A Brief History Of Religion

[TechBear_Seattle]

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[Warpy]

1. Hope you've got your flak suit on

I thought it was funny, but some people aint gonna be amused.

[ThomCat]

2. What's up with hairy men wearing loin cloths?

It is a very funny cartoon and seems right on.

Edited to correct horrible spelling.

[genie_weenie]

9. That all stems from

when late 19th century and early 20th century anthropologists depicted "cave-men", Neanderthals (because they were assumed to be sub-human) were always shown as scruffy and sloped, whilst brave Homo Sapiens were shown lantern jawed and clean shaven...

[Goblinmonger]

3. ..

:popcorn:

I have two names on a post-it on my computer monitor. What do you want to bet I have correctly identified the person who will flip out first about this?

On edit: It's hilarious, by the way.

[SixStrings]

4. You know, this really offends me.

I think I'll go out and burn some shit down, maybe off a few animators. Am I not justified in these actions?

[unschooler]

114. Burn their drawing paper at the stake! Behead their colored pencils!

Arrest them before they can escape to Holland!

[Strong Atheist]

5. .

:popcorn:

[Goblinmonger]

6. ..

:toast:

Got any

[Strong Atheist]

7. Sure, have mine. I am just waiting for the flames.... nt.

[Goblinmonger]

8. You and me both

I have my extinguisher handy. Nothing yet, but guess we need to wait for the night crowd.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. You make it sound like I was trying to incite something

: insert smiley with angel wings and a halo here :

[beam me up scottie]

14. Here's a good one:

[Strong Atheist]

16. That is good! nt.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Not quite what I had in mind, but very good!

Who do we petition to get new emoticons added to the list?

[Goblinmonger]

20. BMUS has the best. smileys. ever.

Surprisingly quiet. Must have been the preemptive mocking. Might have to try that more often.

[InaneAnanity]

10. Great cartoon

Well done.

[beam me up scottie]

11. I KNEW IT!

[arwalden]

12. "Making It Worse? How Could It BE ANY WORSE???"

[NMMNG]

15. That is so incredibly succinct

That cartoonist deserves an award.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. David Horsey won a Pulitzer in 2003 for his editorial cartoons

And has been up for one several other years.

[Silent3]

19. Or at least his very own fatwa! ;) n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Take the scientifical, infallible TWO-CULTURE TEST

No, it's not a poll. It's a test -- a very scientific test based on a very scientific theory, the "Two Cultures Theory" of C.P. Snow (no relation to Hank, Phoebe, or Yellow Snow).

The Test: The Test consists of one question.

Take another look at the Horsey cartoon in the original post.


Why did the Rock-Worshiper bash the Other Guy?

----a. The Rock Worshiper was Religious.

----b. The Other Guy was Obnoxious.

----c. Both a and b.

----d. Neither a nor b.

----e. That's NOT Funny!


Scoring: Scoring? You can't be scoring, you're on the Internet.

Oh, wait, wrong kind of scoring. Here's the right kind:


----a. You're One Of Us.

----b. You're One Of Us, too.

----c. Everybody in this forum hates you, you know.

----d. You're a Quantum Physicist. Or not. It depends on your momentum and mass. Or not.

----e. You're a True Believer. It doesn't matter what kind. Really.


:evilgrin:


--p!

[manic expression]

22. Fine, I'll bite

I think the cartoon is in half-jest/satirical mode, so I'm not sure we can really get a conversation going over it.

But yeah, I disagree and I think it is simplistic.

Oh, and if the guy really believed the stone was sacred, would he really hit someone with it? (that's a half-serious question)

[Evoman]

23. Why?

Because its even more sacred now that its been baptised with the blood of heretics.

Geez, everyone knows that.

Evoman

[manic expression]

24. I can see it now

the ever-growing Brass Knuckle Cult....

Anyway, I think someone would fight in defence of a "sacred object", and not use it for attacking. Furthermore, having the blood of heretics on it would be an impurity. Just the way I see it.

Once again, I'm half-not-serious. :hi:

[InaneAnanity]

27. Then

Why do catholics drink blood every week??

[Goblinmonger]

28. And not just any blood

but the body and blood OF THEIR SACRED ROCK, um I mean SAVIOR.

[InaneAnanity]

30. Special blood

Tasty blood

[manic expression]

32. Different reason

they do it to imbibe the blood of their "savior" (don't ask me to defend it because I'm not a Christian). Something pictured in the cartoon would be like a pious person breaking an icon of a Saint over someone's head, something that would seldom, if ever, happen.

[Evoman]

33. The sacred rock will make you pure

Yes, the blood of heretics is an impurity, but thats the point. The sacred rock cleanses the blood, so that it is no longer impure. Don't you know that the sacred rock loves you? It bashes your head in only because its the only way to get through the thick skull (literally) and save you. Either way, submit the Sacred Rock, and you will feel its love.

[manic expression]

34. So,

your argument is that a religious person would readily a.) use the object of their extreme piousness to attack someone and b.) not care about the blood of the offender on the SACRED object? That holds very little water, if any.

The person hit him with the sacred rock himself, the rock itself did not drive the person to attack, and we know this because of what the attacker says after the action. He wasn't trying to save the other person, he was just trying to hurt him. The person wasn't submitting to the sacred rock, he was simply praying to it, which is different.

Got anything else?

[InaneAnanity]

39. Would you feel better if the guy killed himself with the rock?

n/t

[manic expression]

40. ?

What does that have to do with this?

[InaneAnanity]

41. Just asking

You are saying it is incongruous.

What if it was a suicide rock attack??

[manic expression]

45. How

would one kill someone while simultaneously killing themselves with a rock?

Furthermore, people who carry out suicide attacks do not (perhaps rarely) use items they deem as "sacred" for weapons.

[greyl]

54. Why

be more incredulous that the guy would endanger or sully his "sacred" rock than that he would commit violence in the name of his beliefs?


"Furthermore, people who carry out suicide attacks do not (perhaps rarely) use items they deem as "sacred" for weapons."

I disagree. I think they probably consider their body a sacred vehicle for their god's work.
A temple in motion, as it were.

[manic expression]

60. It's not really the act itself

but the way it was done. That's what I find weird about the cartoon.

I admit I don't know the exact mindset of a suicide bomber, but I don't think that the C4 would be considered "sacred". Even if it was (which is possible), it would certainly not be the central object of that person's piousness, as in this cartoon.

[greyl]

117. You aren't a violent extremist.

The cartoon depicts the birth of religion as violent fundies must see it.

[manic expression]

123. Point taken

That seems reasonable.

(It could be more specific in its self-description, but that's not really important)

[Goldensilence]

167. a hahahaha

sorry...but that was good. A suicide rock attack....hehe

[Evoman]

43. Heathen!

Well, yeah, the first time was out of a desire to hurt. But once the blood of the heathen caveman hit it, the sacred rock, which was pure until that time, became aware of first sin. Now the sacred rock has a mission. Thanks to the action of the psycho caveman, who is now the Grand Pope Rock Collector, neaderthal-kind shall forever be saved, one way or another *gulp*.

[greyl]

52. The guy WAS "spiritual", then manufactured a belief to relieve his guilt.

Isn't that obvious? ;)

The cartoon is one take on the first moments of the birth of modern religions as they're being acted out in our world by extremist fundies.

The Stonist's "most high" beliefs are contradicted by the blasphemer, so he hits him with his rock. His most treasured concepts were threatened, so why not? Did his victim die, or just knocked out? In any case, it's not clear that death is the intention. The Stonist then rationalizes the violence by saying he was protecting a "real" god in a real way, and not just being ultra-senstive about his purely abstract ideas about god.

The idol is a rock, appropriate because of the "stone age" setting, and also necessary for the cartoon to work. The idol needs to be capable of being used to kill someone and not get broken.
The guy realizes that the rock won't get damaged by smashing the other guy in the head with it, so is never placed in harm's way as you've suggested.
He wouldn't have done that if it was a wicker hat for two reasons: 1. It would break. 2. The wounds wouldn't be fatal.
Maybe it was the rock's sturdiness as a tool that led to the idolatry of it? Maybe there aren't any other rocks around? What happens when the rock sect crosses paths with the paper and scissors sects? Will they have three-way sects?

A different way to look at it is that the cartoon is making an ironic statement similar to a couple of the Mohammed cartoons.
It's showing the stupidity and hypocrisy of committing violence "In the Name of God". Iow, the cartoon is only addressing the birth of the religion of the violent extremists.
Afterall, every one of the peaceful believers will tell you, "that's not how my religion began. :)

[manic expression]

59. If

it is a caricature of fundamentalists today, that is reasonable. However, it does portray the artist's view of the history of religion in its entirety, which is what most people are objecting to (kind of objecting to, it's a cartoon, after all).

His most treasured concept is that the rock is sacred, so why would he use the rock as a weapon? That is contradictory to the premise of what his beliefs are. I don't care how mad someone is about someone insulting their religion, I doubt anyone would use something deemed "sacred" to attack the offender (and even if it has happened, that hardly constitutes the entire history of religion). The stonist seems to apologize to the stone, so it is my view that he acted by his own prerogative, not out of assumed responsibility. It still seems weird that someone would "protect" something by using it to hit someone's skull. Oh, well.

