that involved the races being created, or perhaps Aryans being created? He didn't seem to like the idea that the human "races" were closely related as evolution indicates, which may have led to his skepticism of evolution of humans. He doesn't seem to have been as skeptical of the evolution of other animals and plants, but maybe that changed in his life.
His statements are pretty mixed, so it's hard to parse. Some of his beliefs probably also evolved over time (his skepticism of evolution was more recent than his more supporting statements).

Either way, it's very difficult to argue he was an atheist (although it's possible that he was for a short time, there doesn't seem to be any record of that), particularly given the trajectory of his beliefs. I don't think he ever identified as an atheist, and he could easily have done so in the many recorded private quotes we have without fear this would reach the public; he was often surrounded by atheists and it wasn't a big deal to be an atheist in the party.
wikipedia wrote:Samuel Koehne of Deakin University wrote in 2012: "Was Hitler an atheist? Probably not. But it remains very difficult to ascertain his personal religious beliefs, and the debate rages on." While Hitler was emphatically not "Christian" by the traditional or orthodox notion of the term, he did speak of a deity whose work was nature and natural laws, "conflating God and nature to the extent that they became one and the same thing..." and that "For this reason, some recent works have argued Hitler was a Deist".[49]
EquALLity wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:55 pmAre you saying he is Christian? As in, in your opinion and definition, was he Christian?
If so, what evidence do you have of that?
I'm saying "Christianity" doesn't mean much.

He was baptized and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church, he never publicly disavowed it (unclear if he did so privately), he was never excommunicated and he remained in good standing. By definition of the Catholic church, he would have been Catholic.

He called himself Christian, and while he advocated a form of Christianity which was very different from mainstream Christianity (which would have been grounds for excommunication, Rosenberg's book was banned by the Catholic church), he still held Jesus in high regard as a (anti-Jewish Aryan) hero figure (who was killed by the Jews) and promoted belief in an intervening or moral-giving god of some sort (providence, again). It's likely a case of him reading into the Scripture what he wanted to see. It's too simplistic to claim this was a fabrication without any link to Hitler's actual beliefs; people aren't black and white cartoon villains, even Hitler. People want to see themselves as genuine, and particularly as his power grew and he had less of a reason to exaggerate or play down his beliefs it's very likely Hitler believed most of what he was promoting.

His beliefs in that respect were at least as "Christian" as those of Mormons.
EquALLity wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:55 pmOr the Nazis created that to combine their ideology with popular religion to give themselves credibility... Seems more likely than Hitler being Christian based on his policies.

His public advocacy? He took away rights of Christians...
Most of this was Bormann and Goebbels' doing (who were atheists). Hitler didn't seem to agree with taking on the churches at that time.
Sure, he took away the rights of those who opposed him where he could, and it seems like he particularly hated what he saw as a Jewish corrupted pseudo-Christianity. His intention was to remove the Jewish corruption in Christianity and get at the real Jesus, as he saw him. There is no reason to believe that he didn't hold these beliefs about Jesus sincerely. Even for somebody like Hitler, you have to consider psychology and take them at their word on what they believe unless there's good evidence to indicate otherwise, and the evidence to the contrary seems scant. Everything in the faith he articulated was anti-Jewish, a warrior-Jesus and very compatible with his actions.

He could have been a deist and a Positive Christian in the way Jordan Peterson is a Christian, but that seems a little unlikely, and would have required him to hold virtually no supernatural beliefs which seems unlikely due to his belief in providence.
Looking at his strongest personal influences and mentors, what Dietrich Eckart and Alfred Rosenberg believed and advocated may be a better indication of Hitler's beliefs than his own personal statements which are more limited, or perhaps Hitler was more like Trump than anything else and just easily swayed from day to day depending on who talked to him last.

EquALLity wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:55 pmYou said that his anti-Semitism was largely due to Christianity... Do you have evidence of this?
His feelings seem to have been rooted in his childhood, and the Catholic cultural antisemitism he grew up in. The Jews were the murderers of Jesus; there were a lot of religiously motivated justifications for hatred of them.

