The nazi religion (1 Viewer)

[Scott]

The Ancient World was extremly violent and it was the Judeo-Christian tradition that brought a more compassionate way of looking at the world into being. The Romans crucified and massacared people at teh drop of a hat as did all the ancient civilizations. Why do atheists always attempt to distance themsleves from the actions of the most conspicuous and militant atheist movements of the last century.

Damien the reason is that it is not based in history. You really can't see much on a decline in violence when the Roman Empire became Christian with Emperor Constantine. (to win a battle)

Atheism was not an afterthought to Commuinsim it was central to its whole mission.

Well no. It's an economic system that was opposed by churches. The Catholic church built Sacré-Cœur Basilica in Paris to commemorate the defeat of the 1871 Commune. It was built in the most rebellious neighborhood of the Commune. The churches tend to back those in charge.

You are trying to convince people that the violence of the twentieth century was caused by religion. In fact it was the rejection of religion (the 19 th century philosophers trumpeted the Death of God) that lead to the most cataclysmic century known to humanity. Nietsche himself proclaimed the death of God and we all know where his philosophies lead. So we can using your logic even then postulate that atheism lead directly to Nazism.

Not really as atheism is only a non-belief rather than a belief that requires a positive action. There is militant anti-clericalism which you are referring to with the Soviets. I haven't read Nietzsche but I am familiar with Darwin's Theory. Charles Darwin's works and Evolution are often noted incorrectly as leading to Nazism except that the Nazis practiced Eugenics on live people rather than Natural Selection over millions of years. Darwin's works were banned in Nazi Germany. If you don't have Adam and Eve, you don't have Original Sin and that is a direct challenge to churches' power over individuals.

The 20th Century tyrannies either co-oped religions directly or religion's methods in their new dogmas. They were really as atheistic as you are about Ra, Zeus or Thor. They just believed something else. Christopher Hitchen's work God is Not Great has a very good chapter on the religious influences on 20th century tyrants.

 

[Jack]

Damien the reason is that it is not based in history. You really can't see much on a decline in violence when the Roman Empire became Christian with Emperor Constantine. (to win a battle)



Well no. It's an economic system that was opposed by churches. The Catholic church built Sacré-Cœur Basilica in Paris to commemorate the defeat of the 1871 Commune. It was built in the most rebellious neighborhood of the Commune. The churches tend to back those in charge.



Not really as atheism is only a non-belief rather than a belief that requires a positive action. There is militant anti-clericalism which you are referring to with the Soviets. I haven't read Nietzsche but I am familiar with Darwin's Theory. Charles Darwin's works and Evolution are often noted incorrectly as leading to Nazism except that the Nazis practiced Eugenics on live people rather than Natural Selection over millions of years. Darwin's works were banned in Nazi Germany. If you don't have Adam and Eve, you don't have Original Sin and that is a direct challenge to churches' power over individuals.

The 20th Century tyrannies either co-oped religions directly or religion's methods in their new dogmas. They were really as atheistic as you are about Ra, Zeus or Thor. They just believed something else. Christopher Hitchen's work God is Not Great has a very good chapter on the religious influences on 20th century tyrants.

Really fascinating discussion and there is a good deal of truth in what you are both saying. I would like to point out, however, that the only thing I would be wary of is the potential to use 'church' as a synonym for 'religious belief'. The Church is a social construct and is as open to misuse as any other human activity. As for atheism, in my experience, its 'followers' display a surprising similarity to the most dedicated religious adherent. Give me a cheerful agnostic anyday.

 

[damian]

Hitchens was a very poor historian to say the least who selectively used history in his rather simplistic debates as a tool to support his preconceived bias. Now the soviet regime is anti clerical rather than militantly atheistic. You chaps want to hold Christianity responsible for alleged events from Ancient history but deftly dodge your own rather excessive body count. Darwin,s work in itself was directly misconstrued by many eugenicists to support many forms of racism. Not saying he was a racist just that his work was used for that. Point is that the nazis were not Christians. The soviets and pol pot etc were on the other hand active atheists who wished to replace a spiritual world view with a materialist one. So modern day radical secularists have to accept that atheism can lead to Rey serios for war of a better word sins.

 

[Scott]

Really fascinating discussion and there is a good deal of truth in what you are both saying. I would like to point out, however, that the only thing I would be wary of is the potential to use 'church' as a synonym for 'religious belief'. The Church is a social construct and is as open to misuse as any other human activity. As for atheism, in my experience, its 'followers' display a surprising similarity to the most dedicated religious adherent. Give me a cheerful agnostic anyday.

Jack, I use the word church because it's the organization on earth that has the power to hurt people. Historically churches do.

Atheism just means no belief (in gods) and agnostic means no knowledge (of gods) and whether folks are happy or not is up to the individual. You can't really stick up for religion and then use the term to criticize the activities of atheist individual and events. Any large group of people can be compared to a Nuremberg rally because of the nature of crowds. Look at Triumph of the Will and you'll see lots of people having good clean fun.

There can also be seen in the Third Reich church cooperation and approval plus incorporation of Christian iconography with Nazi symbols.

 

[Jack]

Jack, I use the word church because it's the organization on earth that has the power to hurt people. Historically churches do.

Atheism just means no belief (in gods) and agnostic means no knowledge (of gods) and whether folks are happy or not is up to the individual. You can't really stick up for religion and then use the term to criticize the activities of atheist individual and events. Any large group of people can be compared to a Nuremberg rally because of the nature of crowds. Look at Triumph of the Will and you'll see lots of people having good clean fun.

There can also be seen in the Third Reich church cooperation and approval plus incorporation of Christian iconography with Nazi symbols.