It is interesting that animist religions have been less guilty than monotheistic religions. The religions of the book (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) scorn anyone who sees divinity in entities that are not men; they despise the very concept that divinity is present in all things. Those same religions (monotheistic) were seen as idiotic by the "polytheists" of the Roman Empire, mostly because they shunned truth and logic as a matter of principle and relied solely on faith instead (which is the same exact objection many atheists have today). It is not a coincidence that these religions are responsible for most of the crimes that cause people to write cartoons like the one above. Why would animist/polytheistic religions be insulted if they are not only largely innocent from such wrongdoing, but also the victims of the aggressive tactics of the monotheistic religions? Just a comment of mine.

The act of smashing a sacred object over someone's head is a crime against its sanctity (in his eyes) itself. It doesn't matter if the rock is still intact, it is not the way a person who believes in the rock's sanctity would behave. We can't really go deeper, because this is really a made up situation by a person who wanted to present a certain viewpoint. However, I can't accept that it was its usefulness that led to its position, because he only cited how he liked to meditate on its existence; furthermore, he would not justify his actions if its purpose was to be a tool, because its purpose would have been met. There are certainly other ways to attack a person, and someone who is fundamentalist would have little problem in harming themselves physically (as in punching) to meet an offense.

I think that if it is addressing fundamentalists specifically, it is reasonable (although very simple).

"Afterall, every one of the peaceful believers will tell you, 'that's not how my religion began.'"

They might, but it is my belief that the religions that the monotheists consider "primitive" did NOT have violent beginnings. If someone sees divinity in a rock, then why wouldn't they see divinity in another rock or someone else's rock? However, if someone claims to be the only divine religion, and that their book is better than anyone else's, then they are very likely to resort to violence in their petty delusion. Again, just a thought.

[greyl]

116. I don't think you're getting it.

Your incredulousness that the guy uses the object of his faith as a weapon and rationale at once, is the exactly the reaction the cartoon is going for.

Look around the world today.

From the outside, killing in the name of god looks totally hypocritical and stupid, right?
That's all the cartoon is saying.

[manic expression]

126. Gotcha

I was saying that in the premise of "The History of Religion", it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't.

If the point was that people MISUSE their religion by hurting others with its MISUSE, I completely agree.

[unschooler]

115. It's no different than praying for God to smite your enemies.

your argument is that a religious person would readily a.) use the object of their extreme piousness to attack someone and b.) not care about the blood of the offender on the SACRED object? That holds very little water, if any.

[kwassa]

25. The cartoon is just dumb.

why get worked up over dumb?

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. I don't see anyone getting worked up over it n/t

[Goblinmonger]

29. So why is it dumb?

Poorly drawn? Message is off? Misses the point? Perchance you can enlighten.

[kwassa]

31. Reductio ad absurdum

quote:

is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, arrives at an absurd result, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[Goblinmonger]

35. Thank you for the definition of reductio ad absurdum

I haven't taught that in my communication class for, um, about a month and a half now. It was a nice little review.

Any chance you can tell me how this cartoon is an example of reductio ad absurdum? Clearly it is metaphoric (the artist doesn't think that current religious strife started with rock worship), as well as symbolic (the rock symbolizes any number of religious "dieties"), argueably allegoric (there is a moral lesson being taught through the symbolism), and possibly hyperbolic (I don't think the artist would argue that all religion sucks all the time, but I don't know that person so I can't say for sure). But reductio ad absurdum. Hmmmm. Don't think so.

Let's break it down by your definition:

"one assumes a claim for the sake of argument" It appears to me that the claim (both through classic logic, Toulmin, and many others) would be that religion is bad.

"arrives at an absurd result" The result of the cartoon is that people kill others because they mock their religion--this happens so I don't see how it would be "absurd."

"and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result." It pretty much ends with the claim it started with.

Again, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

[manic expression]

36. It is an absurd result

because it is not only pathetically oversimplified, but also completely inaccurate.

Also, the cartoon does assume the opinion that religion is bad.

If you want to say: "Well, some people kill over religion, so religion is violent", then someone else can just as easily say the exact same thing about atheism, and both of you would be wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

37. The tag team makes it difficult

because you are both making different arguments.

You seem to say it is a hasty generalization and that is why it is flawed. To THAT argument, I would would agree. But it is an editorial cartoon which are inherently based on hyperbole, overgeneralization, and stereotypes. You gotta admit that, right?

What I admit above has NO BEARING on it being reductio ad absurdum, which is just a false claim and faulty logical analysis. It is not an absurd result, just a flawed major premise.

[kwassa]

38. .

[InaneAnanity]

42. It is impossible to kill because of atheism

Atheism has no substance. Atheism is nothing.

[manic expression]

44. I'm just curious,

Do you have any idea of what happened during the Spanish Civil War?

Atheism is something, that much is undeniable. Of course, you just wanted to say your meaningless sidestep of a comment, even though it has little to do with the topic at hand. I expected nothing less.

[InaneAnanity]

46. Explain

How the spanish civil war occured BECAUSE of atheism.

I'm listening.

[manic expression]

47. Did I say occured?

No, I said during. Difference.

"There were massacres of Catholic clergy and churches, monasteries and convents were burned with severe impact to the rich Spanish historical and artistic heritage. Twelve bishops, 283 nuns 2,365 monks and 4,184 priests were murdered."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

Now, I said that anyone who blamed this on atheism would be (and I quote) "wrong". Would you agree with that?

Also, I sympathize with the Spanish Republican cause during the Spanish Civil War more than anyone. It was a fight of justice against oppression, and it is beyond sad that this took until Franco's death to triumph.

[charlie]

48. It wasn't quite as simple

as there goes a Catholic, git 'im. The Church threw its lot in heavily with the Nationalists, lionizing Franco, whose savagery shocked even the Italian fascists. They had a big hand in getting themselves targetted as combatants in that clusterfuck. And Franco was no slouch in slaughtering Basque Catholics, BTW. Decades after the conflict, a Spanish council of bishops and priests adopted a resolution asking for pardon from the people for the Church's partisanship during the fratricide.

[manic expression]

49. Of course not

there were reasons for the reprisals against the Church, including a widespread disdain for the hierarchy itself (which I agree with completely).

The point I'm making is that there are some violent acts that are "anti-religious". These have other reasons behind them, but so did the Crusades (which were driven by political reasons as much as religious). To say it is the fault of any general group is incorrect, as this instance demonstrates. I hope that clarified why I even brought this up.

I would also like to reiterate that there are very few movements/groups/causes I hold in such high reverence as the Spanish Republican one during this conflict. I respect them and what they fought for to the highest degree, and that is a great understatement.

[InaneAnanity]

50. As I said

And you failed to listen, atheism has no substance. Nothing can be done in the name of atheism, because atheism is nothing.

Religion is different, because that is belief in something. People kill because of that.

It's very simple.

[manic expression]

51. Are you listening to yourself?

During the Spanish Civil War, Catholics were killed because of atheist zeal. These were part of reprisals against the Church because of the political circumstances, but it does not excuse a lot of murders that occurred because of atheist sentiments. What I said was that they were not the fault of atheism and were intertwined with other reasons, just like the Crusades were intertwined and mostly driven by non-religious factors. That's the main point.

It's too bad that you couldn't have thought about it and come up with a reasonable conclusion yourself, but as I said, I expected nothing less.

[InaneAnanity]

62. Listen to yourself

You say "Catholics were killed because of atheist zeal" and then in the next sentence, mention "reprisals against the Church".

It seems to me like a "reprisal against the church" has alot to do with religion, Catholicism specifically.

It is impossible to kill based on a lack of something.

Has anyone ever killed because of their lack of belief in animated washing machines???

Rhetorical question.

[manic expression]

64. Why don't you

While, as the other poster and I are agreeing on, most of what happened against the Catholic Church was in a reaction to its alliegence with fascism, A LOT of murders did happen, senseless violence which was motivated by such zeal.

Again, I have repeatedly stated that this was not the fault of atheism, and that it would be mistaken to say it was.

Atheism is something. Is black a color?

That rhetorical question is quite possibly the most irrelevant and ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. I'm not even going to address it.

[InaneAnanity]

65. No, black is a lack of color

No, atheism is nothing

[manic expression]

67. Not exactly

black absorbs ALL colors and reflects none.

[InaneAnanity]

69. Yes

making it a lack of a color

[manic expression]

80. Making it

absorb all colors.

[InaneAnanity]

82. Yes

It absorbs all colors and reflects none, making it a lack of color.

[manic expression]

And yet

since it absorbs all colors, the outward appearence is a lack of color, but the object the inclusion of all colors.

[InaneAnanity]

92. Space is not an object

Space looks black. Space is not an object.

[greyl]

121. You're confusing light and paint.

With regards to light, black is the absence of.
With regards to paint, black is the presence of.

[manic expression]

125. I think

that this kind of stuff is really interesting. The appearence of "black" can be both the presence and absence of light.

[InaneAnanity]

66. Lets recap

I say, it's impossible to kill because of atheism
You say, "are you aware of spanish civil war"
Then, you go on to state that no, the spanish civil war was NOT because of atheism

Have a nice day

[manic expression]

68. Good job missing the point

I say "are you aware of the Spanish Civil War?". I say that the murders against Catholic clergymen was not because of atheism, but involved motivation that was taken from atheism. I say that these murders happened because of atheist zeal, but the atrocities cannot be blamed on atheism. I compare this to how wrongdoing cannot be blamed on a religion, even if some occured because of religious zeal.