It's likely there were other factors too, particularly some racist writers of the era that fed into it and his close associates including neopagans like Rosenberg. I'm sure the echo chamber amplified and confirmed their beliefs.
EquALLity wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:55 pmBtw... The first sentence of that Wikipedia article: "Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian, while a small minority have claimed he was a Christian."
So... According to most historians, he was not a theist, let alone a Christian.
No, that doesn't say he wasn't a theist. Irreligious is different from atheistic. From a psychological perspective, that's probably why he created his own religion (or did so with Rosenberg), to codify and share his beliefs with others so he would have a religion he could belong to. I think he was looking for a compromise, both internally and externally. I don't think it was a very well calculated move of propaganda; if it were it would have been much better executed. The Nazis weren't that stupid. Positive Christianity was widely rejected and amounted to an epic fail in terms of propaganda. He would have been better advised to just pretend to agree with Christian scripture instead of rewriting it. It's not necessarily clear how much power Hitler had, though.

He was almost certainly something ranging from a deist (if he believed nothing of what he promoted in Positive Christianity) to a Christian (as much so as a Mormon, anyway).
It is correct that he was also anti-Christian, but only to certain denominations and beliefs within the church. Catholics are also anti-Christian (against protestants), and protestants against Catholics.
Hitler and Rosenberg saw the church as corrupted by the Jewish Torah in the old testament, and he believed it to be a lie created by the Jews to pollute Christianity or something like that. It doesn't take a whole lot of cherry picking to interpret it that way, so it wouldn't have even had to be overtly dishonest.

People don't like to believe somebody like Hitler could have been sincere... it's easier to believe in cartoon villains than the banality of evil and the complexity of human psychology. I think everything Hitler said and represented had some truth to it.

For example, he wasn't a vegetarian, but he was perhaps in the colloquial sense of eating little meat or perhaps just eating foul, and he was concerned with animal rights. He loved his dog, too. Even the most evil people can have some compassion in them.
EquALLity wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:55 pmBlame Darwin?
They attribute Hitler's actions to his belief in social Darwinism, a worldview that treats evolution as if it were a moral system...
He saw a struggle between races, and that rhetoric was useful (although misused), and probably came from some of the atheists in the party too.
Theist have long been trying to use Hitler as an argument against atheism or evolution, though, and it's very hard to parse out that propaganda and bias. There's nothing in evolution or even social Darwinism to support racist pseudoscience. I don't think we can say they correctly understood these concepts if they cared much about them at all.
EquALLity wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:55 pmThere were other figures, but he was the leader, so it makes sense that he would go along with popular religion, as is explained in the Wikipedia quote.
That's speculation, though, and it kind of ignores human psychology and the fact that he spoke on so many other things. It seems like he was pretty upfront within the inner circle about a pragmatic resistance to taking on the church, but they did anyway; I think it's clear Hitler could be outvoted on things.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. :D
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by EquALLity »

You're right, it doesn't matter, as long as it's not used to support an argument... He wasn't a theist (he was irreligious). That doesn't make him an atheist, like I said, I wasn't arguing he was. I don't know what he was, and it doesn't matter, because the problem is dogmatic thinking in general.

Joseph Stalin was an atheist, and he was at least as bad as Hitler due to his dogmatic thought.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:45 amHe wasn't a theist (he was irreligious).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion
Wikipedia wrote:Irreligion (adjective form: non-religious or irreligious) is the absence, indifference, rejection of, or hostility towards religion.[1]

Irreligion may include some forms of theism, depending on the religious context it is defined against; for example, in 18th-century Europe, the epitome of irreligion was deism.[2]
Some deists spoke of providence, but that's probably not quite the strictest impartial deism we would see today (deism itself has evolved).
Either way, there is a spectrum of interest and intervention seen to come from any god and deists are typically some kind of theist. It's still debatable and controversial among historians precisely how religious he was; he was probably insane toward the end anyway, and the thing that influenced him most might not have been ideology but syphilis and methamphetamine. Of course, Hitler was not the sole architect of the war or the Holocaust; we have the Nazi echo chamber and social factors as a whole to thank for that too.

It does matter a little to the theist/atheist debate, because one of the theist claims are that the proof is in the pudding (that the validity of faith should be judged by its consequences, Jesus said this too; Matthew 7:15-20).
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are atheists generally more intellectually honest than theists?

Post by Jebus »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:58 pmHe loved his dog
He poisoned his poor dog. Why the hell was the dog in Berlin anyway? Wouldn't he have been much happier around the Eagle's nest or the Berghof?
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
Post Reply