Scott

I am enjoying the calm and rational discusion, although we may have just outlasted everyone else! The reason I like to make a distinction between church and religious belief is that it is possible for an institutionalised version of a religion to support evil and the private belief in a God to bring comfort to an individual, whether that belief is 'right' or not. The Catholic Church has a good deal to be ashamed of during 1933 - 1945, but that is a failing in people not necessarily the belief system. I do feel, however, that you can understand belief systems like Nazism, or indeed more 'positive ones' by referencing other belief systems as per one of my earlier posts. I do not think that it is necessarily sticking up for religion. They share common characteristics and it aids understanding.

I agree with the Rally comment - I have worked at a school that had a monthly cheering practise - 1500 students in the grandstand at lunch chanting and stomping their feet. I even suggested that we get searchlights and banners and people took me seriously!

The happy agnostic was a throwaway line - I should have put a smiley face with it! I have Hitchens autobiography - a good read from an interesting character.

God Bless

Jack

 

[Scott]

Hitchens was a very poor historian to say the least who selectively used history in his rather simplistic debates as a tool to support his preconceived bias. Now the soviet regime is anti clerical rather than militantly atheistic. You chaps want to hold Christianity responsible for alleged events from Ancient history but deftly dodge your own rather excessive body count.

I couldn't agree less. Hitchen's works, speeches, and debates are widely available on the "net" for folks to decide for themselves. His book makes a good start for further reading.

Darwin,s work in itself was directly misconstrued by many eugenicists to support many forms of racism. Not saying he was a racist just that his work was used for that.

Damien that isn't the fault of Darwin that his works are confused with Eugenics. He is the boogy man of modern Creationists.

Point is that the nazis were not Christians. The soviets and pol pot etc were on the other hand active atheists who wished to replace a spiritual world view with a materialist one. So modern day radical secularists have to accept that atheism can lead to Rey serios for war of a better word sins.

Well there certainly were Nazis and the German people plus the other European fascist countries who were Christians and received the support of the Churches. The materialist term when applied to the Communists really means they tried to swap one dogma for another.




Damien, I'd really have to see an example of a current radical secularist. He or she certainly isn't wearing a Nazi uniform. (But does have a sense of humor.) :wink2:

 

[damian]

I couldn't agree less. Hitchen's works, speeches, and debates are widely available on the "net" for folks to decide for themselves. His book makes a good start for further reading.




Damien that isn't the fault of Darwin that his works are confused with Eugenics. He is the boogy man of modern Creationists.



Well there certainly were Nazis and the German people plus the other European fascist countries who were Christians and received the support of the Churches. The materialist term when applied to the Communists really means they tried to swap one dogma for another.


View attachment 103644

Damien, I'd really have to see an example of a current radical secularist. He or she certainly isn't wearing a Nazi uniform. (But does have a sense of humor.) :wink2:

View attachment 103645

Well maybe it isn't Christianity's fault that people misquote it for their own purposes either. You are quick to point out the Nazis so called religious roots. Why do you not accept that they used Darwinism as a basis for their murderous racism. This was not a uniquely Nazi thing and eugenics movements were common around the world including in the United States. I have read Mr Hitchens a great deal and his logic and philosphy is quite lacking. I will give you he had a sharp tongue and knew how to play an audience. That shoudl not be confused with being correct. Point is that Nazism was anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. It used pseudo pagan beliefs and mixed them with racial Darwinism and some readings of Nietsche to create its toxic philospohy. Stalin depsite your attempts to paint him as a Christian was a committed atheist who actively promoted disbelief in the spiritual.

 

[Mitch]

Damian...

I am not so sure how influential Darwin was on the Nazi's. Mein Kampf does not mention Darwin once. It always gets quoted and connected with Nazism and, I am not sure correctly. The germans as I mentioned earlier used a bit of this theory and a bit of that but, the nazi's and Hitler as head did not use or apply a natural selection to humans IMO they actually applied an artificial selection to humans. There is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection.

The Nazi's wanted to use selective breeding within their ideology. The important point is that it was not really intended to create a ''master race'' but, to preserve and continue the Aryan race their priordial Aryan character which was held as the highest order.

Thats why many leading scholars rejected Darwin and, his books were banned from libraries and the like. The Nazi racial theory can be tracked directly back to Arthur De Gobineau (inequality of the human races) which, was before Darwin.

These works were heavily used in Nazism and by people like Hans Gunther a leading racial theorist of the time. If we begin to look at the holocaust and the actual mass extermination of races we cannot really look to Darwin as the influence behind these actions. Other less complex reasons were at the core of these actions
Mitch

 

[damian]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Kaisers-Holocaust-Germanys-Forgotten/dp/0571231411

This book documents the rise of Eugenics in early twentieth century Germany. It shows how the movement was involved in the extermination of the Herero people in Namibia. Of interest was the obsession with shipping bodies back to Germant for racial profiling. This predated the racial profiling of Jews and other people by Nazi racial scientists This interest in the differences in races arose from a misguided understanding of Darwin's tehory of evolution. So it is incorrect to state that darwin did not influence the Nazis. (Please note I am not saying Darwin was a racist or that his thoery of evolution ins racist or untrue). Social Darwinisn as a force was quite powerful.

 

[Peter Reuss]

Gents -

As an ordained Christian minister I have a few words to say on this topic...but ironically I will refrain.

Religion is one of those powder keg issues that people not only will never agree on...they have a need to fight for their 'cause' (and causes can be pro or anti religion). The forum rules prohibit religious discussions for this reason.

We started with a very interesting conversation about whether Nazism could be considered a religion...we've strayed far from home.

I will commend you all for keeping passions and insults out of the thread...but I'm going to have to close things down.

Feel free to continue the conversation via PM.