What I didn't say:

I never alluded to or suggested the conflict OR those murders were because of atheism.

I'm glad you've yet again demonstrated your inability to think rationally or comprehend the most basic of concepts. Once again, I expected nothing less.

[InaneAnanity]

70. So hatred of catholics

is a product of atheism??

Is that what you are saying???

They hated catholics enough to kill them, and that's the fault of atheism.

Gimme a break.

[manic expression]

72. Did you even read my post?

"...but the atrocities cannot be blamed on atheism."

(You got the "cannot" part, right?)

"I never alluded to or suggested the conflict OR those murders were because of atheism."

How does that equal "the fault of atheism"? Hint: It doesn't.

[InaneAnanity]

74. Well, good

That's consistent with my premise that atheism is nothing, and nothing is, and can ever be done in the name of atheism.

[manic expression]

78. Almost

it's consistent with the premise that atheism is something, and that it cannot be blamed for certain actions that have related motivation.

Just like a religion cannot be blamed for certain actions that have related motivation.

[InaneAnanity]

81. I'm still waiting

For an example of mass murder done BECAUSE of atheism

[manic expression]

84. Again, you miss the point in a big way

Anti-Catholic murders during the Spanish Civil War had political motivation, but they were also motivated by anti-religious sentiment, sentiment that was fueled by atheist perspectives (beliefs).

OK, now try to concentrate on every word:

As I have stated before, they cannot be blamed on atheism.

[InaneAnanity]

85. Which atheist perspectives fueled the murders??

I should avoid those.

[manic expression]

88. Unless I am mistaken,

you have an atheist perspective. You are an atheist, no? If so, you have an atheist perspective.

By the way, I'm probably going to stop responding because this has become pointless. If you can't grasp what I'm saying, that's not my fault.

[InaneAnanity]

90. I'm not aware of any atheist perspectives

That's why I'm asking you.

If you are also unaware of any atheist perspectives, then how can you possibly know that these people murdered BECAUSE of them??

[manic expression]

93. No

you have an atheist perspective. The people involved in the murders also had an atheist perspective. I know that they killed with motivations taken from this perspective, although other factors were involved. Why? Because the actions were anti-religious, and the murderers' atheist mindsets played a role in this.

This is pointless.

[InaneAnanity]

94. Is it??

You say the murderers had atheist perspectives, fueling their murderous rage.

I ask, what are these perspectives??? You dodge repeatedly.

I agree, the murderers had anti-religious feelings and perspectives. These feelings had NOTHING to do with atheism, because atheism is nothing.

[InaneAnanity]

71. Also

You said "I say that the murders against Catholic clergymen was not because of atheism, but involved motivation that was taken from atheism."

Which atheist doctrine was this murderous rage taken from??

Clue me in.

[manic expression]

76. It doesn't need to include

a doctrine. The motivation was taken from anti-religious sentiment which was obviously fueled by atheist perspectives (or, as some would correctly say, beliefs). However, those murders cannot and should not be blamed on atheism.

[InaneAnanity]

77. Which atheist perspectives??

I haven't heard of any atheist perspectives.

Clue me in.

[manic expression]

79. Oh, I dunno

like the perspectives of the people who carried out the murders. They were atheists.

[InaneAnanity]

83. Yes, atheists can murder

But they murder based on other things, like strict adherance to Marxist doctrine, anti-semitism driven by religion, etc.

[manic expression]

86. However, in this case,

the murders were done because of many reasons, reasons which included anti-religious feelings which were due to atheist perspectives (beliefs).

[InaneAnanity]

87. Which atheist perspectives??

[manic expression]

89. The ones

the murderers harbored.

[InaneAnanity]

91. Which ones??

You seem to know they harbored some, so, which ones??

[manic expression]

166. People who are atheist

have atheist perspectives.

Just to be clear, I don't expect a reasonable or intelligent response.

[kwassa]

73. Of course it is possible to kill because of atheism

Atheism can be part of other political philosophies that are anti-religious, such as Communism. Atheism can be practiced in a clearly anti-religious manner, punishing and/or killing those that are religious.

I don't know where you get the idea that atheists can't kill.

[InaneAnanity]

75. I didn't say atheists can't kill

Of course they can. But if they kill, they aren't doing so because of their atheism.

[kwassa]

95. Their atheism does not exist separately within them from their other

beliefs. Atheism is part and parcel of a communist belief system. As such, they kill because of their atheism.

[InaneAnanity]

96. Is it??

Point me to the atheist doctrine that makes atheist communist.

[kwassa]

98. I don't need to

I only need to point to a communist doctrine that shows that a communist is an atheist. Being an atheist is part of being a communist.

Just so there are no misunderstandings, the word "atheist" also covers those who have an active disbelief in God. Many of these conversations fall apart over how different participants use word meanings.

[InaneAnanity]

99. Ok

I can accept that, in most communist regimes, being atheistic is part of being a communist.

It doesn't go in reverse, however. Atheism does not imply communism.

Atheism is nothing.

[kwassa]

101. I don't agree, or course. Atheism is very much something

Here are some different definitions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Some have suggested the use of modifiers, like:
"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.
"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.
Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.
The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."

[InaneAnanity]

103. Describe atheism for me, then

Give me something tangible.

[kwassa]

105. I just did; didn't you read it?

[InaneAnanity]

106. In your own words

And don't divide it up.

[kwassa]

108. Why?

[InaneAnanity]

112. Because I asked you to

[greyl]

122. Communism is atheistic like Democracy is atheistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism

Ideally, anyhow.

[kwassa]

128. I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

Both you and Inance are being quite cryptic.

[arwalden]

139. That's Just Sad... Because It Makes PERFECT Sense To Me.

I think you're just "pretending" to not understand. Far easier feign ignorance than it is to face facts, I suppose.

[kwassa]

57. You are new enough to have missed the previous long arguments

Inaneinanity:

"And you failed to listen, atheism has no substance. Nothing can be done in the name of atheism, because atheism is nothing."

Many here, including myself, think that atheism is an active belief, rather than a "lack of belief in Gods". Being relatively new here, you missed the thousands of notes on this subject previously argued.

I perfectly understand your position. I just don't agree that it is what you say it is.

[InaneAnanity]

61. I've read those arguments

They aren't compelling, and seem idiotic to me.

So I ignore them.

[trotsky]

138. But you see...

kwassa knows better than any atheist what it is that we think/believe. So that's why we are all wrong, and he is right. Got it?

[charlie]

55. I understand your point

and I largely agree. The point I was trying to make, rather badly, is that I think the example of Republican atrocities as an atheist counterpoint to the likes of the Crusades is inapt. I really don't know of any indications that they were compelled by "atheist zeal". The factions that comprised the Republicans, with the exception of the Communists, didn't profess atheism as doctrine. It's notable that there weren't pogroms against Catholics at large or religious purges within Republican ranks. The targets were the clergy and Catholic institutions, who were of a piece with the fascist/monarchist authoritarians. In other words, they were specific to enemies who were Catholic, but not only because they were Catholic.

The Crusades, while primarily a matter of power politics and venality, did have a religious component, in so far that in at least a few of them, the pious combatants were commissioned to do violence for God. For them, the war was holy. The claimants who use the Crusades as an example of religion gone amok have a better case than those who would cite the Spanish butchery as atheists run off the leash.

[manic expression]

58. And I understand yours

"The factions that comprised the Republicans, with the exception of the Communists, didn't profess atheism as doctrine."

IIRC, the Communists were pretty sizable, and so were the Anarchists, who despised hierarchy itself. I do believe that many senseless murders occured, and even if they are to be considered isolated, they still happened and were very much due to the anti-religious sentiment that was palpable at the time.

"The targets were the clergy and Catholic institutions, who were of a piece with the fascist/monarchist authoritarians. In other words, they were specific to enemies who were Catholic, but not only because they were Catholic."

I agree with this. However, many clergymen were shot in the head for little real reason, and one was almost crucified (from "The Spanish Civil War" by Hugh Thomas; I don't have the page #, sorry). While I consider the Catholics in Spain to be an "enemy", I find it difficult for one to justify such a killing, especially when such killings were not rarities.

The Crusades started chiefly because of power politics. Many people were more easily brought to fight in them because of religious zeal, but it was not religion which was the cause. My point is that it would be incorrect to blame the conflicts on religion, just as it would be equally incorrect to blame the murders in the Spanish Civil War on atheism.

[charlie]

120. I still disagree

There is no evidence for claims of atheist motivation in the Spanish atrocities. At the time, Communists were vastly outnumbered by Anarchists, and in any case the Communists have never been blamed for the killings. The two groups who were, Anarchists and so-called Radicals, were not atheist. They were anti-Church, which most any peasant or laborer, whether the most ardent believer or meanest secularist, would have been. The division in Spanish society fell nearly neatly across class lines, not between believers and non-believers.

"...many clergymen were shot in the head for little real reason, and one was almost crucified... I find it difficult for one to justify such a killing..."

Yes, such savagery and wantoness is difficult to justify. But an assertion that they were compelled by atheism just because they were inexplicable is itself inexplicable. You need some connection, tenuous or otherwise, to actors driven by their atheism, and they just aren't there. As an atheist, I know that a lack of God(s) is no guarantor of sanity or civility, nor does belief imbue someone with a propensity for madness or brutality. But the Spanish atrocities as a counterexample to the Crusades is to me as nonsensical as using, say, the Hindenburg disaster. The Crusades had a religious component, arguably minimal though it may be, and any proposed atheist example should have the same.

[manic expression]

124. Well

I wish I could find the passage where it talks about this in the huge book I have. I do think the Anarchists were most numerous in Catalonia, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

At any rate, it seems common sense that atheist feelings were a dry leaf in the campfire that were those killings. Would you not agree that although a peasant Christian would have approved of the actions, an atheist's mindset (a "strong atheist", to be precise) would help with them? I haven't said it was the reason they happened, and my original point was that atheism cannot be blamed for them, but some feelings that arose from secularism/atheism may have acted as a factor in them, however minor. In this way, it does serve as an accurate counterexample.

Anyway, I could cite the Stalinist oppression of the Russian Church if you really want another example.

Just to clarify:

"But an assertion that they were compelled by atheism just because they were inexplicable is itself inexplicable."

I completely agree with you. I have stated continuously that would be "wrong" to blame those actions on atheism in any way. I really hope you don't think I'm trying to do that, because I am doing the opposite.

[charlie]

146. No, no worries

I never mistook your intent, just objected to your example. Yes, Stalin/Church is better, there's evidence that can be argued in that instance.

[greyl]

53. -Knock Knock.

~Who's there?
-Itsa
~Itsa who?
-It's a cartoon!

You can't strictly apply the rules of logic to this cartoon and expect to understand the cartoon.
The cartoon isn't making an argument.
It is satirical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

[kwassa]

56. I have worked professionally as a political cartoonist

while I was still in high school, actually. I was published weekly in the city newpaper. I've drawn, and drawn cartoons, most of my life.

I understand how stripped down the form gets to make a point. The point, however, is pretty dumb. This would be a better cartoon if it was called "a brief history of belief systems" because the behavior described applies to many beliefs about what is the real truth, and not just religion. Making this point only against religion reveals nothing but the prejudices of the artist, which are substantial, of course.

[InaneAnanity]

63. Substantial prejudice against religion...

...should be expected nowadays.

[arwalden]

97. Why Are So Many Religious Folks So Surprised At Hostile Reactions...

... to religion? Are the religious folks so completely out-of-touch with the world around them, and all the horrible things that are (and have been) done in the name of their deity. What exactly is it that prevents them from that understanding WHY so many people have hostile reactions to religion?

Although I can understand the instinctive posture that many of them take... but I often wonder why it is that they don't also take the opportunity to examine WHY IT IS that (their) religion is so despised and ridiculed. In quiet moments, when they aren't having to be so busy retorting to posts and defending the indefensible... do they ever take a moment and think to themselves "why do so many people feel this way about my religion"?

The ostrich-mentality of many religious folks never ceases to amaze me.

[kwassa]

100. Why are so many athiests surprised by hostile reactions from religious

folks when religion is painted with a wildly inaccurate broad brush by atheists?

arwalden:

"Are the religious folks so completely out-of-touch with the world around them, and all the horrible things that are (and have been) done in the name of their deity. What exactly is it that prevents them from that understanding WHY so many people have hostile reactions to religion?"

Actually, not all that many people ARE hostile to religion, so I realy don't accept that premise.

Religious people do know the history of terrible things done in the name of their Diety, and are also aware that the Diety was misrepresented, or used as an excuse for a power grab, or nationalistic tendencies that were mixed with religion, or a whole variety of other things that brought about death and mistreatment. So did many other things that humans believed in that were and are completely secular.

"In quiet moments, when they aren't having to be so busy retorting to posts and defending the indefensible..."

Um, excuse me, where does that happen, here at DU? Who has defended crimes committed in the name of religion?

[InaneAnanity]

102. You just did

You made excuses for crimes done in the name of religion.

[kwassa]

104. and how did I do that? Care to point it out? Direct quotes, please.

[InaneAnanity]

107. k

"Religious people do know the history of terrible things done in the name of their Diety, and are also aware that the Diety was misrepresented, or used as an excuse for a power grab, or nationalistic tendencies that were mixed with religion, or a whole variety of other things that brought about death and mistreatment. So did many other things that humans believed in that were and are completely secular."

[kwassa]

109. Uh, what excuse did I make?

Figure out the difference between "explanation" and "excuse".

ex·cuse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-skyz)
tr.v. ex·cused, ex·cus·ing, ex·cus·es

1.
1. To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood: He arrived late and excused his tardiness in a flimsy manner.
2. To apologize for (oneself) for an act that could cause offense: She excused herself for being late.
2.
1. To grant pardon to; forgive: We quickly excused the latecomer.
2. To make allowance for; overlook: Readers must excuse the author's youth and inexperience. See Synonyms at forgive.
3. To serve as justification for: Brilliance does not excuse bad manners.
4. To free, as from an obligation or duty; exempt: In my state, physicians and lawyers are excused from jury duty.
5. To give permission to leave; release: The child ate quickly and asked to be excused.

[InaneAnanity]

111. I see it as excuse-making

Instead of taking responsibility.

[kwassa]

113. I am not responsible for any of those crimes

Have never been, will never be.

[arwalden]

119. I Cannot Explain Your Disconnect From Reality When You Claim...

... this:

<<Actually, not all that many people ARE hostile to religion, so I realy don't accept that premise. >>

What planet do YOU live on? Statements like this one of yours also baffles me:

<<Why are so many athiests surprised by hostile reactions from religious...when religion is painted with a wildly inaccurate broad brush by atheists?>>

If you're not on another planet, then it must be some drug-induced fantasy world you live in. Do you even READ the posts in this forum by the religious defenders? (Or do you only stalk your enemies and trail them around like a little puppy dog?)

Frankly... it sounds to me like a very lame attempt at trying to be "clever" with your own version of "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" (Wow! I guess you really TOLD me, eh?)

Then you say...

<< Um, excuse me, where does that happen, here at DU? Who has defended crimes committed in the name of religion? >>

... even though you had previously quoted me correctly... your response has nothing to do with my previous statement. It actually seems to be somethign that you intended to say to someone ELSE, for some OTHER argument. Or perhaps it was in response to something you only imagined me saying. (And that would help to support my concerns that indeed you ARE living in a fantasy world.)

In fact, anyone can easily see that I said NOTHING about anyone "defending crimes in the name of religion" (yes, clearly you HAVE mistaken me for someone else). What I said was that there are folks around here who defend the indefensible.

Anyone who needs examples of this type of aforementioned behavior pointed out to them clearly hasn't been paying much attention... and I guess that would fit you... or they only see what they WANT to see anyway... again that also fits you.

Again, I ask... Do you even BOTHER TO READ the posts in this forum by the religious defenders? Or are you so obsessed with this peevish dogging of the folks on your "enemies list" that you just allow yourself to be blinded to the plain facts that are right there in front of your face?

[kwassa]

129. arwalden

I won't quote either your answers or my own, simply because the post is getting too long and choppy to maintain coherence.

I'm am sorry that you are baffled by my answers.

To re-iterate:

1) It is my observation that not than many people are hostile to religion. They are mostly indifferent to it, something very different. From the posts of yours that I have read, you seem very hostile to religion, and that is your right.

2) You ask "what planet am I'm from?" The same one as you, though apparently our world views and life experiences are very different, a sense I get from many of our posts. World views are difficult to argue.

3) I would personally appreciate it, if you would like talk to me, that you remain on topic rather than accusing me of living on other planets, or living in drug-induced fantasies, or of being a stalker. This could indicates to me that you can't mount a substantive response to the questions I asked, but are instead attempting to create a diversion away from the topic.

4) Yes, I read the posts in this forum by the religious defenders, depending on my time, which is very limited, and my interest. I don't see any of them as defending indefensible behavior. I've asked you to point any such post out, and you haven't.

[arwalden]

133. Sorry, Kwassa... I Will Not Indulge Your Vanity Demands...

... ordering me to scurry about doing research for you and hyperlinking to things on DU. These things are easily accessible to reasonably intelligent folks such as yourself, or to anyone who pays attention. I'm not going to play that game with you.

If you deny the obvious facts of how much hostility there is towards many religious, then the ONLY possible explanation is that you live on another planet or that you live in a fantasy world. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because other than sheer willful ignorance, there can be no other rational explanation.

If you actually HAD been reading posts OTHER than the folks you like to dog-around and spar with, then you'd know the answers to the questions you posed. So either you're playing dumb, or playing games, or you just haven't been paying much attention. --- Which is it?

[kwassa]

142. Sorry

I'm done with this conversation.

I made a reasonable request, you have not mounted any argument whatsoever, but continue with personal attacks because I don't accept your completely unsuppored assertions.

You have offered nothing of any substance in this debate, and refuse to back up any of your statements. When you do, I will be happy to talk with you.

[arwalden]

144. You're Playing Games... And You Know It.

Anyone can easily look up at your previous entries through this thread and determine that you're doing nothing more than entertaining yourself with an endless series of contradictions.

<< I made a reasonable request, ...>>

Oh, spare me! You did nothing of the sort.

<<...and refuse to back up any of your statements.>>

I can only imagine that if someone were to tell you that the sky is blue, you'd deny it, and demand that the other person provide you with links to where other DUers could provide proof to you that such a thing were true.

I've called you on your bullshit and now, suddenly, you're trying to pretend as though you're somehow "above it all". Absolute nonsense.

<< ... I don't accept your completely unsuppored assertions.>>

Of course you don't. Those who know you best already know that you only accept those things that fit into your myopic worldview, and you disregard the rest. I have to admit that it's particularly amusing when you deny the most OBVIOUS truths.

I think I should let you know that when you engage in such tactics, it only serves to convince me (and perhaps others) that you know exactly what you're doing, that you recognize the weakness of your position. It's the verbal equivalent of throwing sand in your opponent's eyes.

<< I'm done with this conversation. >>

Promise? It remains to be seen if you are, or if you aren't.

[believerinchrist]

110. Yes, I do think about that...

As much as possible, I look at all people as individuals and realize that every individual has his or her own context. When I post my ideas, it is with the intent of just sharing what I believe. I know as I listen to others, I find challenges to what I believe and that makes me think and prove to myself my faith is valid. I hope people remain open-minded for no other reason but to get along.

The cartoon speaks a truth about religion--it does produce great harm in the world. I am looking forward to the day when religion is replaced with love, for that is what God is, nothing more or nothing less.

[greyl]

118. That doesn't mean you understand this cartoon.

That would be a fallacious appeal to authority, wouldn't it?

"This would be a better cartoon if it was called "a brief history of belief systems".

It wouldn't be better, it would be a different cartoon altogether. And it would be dumb.
This cartoon is specifically about violent religious extremism not "belief systems". Feng Shui, Freudian psychoanalysis, astrology, and 'a penny saved is a penny earned' are belief systems of a kind, but you won't find anybody killing the non-believers and using the belief system itself to justify it.
Btw, you're begging the question. ;)

[kwassa]

127. Please ..

Greyl:
"That would be a fallacious appeal to authority, wouldn't it?"

No, it wouldn't. This has nothing to do with an appeal to anything. Read the link you posted.

I said:
"This would be a better cartoon if it was called "a brief history of belief systems".

you:
"It wouldn't be better, it would be a different cartoon altogether. And it would be dumb."

It would be a different cartoon, and a smarter cartoon, because it would be a true statement about the nature of extremist beliefs, not a false statement about the essence of religion.

"This cartoon is specifically about violent religious extremism not "belief systems"."

This cartoon alleges to be about religion altogether, so you are incorrect, sir. There is nothing in the cartoon that represents itself as ONLY violent religious extremism, but about the entire religious experience. And using that simple broad brush is extremely stupid.

"Feng Shui, Freudian psychoanalysis, astrology, and 'a penny saved is a penny earned' are belief systems of a kind, but you won't find anybody killing the non-believers and using the belief system itself to justify it."

Communism, fascism, national socialism, nationalism, monarchism and many other systems of rule are also belief systems with extremist believers that have murdered hundreds of millions of people. There is nothing unique to those who misuse religion, which this cartoonist and apparently some others here fail to realize.

[Goblinmonger]

130. Careful

I will give you that communism has, as a tenet, atheism. Fascism, national socialism, nationalism, monarchism are not free of religion. If you are going to paint with such a broad brush, you better give examples of those that are atheist. Cause Henry VIII, as only one example among many, and his shitty ways are not ones I am willing to ascribe to an atheist.

Oh, and I am sure greyl can handle it all, but just so you have time to think, I believe the appeal to authority that he was talking about would be something like this,

"I was a political cartoonist in high school and this cartoon..."

What was your local paper? Anything I would have seen?

[kwassa]

131. I never argued that these other belief systems were atheist

but belief systems don't have to be religious belief systems at all in order to inspire extremist behavior. The behavior of fanatics, be they religious or political, is remarkably similar. This is what I am arguing. There is nothing unique to religion about this at all. Any system of thought that believes itself to be the absolute truth can engender this behavior. Hence, the inaccuracy of this cartoon.

and thank you for pointing out the "appeal to authority", I did not understand greyl's point. You are correct. It is an appeal to authority. I am, AFAIC, somewhat of an authority, though. I've studied many political cartoonists over the years, and done it professionally. So, no logical fallacy.

The paper I cartooned for was the town newspaper in a liberal college town. I saw some of my cartoons cut out and posted around the college, so somebody thought I was good.

[Goblinmonger]

132. You missed my point

and I can see it was a little unclear. I was not claiming that you argued they were atheist (well, kind of, but not as my main point). You said they were "belief systems" that had done bad things. My point was that, with the notable exception of communism, a lot of those "belief systems" that did bad things did them in the name of, and for, religion, which would make your point invalid and the cartoon's point valid.

We could argue over whether your publishing of a few cartoons in a liberal college newspaper makes you and "authority" on political cartoons. I've had a couple poems published in admittedly very minor and very unimportant journals. That does not make me an authority on poetry (though my English degree might, but that is a different point all together, now, isn't it).

[kwassa]

134. Feel free to reject my authority on political cartooning

it is a minor side issue, and I personally don't care.

"You said they were "belief systems" that had done bad things. My point was that, with the notable exception of communism, a lot of those "belief systems" that did bad things did them in the name of, and for, religion, which would make your point invalid and the cartoon's point valid."

The belief systems I named didn't do bad things in the name of religion, but in the name of their secular belief systems. They may have, at times, used religion as a component of their larger nationalistic or whatever belief system, but the totality of that system is the entity on which beliefs were claimed, not the religious component.

[Goblinmonger]

136. I have my asbestos underwear on

so I feel OK saying this. I am not saying you are going to freak out on me, but I know it is coming.

It is apologistic and ignorant to say that people like Hitler (as the poster boy for the nationalistic socialism you are talking about) didn't do what they did because of religion. I will agree that Hitler was a sick son-of-a-bitch. I will agree that he also used religion for a national rallying point. I will further agree that his take on the teachings of Christ are not the mainstream teachings--though some of them don't stray too far from others that also lead to heinous actions). But I will not agree that what he did he did because of a secular belief system. He was a Christian (Roman Catholic to be specific). He never denounced his religion. He also said, even in the documents that many use here to incorrectly show he was an athesist (read: table talk), that he was exterminating the Jews because they killed Christ. Their are others. Granted, Pol Pot and Stalin (though in a more in-depth discussion, I would agrue that the world view Stalin held about the black and white vision of the world stems primarily in part from his time at an Orthodox Seminary) were not doing what they did in service of religion, but many others were in the categories you listed.

I'm just giving you shit about the political cartoonist thing. I am admittedly a jackass sometimes.

[kwassa]

137. Haven't we been through this "Hitler is a Christian" b.s. before?

goblinmonger:

"It is apologistic and ignorant to say that people like Hitler (as the poster boy for the nationalistic socialism you are talking about) didn't do what they did because of religion."

Oh, not this again. The favorite propaganda position of atheists trying to pin Christians with Hitler's mass murders. I hope this isn't your motivation.

and I am familiar with all the other things you reference.

No, Hitler didn't do what he did because of his religion. His belief system was cobbled together from many sources, including pagan religions, by the way, but what made Hitler do what he did were his nationalistic and his racist beliefs, not his Christian beliefs. He wasn't trying to spread Christianity, he was trying to advance National Socialism, a completely different goal. Many despots will make calls to the locally established religion to gain support for their goals, and Hitler did, too.

This is the weakest of logical fallacies, by the way. Simply because someone was a Christian, or claimed to be a Christian does not mean that their motivation was from their religious faith in the slightest little bit. All the works and acts must be looked at.

[Goblinmonger]

140. Don't I know it

There are many apologists for Hitler.

Yeah Hitler was a pagan, that is why he said this:

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself.

But we do know he wasn't an atheist because he also said this:

We don't want to educate anyone in atheism. (page 6)
An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (page 59) (which is a return to the state of the animal)...

Yeah, all my atheist buddies say that.

But, he did say this that sheds some light on his religious leanings.

But in actual fact there is nothing new about this Weltanschauung. Whenever I read the New Testament Gospels and the revelations of various of the prophets and imagine myself back in the era of the Roman and late Hellenistic, as well as the Oriental world, I am astonished at all that has been made of the teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened to religiosity. They were the ones who created this new worldview which we now call socialism, they established it, they taught it and they lived it! But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at the time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried. But they allowed Christ to be resurrected, instigating the belief that his teachings too, were reborn!

Yeah, he didn't do what he did because of religion. Just keep living under that rock and telling yourself he did what he did because of a secular belief system.

[kwassa]

141. If you would like to cherry-pick Hitler's life, go right ahead.

The precise parallel in this action would be the way the Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence information to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is a great way to come up to the pre-ordained conclusion one would like to find, and well fits certain people's political agenda. It is just lousy history, though.

"Yeah, he didn't do what he did because of religion. Just keep living under that rock and telling yourself he did what he did because of a secular belief system".

The two are not necessarily separate, and in fact, are not separate in most despots, or other humans, for that matter. Most people engage in a situation of mix and match of secular and religious ideas that will support the beliefs that they have developed. Hitler used all kinds of references, and here you choose to look only at Christian ones. Great, but not legitimate history.

Let us agree for one moment that Hitler was a Christian, a premise I don't accept, and in fact find idiotic, in light of his behavior. No reasonable person could make that judgment, unless they had an absurdly broad definition of Christianity.

Even if he was, how do you prove that this Christianity was THE source of his inspiration, as opposed to all other things he referred to? I've yet to see that answered.

Second question.

Most of these quotes tend to come from Hitler's political speeches, particularly before he assumed total power. These speeches are designed to solicit political support from people he needed in order to assume that power and have that support. Noting that a campaigning politician will say anything to gain power and given that Hitler was a notorious liar on top of this, what makes you think any of these reflect Hitler's true beliefs?

[Goblinmonger]

143. LOL

:rofl:

Most of the quotations I gave your come from Table Talk, which most apologists use, incorrectly, to show that he was an atheist. Nice try, but you need to talk to some of the other apologists on here before you start taking up the yolk to get you stuff correct if you want to do that.

It is not my part to do your research for you. I found stuff from Hitler's "private" talks with the Table Talk quotations I gave you. You want to prove what you say about Hitler, you do the footwork. That is not my problem. I have pretty solid quotations, made in private, that he did what he did because of the Jews killing Christ (the same reason for The Passion to be developed, by the way). Go ahead and give me the quotations by hitler and we will talk. In case you missed it in this paragraph, this is how I know that Christianity was "THE source of his inspiration" because HE FUCKING SAID IT WAS. In public, in private, pretty much anywhere anyone would listen to him. And it makes sense: he wants to exterminate the race that killed his savior and make them pay for doing that.

Finally, I find it completely illogical for anyone to say Hitler couldn't be Christian because he was a bad man. Go look up No True Scotsman and discover the fallacy you are committing. Go ahead, google that phrase right now. It's on Wikipedia, too. Pol Pot wasn't an atheist, then, either, because no true atheist would do that. Just as ridiculous.

Then go look up ad hominem. Which is what you committed with your little "your are just like Bush and the intelligence information" bit at the beginning of your post. Also very nice and illogical.

There are bad Christians in the world that do bad things for, with, in the name of, and many other cooperative ways with religion. Get used to it.

[kwassa]

147. Invoking logical fallacies does not make them true

If you believe there is a flaw in my specific argument, you should be able to point it out, rather than invoke inaccurate analogies, which is essentially what you are doing when go to your logical fallacy page.It seems popular around here to quote logical fallacy definitions as a source of proof, which, of course, they are not.

I committed neither ad hominem, because I did not attack you, but I did attack your actions, or "No True Scotsman" which seems to be the most abused definition in all these discussions, throughout this forum and others. In either case, only facts are proof, not anyone's decision that a logical fallacy has been committed.

Your premise is that someone is a Christian because he says he is. Sorry, but I don't accept that, and most Christians would not. Hitler's behavior is so resolutely anti-Christian, from beginning to end. I judge someone by their actions, not their words, particularly from a compulsive liar like Hitler. Without this possibility, your argument falls to pieces, of.

But we have been through all this before.

As to Table Talk, most atheists tend to disqualify it, and yet you claim it as proof. I find that pretty fascinating.

Find me reputable historians of national caliber that claim Hitler was a Christian, and that was the source of his insipiration, and I will concede. Not atheist web sites with a major agenda to perpetuate. This is simply another Internet meme where a fashionable revisionist idea has taken hold and spred across the Internet. It does not make this idea true, however.

[Goblinmonger]

148. I did point out the fallacy

Do you have a reading comprehension problem


The Fallacies
1. You said I was just like Bush. Clearly an insult on this forum. You were trying to discredit my argument by attaching me to the likes of Bush. If that is not a clear-cut example of ad hominem, I don't know what is. Calling someone a name is not enough for it to be an ad hom; it needs to go to discredit the argument, which you did.

2. You said Hitler isn't a true Christian because true Christians don't do X (in this case I would imagine you would go with genocide the Jews--ironically something that the Catholic church did for a great deal of time). That is spot on an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Please explain how both of those examples are not fallacies. Don't just say they aren't; explain the logic like I have.

Why someone is a Christian

I think two things make someone a Christian, and they are both related.

1. They say they are. If we get to start determining on our own when someone is a christian, just as the No True Scotsman fallacies shows us, nobody will be. You are pretty judgemental. Christ says not to do that. Therefore you are not a Christian. I think we need to take people at their word for this. I do. But there is more.

2. The Nicene Creed is the standard and delineates the dogma of the Christian church. I have shown where Hitler indicates he believes that. He was baptised, received confession, and was confirmed a Roman Catholic which is dependant on believe the Creed. His later talks, private and public, hold to that creed. If you are going to claim he is not a Christian (therefore an apostate) you need to SHOW ME where he denounced the elements of the Creed.

Table Talk

I used Table Talk to prove my point because I know apologists like you run to it as proof of their point. I think you do that erroneously so I use it as my source. That would be to my benefit to show you, with your source, that he is not an atheist, not a pagan, and doing what he did in the name of Christ. See you charge me with finding a "reputable" historian and I have already given you a document that most apologists use to show he wasn't a christian actually showing he was. That is not some "Atheist Web Site" that is and "Apologist Web Site" that actually proves the contrary. The fact that you cannot see this is a good source for proving his Christianity indicates you may know little about ethos and persuasion.

Christianity

I think the biggest problem apologists have is that they confuse the church with Christianity. Now on DU, many Christians are quick to point out that a particular church does not reflect which Christianity is (particularly when that church has or is doing something bad). Don't confuse Hitler's disdane for the churches of the time with him going against the Nicene Creed. As my earlier stuff points out, and the apologist's Table Talk confirms, Hitler did not like the "Church" because they watered down the anti-Semite message of Jesus and turned him into something he was not. AGAIN, not liking the church does not mean he went against he Creed or stopped believing Jesus was the son of God. If that were the case, every person on DU that said the RCC was a piece of crap would no longer be a Christian, and I know you don't mean that.

[kwassa]

149. First off, I am not an "apologist"

An apologist is "a person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution".

I am not an apologist for Adolf Hitler, nor anything he has ever done. The fact that you need to apply a label to me weakens your argument, and is an ad hominem attack, actually.

goblinmonger:

"1. You said I was just like Bush."

Nope. I said your actions were like Bush's actions. It is a proper analogy, and not an ad hominem attack. I am correct, too. The method of reasoning is identical. You might feel that I slandered you by associating you in some way with Bush, but I was really looking for a good well-known analogy.

"2. You said Hitler isn't a true Christian because true Christians don't do X"

But this is where the No True Scotsman fallacy falls apart, as it almost always does. Being a Scotsman is a fact of birth, anyone born there is one, and nothing they ever do will keep them from being a Scotsman, unless they move abroad and give up Scots citizenship.

Being a Christian requires certain actions and beliefs, is a voluntary association, and definitions vary as to what exactly a Christian is. Behavior is often described as "Christian" or "un-Christian", and there is certainly no behavior of Hitlers that could be described as Christian.
Therefore, the No True Scotsman analogy is false, of course. You are not the only one to misuse it, it is a popular sport right now.

The only parallel to the Scotsman example is that most Germans were born into either Catholic or Protesent families, and were nominally Christian. This does not mean that they practiced the faith, or showed it forth in their lives, the true test, which makes them agnostic, most likely.

And, as I pointed out earlier, even accepting the idea that Hitler was a Christian, which I do not, constitutes no proof that this in any way motivated him.

The only way to judge anyone in this world is by their actions, not their words, and there is no examples of Hitler's actions in support of Christian faith or mission.

"2. The Nicene Creed is the standard and delineates the dogma of the Christian church."

Catholics and Anglicans only.

"He was baptised, received confession, and was confirmed a Roman Catholic which is dependant on believe the Creed."

Ah, but I have contrary information to your assertion. You should read this entire essay.

Hitler and Christianity
by Edward Bartlett-Jones

http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

"In contrast to his adult life, relatively little is known about Hitler's childhood and upbringing, and what we do know sheds only dim light on his religious persuasion. His mother was apparently a pious Catholic, according to Hitler's biographers, but Hitler’s own connection with the church during his early youth was not strong."

jump

"It can reasonably be said that, because of the region in which he was brought up, and the religious faith of at least one of his parents, Hitler was nominally a Catholic. Among his biographers, however, none assert that the boy was even baptized, although it is likely, and there is no evidence of any particularly strong religious element in his upbringing or of feelings of faith like those held by his mother."

jump

"Hitler’s references to providence and God and the ritualistic pageantry of Nazism were more than likely pagan than Christian. Earthly symbols of German valour and Teutonic strength were to be worshipped - not the forgiving, compassionate representative of an “Eastern Mediterranean servant ethic imposed on credulous ancient Germans by force and subterfuge” (the phrase is Burleigh’s own, in Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: a New History, Pan, 2001). A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth."

jump

"At times, Hitler was more pragmatic about religion: “If my mother were alive, she would definitely be a churchgoer, and I wouldn’t want to hinder her. On the contrary, you’ve got to respect the simple faith of the people”. If Hitler was motivated by a supreme being, or convinced that his success was providential, it is hard to see that he was referring to the same God worshipped by Christians. These elements of his orations were dramatic and poetic figures of speech, and the immortality he stood for was of the earthly type, in which heroic legends and monumentalist architecture alone would preserve a great name or event for generations. This analysis stands entirely apart from the actions committed in Hitler’s name which shatter any pretence of Christian leaning. In conclusion, it is reasonable beyond doubt to say that Hitler was not at any stage of his life a Christian."

[Goblinmonger]

150. It took you how long to realize that?

One can be an apologist for many things. I never said you were a Hitler apologist. I believe you are being a Christian apologist because you are arguing "in defense or justification of" Christianity since you are saying it could not possibly be the cause of something so evil. It is not an ad hominem, it is a description of what you are doing and where your arguments are coming from.

Ad hominem

Fine, I thought it was more of an off-hand comment, but I can live with your description. Don't think it is analagous, but fine.

No True Scotsman
So you admit that Christianity is a moving target that can never be defined? Don't believe me? You said this "Being a Christian requires certain actions and beliefs, is a voluntary association, and definitions vary as to what exactly a Christian is." So fine. If that is correct, then I declare there are no Christians anywhere since being one would only come about through strict adherence to the life of Christ and nobody has live up to his word 100%. There are no Christians.

And No True Scotsman does apply because it is showing the tautology of what you are doing. I say Christianity causes bad things. You say prove it. I say Hitler. You say that isn't Christian. I say Robertson. You say that isn't Christian. I say Frist. You say that isn't Christian. It's the exact same tautology of No True Scotsman. You are using circular logic to prove your point. Let me spell it out so you don't get confused. You are saying that Christianity is good. I say there are christians that do bad things. You say they are not christians. I ask why. You say because they aren't doing good things. Textbook example of circular logic. You are using the claim to prove the data, and the data to prove the claim. It's being used a lot because it is true.

Nicene Creed
Though I would like a discussion of how other Christian churches differ, you admit that it is the basis for catholicism, which is all I need. Show me where Hitler denounces some portion of this.

Your actions vs. words is interesting. You do know that is the reason for one of the main splits in Christianity. Catholics think you need good deeds to go to heaven. Many Protestant religions left because they believed that accepting Christ as your savior was all you needed to get into heaven. So you are denying those sects that believe it is the personal acceptance of Jesus as your Savior as not being Christian?

Then you have this gem, "there is no examples of Hitler's actions in support of Christian faith or mission." Well he genocided the Jews. The RCC did a hell of a job of that during their history as well. The Passion Play was developed by the church as a means of increasing hatred toward the Jews. Though, I know, I know, Catholics that did that aren't real Christians. Don't forget the Inquisitions. Or the Witch Trials. It seems that Hitler was living up to Christian history pretty well.

Your Essay
I've read it. I don't have problems with a majority of it, though there are more clear indicators that he did receive the sacraments. If I have more time I will find them. The important thing is that none of this denies what I provide from Table Talk, namely that:
1. He said atheism was horrible
2. He said the same about paganism
3. He said the problem he had with the church was that they diluted Jesus' anti-Semite message. He does a whole rant in Table Talk about how Paul/Saul, the horrible Jew, was the first to distort Christ's message.

Hitler's Motivation
Not sure why you are ignoring me on this. His motivation, as I have shown, is that the Jews killed Jesus and then diluted his message. Hitler felt that Christ was also anti-Semitic. The extermination of the Jews was payback for killing Jesus.

[kwassa]

151. Actually

goblinmonger:

"You are saying that Christianity is good. I say there are christians that do bad things. You say they are not christians. I ask why. You say because they aren't doing good things. Textbook example of circular logic."

There is no circle in this logic, though you like to force it into one, because this is not the path I followed. Christ's rather simple message was to love God above all others, and to love your neighbor as yourself, and on these two things everything else hangs. Hitler followed neither of these precepts. Therefore, no Christian.

Also, no connection to No True Scotsman fallacy, as I pointed out before.

I think many others claiming to be Christian and doing Christian things aren't either.

This argument breaks down as to how one identifies a Christian. You say that anyone who says he is, is one. I say it is shown in their actions and the way they live their life. No action, no faith.

Most people who leave the faith, or simply don't practice the faith don't publically renounce the Nicene Creed either, so that in itself is no test. This is a false standard.

"Then you have this gem, "there is no examples of Hitler's actions in support of Christian faith or mission." Well he genocided the Jews."

Which is not the Christian faith or mission, speaking of gems. Hitler's actions show him wooing the church vote as he rose to power, and once a dictator forcing out anyone who could be a rival to him, including churches and pastors.

[Goblinmonger]

153. Let's explore your tautology, then

You said, "Christ's rather simple message was to love God above all others, and to love your neighbor as yourself, and on these two things everything else hangs."

So, oh great definer of what is Christian, how much of the gospel do you need to follow? Please give me a percentage. Cause I am going to say, since you set that standard, 100% of the gospel documenting the life of Christ (and I won't even hold you to the gnostic gospels, just the big four widely accepted) needs to be followed in order to be called a Christian. Here is your first test: I want all of your money, please. PM me and I will give you my address to send it to. Jesus said you need to do that if I asked. Now, unless every "Christian" is willing to do that, I declare them not a Christian. Once you say that you can ignore that, all you are setting up is a moving goal post and you become part of the No True Scotsman because you just pick what you want, much like your Bush analogy from the beginning (and, by the way, I knew I would be able to use that analogy against you in this EXACT way from the beginning of our conversation because it is so much like the others ones I had with you and fellow apologists for Christianity).

[kwassa]

154. What is your point?

"Cause I am going to say, since you set that standard, 100% of the gospel documenting the life of Christ (and I won't even hold you to the gnostic gospels, just the big four widely accepted) needs to be followed in order to be called a Christian."

Whatever. I have no idea what you are talking about in this paragraph of yours.

Any clarification available?

[Goblinmonger]

156. I am saying,

that since you have set up this incredibly unclear, moving target as to what it is to be a Christian, that in order to consider yourself a Christian, you need to follow 100% of Christ's teachings. Otherwise you are not a Christian. So, there are no Christians in the world. Our argument is then moot.

I say this as a way to show that you ARE committing a tautology and what exactly it is. You can't just keep moving the target like you are. You admit there is no definition, so I came up with one.

On edit: When can I expect my money?

[kwassa]

159. Oh, really?

goblinmonger:

"I am saying, that since you have set up this incredibly unclear, moving target as to what it is to be a Christian, that in order to consider yourself a Christian, you need to follow 100% of Christ's teachings."

Hey, that's your standard, not mine. Don't try to impose it on me. Feel free to live with it yourself, however.

By the way, it is not a moving target. The target has not gone anywhere.
You would do better to call it a fuzzy target, not always in clear focus. A much better analogy.

[Goblinmonger]

164. You don't get it do you.

You talk about how Hitler was not a Christian because he did bad things. When pressed to come up with a standard by which to judge the "Christianity" of someone, all you have are really vague notions. When that is pointed out to you, all you can say is "yes, they are really vague." And yet you don't see how you are a moving target. I can never show you someone who did something bad that you would still consider a Christian. That is a textbook example of a moving target, and I am sick of the fact that you continue to do it.

There either needs to be
1. a concrete way we can look at someone one and determine if they are a christian or not, or
2. this discussion is pointless because you can always shift the definition.

I find it more than ironic that you, like you accused me of doing, just pick and choose, a la Bushco, what there is in the gospel that needs to be followed. Why do you get to choose that? You have never explained to me why you do not need to give me the money I asked for. Jesus says you need to do that in the gospel. Why can you ignore that directive from Jesus but demand that others follow different directives? Again, i will tell you: you are a moving target.

My target is the only one that makes any concrete sense. If someone says they are a christian, you believe them. Now I know it is difficult for people of your ilk to do that since you will not believe me when I say I have no belief system in god. But that should be part 1 of the test. The second test would be the Nicene Creed (or the Apostle's Creed if you want to broaden you horizon a bit).

Before you go off half cocked about the Creed being a bad test, please tell me which specific parts of the creed you find unacceptable to christianity as a whole.

If we have that two-part test, at least we have a non-moving target as to what it means to be a christian and we stop committing the tautology that you are committing, which you have never explained your way out of yet, by the way.

[Goblinmonger]

177. I'm still waiting for two things.

1. I would like your definition of a Christian that is not a moving target or at least a response to my definition.
2. I would like the money that you are going to give to me because I asked for it.

[Goblinmonger]

181. Still waiting.

Definition
Money

[trotsky]

158. Ridiculous.

This why the various sects and cults of Christianity started in the first place. What does it mean to "love God above all others" and to "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Those two phrases are simply wide open to interpretation, kwassa.

Hitler may well have loved God in the way he thought proper, and that protecting the precious Aryan race from corruption by the Christ-killing Jews was how to love his neighbors.

Think about this: would "love your neighbor as yourself" prevent you from shooting someone in self-defense?

[kwassa]

161. well ...

trotsky:

"This why the various sects and cults of Christianity started in the first place. What does it mean to "love God above all others" and to "love your neighbor as yourself"?"

That is the continuous work of the Christian to understand.

"Those two phrases are simply wide open to interpretation, kwassa."

Of course they are. They always have been.

"Hitler may well have loved God in the way he thought proper, and that protecting the precious Aryan race from corruption by the Christ-killing Jews was how to love his neighbors."

Problem: the Jews were his neighbors.

[trotsky]

162. Ah, you skipped past my question.

If you perceive that someone is about to kill you or your family, are they still your neighbor? Can you shoot them and still be a Christian?

[trotsky]

169. So, you don't want to answer my question, do you?

Kinda demolishes your whole "love thy neighbor" precept, huh?

[kwassa]

171. The day you can demolish my argument ...

there will be snowdrifts on the beaches of Tahiti. Please.

I ignore lots of your stuff because most isn't worth responding to. The reason most isn't worth responding to is because it is so way far off the point being discussed, like the following gambit from you:

"Think about this: would "love your neighbor as yourself" prevent you from shooting someone in self-defense?"

No. I don't even see what this has to do with our discussion.

I have the right of survival. As I wish no harm to others, someone trying to harm me is someone who doesn't understand me, or someone who does, but doesn't care for some personal reason. I have the right to defend myself. There is no contradiction of this with "love thy neighbor". There is nothing in there that says I can't defend myself.

Your statement is but a non-sequitur. Hence, I ignored it.

[Goblinmonger]

173. Grammar police.

is because it is so way far off the point

You need some punctuation in there. "{F}ar off" should be hyphenated.

is because it is so way far off the point being discussed, like the following gambit from you

That is very awkward wording. I would tell my students that they should break that down into two sentences so that it makes sense.

"love thy neighbor".

Tsk. Tsk. Punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks unless it is a question mark or exclamation point that does not come from the original work. There are also some instances where punctuation would be outside the quotation mark according to some minor style guides. I don't believe that those apply here.

There is nothing in there that says I can't defend myself.

You wrote a double negative. You should be ashamed of yourself.

On edit: I didn't realize that the brackets around the "F" in far would be read as hypertext.

[trotsky]

180. I can always count on you for a laugh, kwassa.

Your admission that self-defense is allowed by "love thy neighbor" is quite damning, actually. You have allowed for an exception. Many people also consider preservation of the faith to be a cause that trumps love for your neighbor. The history of Christianity is replete with such examples, killing heathens when they won't convert, etc. Hitler's actions were really no different. He viewed the Jews as Christ-killers, and felt that murdering them was justified. This all ties back to the one thing you cannot admit: that Hitler was a Christian.

Don't be afraid, kwassa. This doesn't invalidate your faith, and it doesn't disprove Christianity. It's just being historically honest and accurate.

The people of Tahiti had better invest in some parkas.

[Goblinmonger]

152. As a distinct discussion

I find this statement of yours quite funny:

His belief system was cobbled together from many sources, including pagan religions

Sounds exactly like Christianity to me:
1. Christ born on December 25th--doubt it. More likely due to other religious holidays of the time--most notably welcoming of the sun from solstice.
2. wreaths, stockings, trees to celebrate Christmas--WAY pagan
3. Bunnys and eggs on EASTER--do I even need to?

Anyway, just found it ironic that you would disqualify someone from being Christian because, though I don't admit if for your other discussion, they did the same thing Christianity did.

[kwassa]

155. One more non-analogy.

Proving precisely nothing.

[Goblinmonger]

157. I never said it was an analogy, I said it was irony

Do I now need to define those terms for you or can you handle that on your own.

I made this a new response because I ADMITED it has nothing to do with our Hitler discussion.

It was ironic. I am an English teacher. I like irony. I thought I would point it out. Do you not get the irony?

[kwassa]

160. Christian beliefs are not cobbled together

How and when Christian holidays are celebrated certainly have many references to previous pagan celebrations.

Two different things, though.

[Goblinmonger]

165. Dude, lighten up

I was trying to point out irony, which is definitionally humorous. Apparently you have no sense of humor so it was wasted on you. Hopefully somebody got something out of it.

And, if you really want to screw around with your beliefs, there is a good book out there that makes that argument that Matthew created the Christ mythology based on Homeric epics and Greek mythology. Pretty persuasive. It's a good read regardless.

[arwalden]

168. Heh-heh! I Got It, Goblin... But I'm Not Sure Which Was More Enjoyable...

... was it the irony itself, or was it the fact that your pointing it out just went WHOOSH over his head? I got a chuckle out of both. I suppose that both were equally enjoyable, but on different levels.

[kwassa]

170. What irony?

you said:
"Anyway, just found it ironic that you would disqualify someone from being Christian because, though I don't admit if for your other discussion, they did the same thing Christianity did."

You are an English teacher?

"though I don't admit if for your other discussion". All kinds of grammatical agreement in that.

I ignored this part of your original note because it makes no sense. My reference to non-analogy was regarding your citation of certain Christmas holidays as having Pagan origins. Sorry you misunderstood, though I was rather brief.

If I would guess, trying to correct your sentence, would be:

"Anyway, just found it ironic that you would disqualify someone from being Christian because they did the same thing Christianity did."

The other reason I ignored this part is that I had no idea what you are referring to. What was the same thing that they did?

[Goblinmonger]

172. So we are playing that game?

OK. I will make sure that I edit each of my posts, and I will forever being holding you to strict grammatical standards. Just to let you know--I am probably better than you are at this. Here are my problems with your post.

All kinds of grammatical agreement in that.

That is a sentence fragment. You need to have both a subject and a predicate for there to be a complete sentence. I will appreciate you writing in complete sentences, please.

I ignored this part of your original note because it makes no sense.

Since there is a complete sentence before and after the conjunction (because), you need to have a comma before the conjunction.

If I would guess, trying to correct your sentence, would be

What "would be"? You do not have a clear subject for that verb phrase.

The other reason I ignored this part is that I had no idea what you are referring to.

One should never dangle their prepositions. This is especially true when criticizing the grammar of another.

Can we end this silly game? I make posts during the day while I have time. Occasionally, I will have a typo or slip slightly on my grammar. But if you wish, I can play this grammar game with you. I imagine I will win.

On to the substance at hand:

"Anyway, just found it ironic that you would disqualify someone from being Christian because, though I don't admit if for your other discussion, they did the same thing Christianity did."

You really don't understand that? Well, let me drop the reading level a little lower and not confuse you with such complex sentences. You said Hitler wasn't a Christian because he just mixed a bunch of pagan stuff together. The early Christians took a bunch of pagan stuff and mixed it together. They did this for a lot of their celebrations and holidays. It is ironic because you criticize Hitler as not being a Christian for doing something similar to what the Christians did.

"though I don't admit if for your other discussion".

What the hell does grammatical agreement mean, anyway? Do you mean noun-verb agreement? Sorry, we have been down the grammar road. I will edit each of your posts very carefully. As a matter of fact, I will respond to each of your posts with two posts. One for grammar, and one for substance. There are two minor errors in my wording. "f" should be changed to "it." "our" should be changed to "our." It should make sense to you now. Sorry for the mistakes.

Thanks for moving this discussion from the actual substance at hand to something that serves as a smoke screen for your inadequacies in this matter.

[kwassa]

174. I have to wade through all this stuff for you to get to a simple point

that you could have stated properly the first time, but didn't.

you say:

"You said Hitler wasn't a Christian because he just mixed a bunch of pagan stuff together. The early Christians took a bunch of pagan stuff and mixed it together."

They didn't mix their Christian beliefs. The celebrations of those beliefs do have pagan sources or timing. Hitler mixed beliefs THEMSELVES together from a variety of different sources, and ended up with a fake spirituality that had as it's heart German nationalism.

This is the non-analogy I described in my first response. I was right the first time.

Did you get it now, or should I explain it again? I am not a grammar Nazi, speaking of Nazis, but the way you constructed that sentence destroyed it's clarity.

[Goblinmonger]

175. Grammar Check

time, but didn't

You really like to put those commas before conjunctions when you don't need them.

you say:

You started a sentence and didn't capitalize the first word?

sources, and

There is another comma that doesn't belong.

that had as it's heart

There are two problems with this phrase.
1. You should put "at its heart" inside of commas since it is an independant phrase.
2. "It's" means "it is." "Its" is the possessive form of the word.

destroyed it's clarity

You can refer to the discussion above regarding "it's."

You claim you are not a grammar Nazi, but you say things that make it seem to the contrary.

I have to wade through all this stuff for you to get to a simple point that you could have stated properly the first time

You are an English teacher?

Those are clearly words from a grammar Nazi. I have no problem with that. I love grammar. Modern Grammar was my favorite class from my undergraduate degree. I apologize for being sloppy when I responded to you. I will hold you to the same standard, though. With the mistakes I listed above, it is a miracle I can understand anything you are saying.

[Goblinmonger]

176. You are blowing this way out of proportion.

I made this a different thread because I felt it was unrelated to the Hitler discussion we were having. I was just trying to show you that I wasn't a complete jackass all the time by adding a little humor to the discussion. You are apparently humorless. I am sorry for the attempt. I do not want to continue this discussion, because it seems you are using it as another smokescreen to take away from our other discussion.

[kwassa]

178. it's all how you tell the joke ...

Not only do I have a great sense of humor, I am often the funniest person in the room. Here on DU, however, it is a highly competitive humor environment, particularly in the Lounge.

I appreciate that you say it was a joke.

[Goblinmonger]

179. This is a discussion I don't want to have with you right now

but I brought up the irony as a joke. I really do think that the Jesus mythology was developed from, among others, pagan and Greek mythology. God comes down and impregnates a human? Zeus. God dies and rises again? Many various myths.

Again, the irony was pointed out as an attempt at humor. The discussion above we can have another time in a different thread.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

135. LOL!

:rofl::rofl:

[FM Arouet666]

145. Not an accurate description of religion.

"I'm praying to this Sacred Stone! It gives me peace and purpose and spiritual connection. You should do it, TOO!"

The line should say "You have to do it, TOO!" I think I will go riot..........

[WritingIsMyReligion]

163. Very true.

:rofl: