Messiah Richard Dawkins launches children's summer camp for atheists

[Beorn]

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/6651/article119606302f631130.jpg




The author of controversial book The God Delusion is helping to launch Britain's first summer retreat for non-believers.

Richard Dawkins is subsidising the camp which will offer children aged eight to 17 the chance to sing along to John Lennon's Imagine and have lessons in evolution.

The five-day camp, based in Somerset, promises to be 'beyond belief' - the event's motto - and will rival traditional faith-based breaks run by the Scouts and church groups.
As well as traditional camp pursuits such as trekking and tug-of-war attendees will be given lessons in moral philosophy and evolutionary biology as well as debating otherworldly activities such as crop circles and telepathy.

There will even be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn.
And instead of finishing up the day with a toasted marshmallow and round of Kim-bi-ya budding atheists will belt out 'Imagine there's no heaven...and no religion too.' :rolleyes2:

Dawkins said the camp was designed to 'encourage children to think for themselves sceptically and rationally.'



The event has been held in America for 13 years and was set up in the UK by Samantha Stein, a postgraduate psychology student from London.The 23-year-old said the 24 places available were now taken and she hoped to expand next year after receiving hundreds more inquiries. She said the camp, to be held from July 27 to July 31, was not intended to convert children but to introduce them to a different way of thinking.:rolleyes2:

It is not about changing what they think, but the way that they think.

'There is very little that attacks religion, we are not a rival to religious camps.

'We exist as a secular alternative open to children from parents of all faiths and none.'
The theme of the camp is evolution, to coincide with the Darwin 200th anniversary celebrations this year.

The programme includes canoeing, drama, nature walks, singing and swimming.
There will also be philosophical and scientific discussion for children who will be taught about evolution and that ethical behaviour is not dependent on religious belief and doctrines.

Christian organisations which run summer camps include the Church Pastoral Aid Society, an evangelical group which operates 100 holiday schemes 'giving young people a chance to meet Jesus Christ'.


Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196063/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-atheists.html)

[Beorn]

And instead of finishing up the day with a toasted marshmallow and round of Kim-bi-ya budding atheists will belt out 'Imagine there's no heaven...and no religion too.'

...finished off with the 20 pro's of race-mixing with Orientals and how to successfully proclaim to be the messiah for the working classes whilst living in the luxury and opulence of the upper class.


She said the camp, to be held from July 27 to July 31, was not intended to convert children but to introduce them to a different way of thinking.

Isn't that just the same as saying: "We want to convert you, but are too shy and scared to to say so , because we'd be compared with the religions we so virulently hate and despise, yet seem to emulate more and more every day"

The world is going mad :crazy:

[Thorum]

This is an excellent concept and program. I plan on sending my children to Camp Inquiry (http://www.campinquiry.org/) (Holland, New York) when they are old enough. From their mission statement: "We work toward helping youth confront the challenges of living a non-theistic/secular lifestyle in a world dominated by religious belief and pseudoscience."

The camp is sponsored by the Center for Inquiry (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) which is a great secular organization.

By the way, the book, "The God Delusion", was controversial to no one except religious people...

[Útrám]

When you're on a roll you don't stop with a bestseller book, you must have the camp too.

[Beorn]

I plan on sending my children to Camp Inquiry (http://www.campinquiry.org/) (Holland, New York) when they are old enough.

Will you be sending them off with their consent? :)

[Poltergeist]

And then Dawkins and his ilk dare proudly proclaim their version of atheism can by no means be regarded as religion. But this and similar cases clearly prove it can.

[Thorum]

And then Dawkins and his ilk dare proudly proclaim their version of atheism can by no means be regarded as religion. But this and similar cases clearly prove it can.

And who is their, and my, God? :confused:

[Groenewolf]

And who is their, and my, God? :confused:

A religion in essence does not realy require a God. In this we see Dawkins starting to make a ritualised form of Atheism. Al these things like summercamps with songs promising a world without religion, atheistday's, heck maybe these new atheists will be celebrating Dawkins day in the future, to celebrate the live of their great hero.

[Poltergeist]

And who is their, and my, God? :confused:

Religion is not necessarily and exclusively about supernatural beings, god(s), angels etc, but can also consist of dedicated and unquestioned (without critical spirit) devotion towards some higher order, dogmas, set of beliefs, of premises, which are considered to transcend oneself, to be "objective" (some political movements/systems have also a quasi-religious character)

[Thorum]

Thanks guys, now I understand much better. I was ignorant, sorry.

I now I know Atheism is a religion and I am religious, I subscribe to ritualized Atheism, my messiah is Richard Dawkins, I will celebrate Richard Dawkins Day sometime in the future, I will call Richard Dawkins "my great hero", I have a dedicated and unquestioned allegience to Atheism and I am a new Atheist.

Thanks, I was once lost but now I am found...

[anonymaus]

Will you be sending them off with their consent? :)

I've never been able to believe in the supernatural and concretely lacked belief in any religion by the age of 7. I consented to attend an evangelical bible camp at age 10; the camp was terrific! We learned the ins and outs of both Western and Equestrian riding, archery, swimming etc. There were usually three prayer sessions per day plus a bible studies class once per day.

I learned a lot more than how to do the Dolphin Crawl and have nothing but fond memories of the experience. It made absolutely no difference in my capacity to accept the insane idea of enslavement to the unseen.

Your juvenile histrionics don't match up with what one expects from a person of faith. Rather you behave like the Wizard of Oz, with every advancement of the mind and in human knowledge a new Toto threatening to pull back the curtain on your fraudulent charade.

[Beorn]

Your juvenile histrionics don't match up with what one expects from a person of faith.

Excuse me?! What have I done to warrant you coming to that conclusion?

In response to the quote you highlighted, I thought it pertinent to ask an atheist who has often attacked religions for doing amongst other things, sending children to camps to be surrounded by strong indoctrination (and let's not beat around the bush here. This is indoctrination) all dressed up in the form of fun filled activities.

The fact he didn't answer the question should tell me that perhaps his children may not have the added bonus of being able to 'opt out' of attending these camps.

[Poltergeist]

Thanks guys, now I understand much better. I was ignorant, sorry.

I now I know Atheism is a religion and I am religious, I subscribe to ritualized Atheism, my messiah is Richard Dawkins, I will celebrate Richard Dawkins Day sometime in the future, I will call Richard Dawkins "my great hero", I have a dedicated and unquestioned allegience to Atheism and I am a new Atheist.

Thanks, I was once lost but now I am found...

Whatever floats your boat...:cool:

[Thorum]

The fact he didn't answer the question should tell me that perhaps his children may not have the added bonus of being able to 'opt out' of attending these camps.

Actually, your comment was so utterly ridiculous, it warranted no response.

[Beorn]

Actually, your comment was so utterly ridiculous, it warranted no response.

Why was it ridiculous? You have in the past baulked at other parents sending their children to camps such as these, so thought it interesting to ask whether you would send your children even if they refused to go.

[Thorum]

It was ridiculous because obviously the answer is no. I don't need to ask them permission to send them to summer camp. I can however ask their opinion about it. When my children turn 18, they then can do what they want.

I simply want them to be brought up with an open mind, the ability to think for themselves, to question everything and especially to question 1st century Iron Age myths taught as truth.

[Beorn]

I don't need to ask them permission to send them to summer camp.

Why not? The camp is an obvious place for people to send their children to receive the parentally accepted indoctrination.

Surely a child should have a say.

You mentioned that you would listen to their opinions on the camp. What if they say they don't wish to go to the camp?

[Thorum]

Boring. You win. :sleep:

Did you have your children baptised?

My first post in this thread I believe was all that I really wanted to say. Feel free to let your children do whatever they want.

Carry on......later.

[Freomæg]

I'm torn. My 16-year-old self wants to jump with joy at the prospect of camps spreading non or even anti-religious sentiment. But my 25-year-old self is wondering whether this any longer sits well with my worldview. I'm thinking it doesn't. Here's why:

Regardless of the fact that I'm not an atheist, I still oppose the Abrahamic religions (particularly in their most Abrahamic forms). Yet, this brainwashing of children is precisely what I was always opposed to in religion. I daresay it is what most Dawkins-fans are opposed to in religion, so it becomes a case of "do as we say, not as we do", much like the political phenomenon of leftists side-stepping democratic process in dealing with an opponent they deem to be undemocratic.

More and more, I can't help thinking that Dawkins is the major player in a covert programme to eradicate religion in the name of a post-traditional society.

[Beorn]

Boring. You win. :sleep:

It's always "boring" when you know you are wrong, Thorum. ;):p


Did you have your children baptised?

No. I want them to make that choice for themselves.

[Groenewolf]

Regardless of the fact that I'm not an atheist, I still oppose the Abrahamic religions (particularly in their most Abrahamic forms). Yet, this brainwashing of children is precisely what I was always opposed to in religion. I daresay it is what most Dawkins-fans are opposed to in religion, so it becomes a case of "do as we say, not as we do", much like the political phenomenon of leftists side-stepping democratic process in dealing with an opponent they deem to be undemocratic.

If it was an Abramistic or Pagan summercamp doing the same thing Dawkins would have called child abuse. I know atheitists who are not happy with the way Dawkins is promoting atheism or the way he talk about theism.

[Cato]

It sounds as banal as Jesus Camp.

[Freomæg]

If it was an Abramistic or Pagan summercamp Dawkins doing the same thing Dawkins would have called child abuse. I know an atheitists who are not happy with the way Dawkins is promoting atheism or the way he talk about theism.
Indeed. I feel that there's something sinister about him - the way he seems to have been fast-tracked onto our TV screens and public consciousness.

[Beorn]

Indeed. I feel that there's something sinister about him - the way he seems to have been fast-tracked onto our TV screens and public consciousness.

He was on telly last night actually. It was the programme where they dissected an elephant. Even then he couldn't help but clomp his venom all over innocent stories that inspire and amuse children.

The man has absolutely no shame.

[Cato]

Indeed. I feel that there's something sinister about him - the way he seems to have been fast-tracked onto our TV screens and public consciousness.

He still hasn't gotten it through his head that his fifteen minutes of fame, not because of him but because of his pinheaded book, ended some time ago.

I've no trouble with atheists, some of my best friends are of that persuasion and I've been intellectually engaged and tested by atheist literature. Sceptics against popular beliefs have been around at least since the days of Euhemerus and the arguments of religious doubters are a necessary component in the equation of religious honesty.

I've got a problem with attention-grabbers, be they atheist or Christian or whatever. I've always found the late Corliss Lamont to be a much more respectable, and sadly underappreciated, atheist thinker. I won't say anything about Lamont's attachment to Marxism, but his The Philosophy of Humanism was an enjoyable read.

Dawkins is a nitwit, and not because he disbelieves in God(s). From what I understand, he refuses to engage in debates with creationists and similar others and he doesn't make much of an appeal to anyone except his own groupies, which is the usual trick of fanatical theologists who write only for their own equally fanatical followers. Sensible atheists, like Lamont or Bertrand Russell or Bruno Bauer aren't heard of at all (they're all dead that's why, and only fashionable atheists of the here and now seem to matter) and, rather, the media dredges up guys like Dawkins. Dawkins isn't putting anything new into the debate; he just rehashes what better minds have been saying for some time. In this way, he's as bad as the present-day religionists who parrot each other and their long-dead forebearers.

[Loki]

The camp is a great idea, I can't see anything wrong with it. :) The sooner children are exposed to rational thought, the sooner their minds will mature. They will be able to think critically for themselves from a tender age - that's a massive advantage in life! I wish I had that opportunity when I was a kid. Instead, I got indoctrinated with religious claptrap that ended up wasting at least a decade and a half of my life. :thumb down2

Education is always preferable to re-education.

[Cato]

The camp is a great idea, I can't see anything wrong with it. :) The sooner children are exposed to rational thought, the sooner their minds will mature. They will be able to think critically for themselves from a tender age - that's a massive advantage in life! I wish I had that opportunity when I was a kid. Instead, I got indoctrinated with religious claptrap that ended up wasting at least a decade and a half of my life. :thumb down2

Education is always preferable to re-education.

ANYTHING involving kids in such a fixed, dogmatic and controlled situation is a bad idea, be it Jesus Camp, Dawkins Camp or, what I was thinking about, the Hitlerjugend. Little ones are highly impressionable, are they not?
:eek:

[Loki]

ANYTHING involving kids in such a fixed, dogmatic and controlled situation is a bad idea, be it Jesus Camp, Dawkins Camp or, what I was thinking about, the Hitlerjugend. Little ones are highly impressionable, are they not?
:eek:

You won't send your kids to school? This is what it is -- sound education, based on tested and verified knowledge and science.

[Cato]

You won't send your kids to school? This is what it is -- sound education, based on tested and verified knowledge and science.

Is there such thing as an atheist school? I wouldn't send my children to such a place! Secular knowledge is fine, but I'm not an impious fellow.

[Loki]

Is there such thing as an atheist school? I wouldn't send my children to such a place! Secular knowledge is fine, but I'm not an impious fellow.

Well why not? Schools have been following religious curricula for centuries, and hardly anyone batted an eyelid. Now that is what I call indoctrination. Atheism is not a religion, but the absence of one. The polar opposite. Reality. Empiricism. Knowledge. Understanding. NOT wishful thinking and fairytale fantasies based on ancient Middle Eastern manuscripts.

[Cato]

Well why not? Schools have been following religious curricula for centuries, and hardly anyone batted an eyelid. Now that is what I call indoctrination. Atheism is not a religion, but the absence of one. The polar opposite. Reality. Empiricism. Knowledge. Understanding. NOT wishful thinking and fairytale fantasies based on ancient Middle Eastern manuscripts.

Point taken as to the establishment of religious schools. To be fair, I'd never send my kids to such a place, either.

Manuscripts which have been commented upon and annotated for many hundreds of years and which have been combined with a healthy dose of Greek speculation and logic. Also manuscripts that are from more places than just the near wast but also China, India and other parts of the world. Atheism emerges from this theistic worldview, not in spite of it.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Manuscripts which have been commented upon and annotated for many hundreds of years and which have been combined with a healthy dose of Greek speculation and logic. Also manuscripts that are from more places than just the near wast but also China, India and other parts of the world. Atheism emerges from this theistic worldview, not in spite of it.

But did the logic and reason come about because of the contemporary religious beliefs or in spite of them?

[Cato]

Greek speculation emerged from criticisms of the popular, mythological Greek religion. The doctrines of Plato or Pythagoras and such schools as the Cynics and Stoics presupposed the existence of divine beings worthy of veneration.

[Loki]

Point taken as to the establishment of religious schools. To be fair, I'd never send my kids to such a place, either.


Religious indoctrination is not always open and visible, but often subtle.



Manuscripts which have been commented upon and annotated for many hundreds of years and which have been combined with a healthy dose of Greek speculation and logic.


You can't apply logic to a work(s) that is inherently an illogical amalgamation of vastly different fantasies. It makes even less sense. I don't even want to begin mentioning all the thousands of different interpretations that are available.



Atheism emerges from this theistic worldview, not in spite of it.

I'd say because of it. It's like an application of antihistamine to a bee sting. A necessary movement to dispel the religious poisoning of minds, causing people to cultivate irrational thought patterns and behaviour.

[Cato]

You can't apply logic to a work(s) that is inherently an illogical amalgamation of vastly different fantasies. It makes even less sense. I don't even want to begin mentioning all the thousands of different interpretations that are available.

Then Plato and Moses ben Maimon and Teilhard were all highly illogical men for offering specific philosophical viewpoints on these illogical fantasies.

There, I've dont it, the appeal to authority and doctrine- which is also the limiting factor of atheists, who can only use what ammunition has already been cast into form by their confederates. However, the philosophical discipline doesn't limit itself to a specific mindset, despite the atheist attempt at trickery to say that logic only pertains to the [now-scientific] world of material form and shape and not mental and spiritual doctrines.

And how are these many interpretations and viewpoints any more arcane than the countless theories and formulae of the scientists? :confused:

[Loki]

Then Plato and Moses ben Maimon and Teilhard were all highly illogical men for offering specific philosophical viewpoints on these illogical fantasies.


They were just misguided and uninformed, that's all. We know better.

[Cato]

They were just misguided and uninformed, that's all. We know better.

Do you honestly, truly believe that the obtuse rabble and the intellectual grognards of today are more informed and well-guided than a Plato, a Teilhard de Chardin or even an honest seeker who says I know that I do not know? The former, guilty of being obtuse, knows nothing and never will; the latter, guilty of hubris, claims to know everything already, so no questions need to be asked.

[Loki]

Do you honestly, truly believe that the obtuse rabble and the intellectual grognards of today are more informed and well-guided than a Plato, a Teilhard de Chardin or even an honest seeker who says I know that I do not know? The former, guilty of being obtuse, knows nothing and never will; the latter, guilty of hubris, claims to know everything already, so no questions need to be asked.

Plato was immensely intelligent, yet he did not know electricity could be used to light up streets at night, or homes. He also did not know how to send an email or drive a car. Get what I'm saying? Knowledge increases with time.

[Cato]

Plato was immensely intelligent, yet he did not know electricity could be used to light up streets at night, or homes. He also did not know how to send an email or drive a car. Get what I'm saying? Knowledge increases with time.

Plato wasn't dealing with electricity or magnetism, which are phenomena of nature. Truly, he was dealing with his world of shapes and form (methaphysical concepts) and with ethics and morals. Plato's cosmological speculations are no more capable of being defined or tested scientifically that any other form of cosmology. Metaphysical knowledge is not secular knowledge, despite the attempts of the doubting Thomases to treat it as such. If only those who're learned in secular forms can dabble in and understand secular science, then it's equally true that only those who've got a certain frame of mind and spirit can dabble in and understand metaphysics.

Pure materialists simply can't grasp this, that there is a more sublime part of the universe that they can't see and yet which they, being what they are, demand an explanation for- as if God was actually a rabbit to be pulled out of a hat at their whim. :rolleyes:

[Loki]

Plato wasn't dealing with electricity or magnetism, which are phenomena of nature. Truly, he was dealing with his world of shapes and form (methaphysical concepts) and with ethics and morals. Plato's cosmological speculations are no more capable of being defined or tested scientifically that any other form of cosmology. Metaphysical knowledge is not secular knowledge, despite the attempts of the doubting Thomases to treat it as such. If only those who're learned in secular forms can dabble in and understand secular science, then it's equally true that only those who've got a certain frame of mind and spirit can dabble in and understand metaphysics.

Pure materialists simply can't grasp this, that there is a more sublime part of the universe that they can't see and yet which they, being what they are, demand an explanation for- as if God was actually a rabbit to be pulled out of a hat at their whim. :rolleyes:

In Plato's time the evolution and origin of the universe was not known. Everything was up to conjecture. Man used religion and philosophy to try and make sense of things. That is, to a great extent, obsolete today as we have knowledge of the universe and the evolution of all life on earth.

[Psychonaut]

Plato's cosmological speculations are no more capable of being defined or tested scientifically that any other form of cosmology.

I beg to differ. The atemporatily of being that is at the heart of Plato's system has been a curse upon Western philosophy since its inception. Only recently with Heidegger's and Whitehead's innovations have we returned to the Heraclitian view of process being ontologically primary. Just sayin' ;)

[Poltergeist]

These camps sound totalitarian to me, not to the least attractive. Be they "Christian", "atheist" or whatever.

[Puddle of Mudd]

introduce them to a different way of thinking.

Yes, this thinking is along the lines of...ah what is it?...Oh that's right, reality.

I bow to thee, Messiah, who's brilliant mind (which our feeble ones can't comprehend) showers us lowly followers with light. We love you. *Kisses statue of Dawkins*

[Cato]

Yes, this thinking is along the lines of...ah what is it?...Oh that's right, reality.

I bow to thee, Messiah, who's brilliant mind (which our feeble ones can't comprehend) showers us lowly followers with light. We love you. *Kisses statue of Dawkins*

Humorous or not, your statements merely assert my belief that many people are more comfortable letting other people think for them. Be it from Bibles or from scientific handbooks, vast numbers of people in the world have to be handed down the doctrines of their life from someone else and Jesuses and Dawkinses become their objects of adoration and devotion rather than themselves.

:eek:

[Lutiferre]

I wonder what atheist children can do.

[Beorn]

I wonder what atheist children can do.

Paint lovely pictures? Form overinflated opinions of the oiks who dare to still follow religion? Ride bicycles without stabilisers?

[Lutiferre]

Paint lovely pictures? Form overinflated opinions of the oiks who dare to still follow religion? Ride bicycles without stabilisers?

Start a new Communist Russia or Nazi Germany when they grow up. What a delicate and highly esteeming value of the world and of other humans the atheist position tends to place in the minds of atheists.

[Liffrea]

A camp to teach children how to think, now that’s something worth while, especially given the state indoctrination that passes for “education” in British schools.

A camp teaching children what to think?

No thanks.

[Loki]

Start a new Communist Russia or Nazi Germany when they grow up. What a delicate and highly esteeming value of the world and of other humans the atheist position tends to place in the minds of atheists.

Religion can put even worse things in kids' heads. How about crusades, Islamic expansion, wars of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_war), etc etc.

[Lutiferre]

Religion can put even worse things in kids' heads. How about crusades, Islamic expansion, wars of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_war), etc etc.
The Crusades cannot be understood outside the context of Islamic-Christian wars. They were a defense. Islam is itself a highly military religion fabricated on plagiarised grounds (of Christian universalism). The Thirty Years war is thanks to Protestants, heretics who willingly rebelled against the rest of the establishment in Western Europe.

None of this is comparable to the atheist regimes and the view of human life espoused by them, along with the number of fatalities.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Start a new Communist Russia or Nazi Germany when they grow up. What a delicate and highly esteeming value of the world and of other humans the atheist position tends to place in the minds of atheists.

Hitler wasn't even an atheist, besides how can you kill in the name of something which lacks a philosophy or ideology?

[Loki]

The Thirty Years war is thanks to Protestants, heretics who willingly rebelled against the rest of the establishment in Western Europe.


LOL! That's an incredibly one-sided way of looking at it. But, for the sake of this argument, both Protestants and Catholics are religionists.



None of this is comparable to the atheist regimes and the view of human life espoused by them, along with the number of fatalities.

I disagree. The Thirty Years War was more devastating on Germany than World War 2.

[Lutiferre]

LOL! That's an incredibly one-sided way of looking at it. But, for the sake of this argument, both Protestants and Catholics are religionists.
It's not one-sided, but is a historical fact (even if you don't like it). The rebellion that was the Protestant reformation was the cause of much bloodsheed and turbulence.

Besides, your argument doesn't work since it presupposes that wars only exist when there are religious differences. However, religious differences are often just superficial layers and excuses for underlying ideological, political, social, cultural, structural, capital, material differences, which only come more out and only replace religious differences as motives for war in atheist states, which we clearly see in the aggressive military structures of atheist regimes of socialism and communism. The lack of solid religious foundations only means that much more moral instability in how the (inevitable) wars play out.

Hitler wasn't even an atheist, besides how can you kill in the name of something which lacks a philosophy or ideology?
Hitler didn't lack either philosophy or ideology. His socialism was the atheistic framework fullfilling his Nietzschean rebellion against the "blood poisoning" of Aryan culture with "Jewish ideas" and slave morality (Christianity).

I disagree. The Thirty Years War was more devastating on Germany than World War 2.
First, that war is precisely the result of rebellion against religion and moral instability. Second, not in terms of fatalities. Besides, I wasn't only speaking about Germany.

[Poltergeist]

Religion can put even worse things in kids' heads. How about crusades, Islamic expansion, wars of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_war), etc etc.

Yeah, sure. And any, even the slighest, hint of nationalism /ethnic preservationism / racialism leads straight to Auschwitz and gas chambers.:rolleyes:

Come on, Loki.

This kind of argument is called ideological moralizing and it leads nowhere. Because it can be so overstretched to apply to anything one likes.

[Amapola]

If atheism is believing in no doctrine, why the need of indoctrinating? :D

[Loki]

It's not one-sided, but is a historical fact (even if you don't like it). The rebellion that was the Protestant reformation was the cause of much bloodsheed and turbulence.


Something gives me the idea that Protestants would have a different view on that. It depends who you ask. :coffee: Nevertheless, Protestants are also religionists, thus my point remains, regardless of which faction is to blame.



Besides, your argument doesn't work since it presupposes that wars only exist when there are religious differences.


There will always be religious differences, unless the whole world belongs to the same religion, which would be extremely unlikely.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Hitler didn't lack either philosophy or ideology. His socialism was the atheistic framework fullfilling his Nietzschean rebellion against the "blood poisoning" of Aryan culture with "Jewish ideas" and slave morality (Christianity).


Obviously Hitler didn't lack either a philosophy or ideology, however his National Socialism had nothing to do with atheism - which does not have either a philosophy or ideology. His denouncement of parts of Christianity never made him non-religious.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/buckle.jpg

Wehrmacht soldiers wore this slogan on their belt buckles. "Gott mit uns", meaning "God with us"

[Lutiferre]

There will always be religious differences, unless the whole world belongs to the same religion, which would be extremely unlikely.

And yet.. religious differences are often just superficial layers and excuses for underlying ideological, political, social, cultural, structural, capital, material differences, which only come more out and only replace religious differences as motives for war in atheist states, which we clearly see in the aggressive military structures of atheist regimes of socialism and communism. The lack of solid religious foundations only means that much more moral instability in how the (inevitable) wars play out.

Wars and conflicts through human history have been and are still inevitable, with or without religion.

It's worth noting how many wars there have been between kindred nations of the same religious and even cultural groups.

[Lutiferre]

Obviously Hitler didn't lack either a philosophy or ideology, however his National Socialism had nothing to do with atheism - which does not have either a philosophy or ideology. His denouncement of parts of Christianity never made him non-religious.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/buckle.jpg

Wehrmacht soldiers wore this slogan on their belt buckles. "Gott mit uns", meaning "God with us"
Yes, as can be seen in Hitlers promotion of "positive Christianity", a Nazi revisionism of Christianity exploiting the regrettable fact that Christianity had come to stay - for now - and that for better or worse, so obviously, for the better of propaganda.

There are many ways to strengthen the moral of the nation and the military.

But that says nothing about his true view of Christianity.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Yes, as can be seen in Hitlers promotion of "positive Christianity", a Nazi revisionism of Christianity exploiting the regrettable fact that Christianity had come to stay - for now - and that for better or worse, so obviously, for the better of propaganda.

There are many ways to strengthen the moral of the nation and the military.

But that says nothing about his true view of Christianity.

Regardless of any disdain for Christianity he had, he was not an atheist, he held religious views. End of story.


In Mein Kampf, Hitler writes


"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race...so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe...Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."

[Lutiferre]

Regardless of any disdain for Christianity he had, he was not an atheist, he held religious views. End of story.
He may have been "religious" whatever that means. But I am talking about theism. Religious does not equal theism. His views changed through his life, but he was an atheist when it comes to the Christian God, and his ideology (socialism) was highly atheistic.

You could at best call him a deist, but even that would be a stretch since he mostly used references to god or the creator as rhetorical devices for anti-semitism et cetera.

It's no surprise that Hitler would publically make references to god rhetorically, when addressing a Christian nation. His statements in private, however, are very different.


Early on, Hitler expressed his opinion about God and religion as follows, "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" In the Hossbach Memorandum, Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman Empire. In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-Christian tract from AD 362, neo-platonist and pagan Roman emperor Julian the Apostate's Against the Galileans, saying "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this...."

[Poltergeist]

OK, Hitler was a religious believer.

And? Who cares? What relevance does it have?

[Loki]

And yet.. religious differences are often just superficial layers and excuses for underlying ideological, political, social, cultural, structural, capital, material differences, which only come more out and only replace religious differences as motives for war in atheist states, which we clearly see in the aggressive military structures of atheist regimes of socialism and communism. The lack of solid religious foundations only means that much more moral instability in how the (inevitable) wars play out.

Wars and conflicts through human history have been and are still inevitable, with or without religion.

It's worth noting how many wars there have been between kindred nations of the same religious and even cultural groups.

There is nothing inherent in atheism which causes wars. Wars are the cause of human fallibility, which exists among both religionists and atheists.

[Poltergeist]

There is nothing inherent in atheism which causes wars. Wars are the cause of human fallibility, which exists among both religionists and atheists.

Exactly. You are right. That is why the argument that religion is allegedly "evil" because of some Crusades and inquisition doesn't hold water either. nor does Hitler's religious conviction have any relevance for anything concerning religion in general.

Some even said that Darwinian natural theory led dierctly into Auschwitz. Which is equal nonsense.

[Lutiferre]

There is nothing inherent in atheism which causes wars. Wars are the cause of human fallibility, which exists among both religionists and atheists.
I never said there was something inherent in the technical position of atheism that causes war.

However, the position of atheism does have an inherent worldview which interprets reality and experience in godless terms, and opens the opportunities for new ideologies which would have been excluded a priori given religious beliefs.

[Loki]

I never said there was something inherent in the technical position of atheism that causes war.

However, the position of atheism does have an inherent worldview which interprets reality and experience in godless terms, and opens the opportunities for new ideologies which would have been excluded a priori given religious beliefs.

Are you trying to suggest some kind of religious suppression of different ideas? ;)

[Lutiferre]

Are you trying to suggest some kind of religious suppression of different ideas? ;)
Any choice and belief is a limitation, and therefore Christianity is a limitation of what is acceptable ideologically and what is not.

Hitlers Nietzschean and Wagnerian inspired ideas of anti-Christianism and nostalgic retro-paganism for the sake of national utility, coupled with National Socialism that presents a reductionistic secular concept of nation are certainly not developments that would have come out of a Christian intellectual milleu and worldview.

[Puddle of Mudd]

OK, Hitler was a religious believer.

And? Who cares? What relevance does it have?

Something wrong with your eyes? Can you not see the above conversation?

[Poltergeist]

Something wrong with your eyes? Can you not see the above conversation?

Something wrong with your logic?

(yes, I saw the above discussion)

[Puddle of Mudd]

Something wrong with your logic?

(yes, I saw the above discussion)

I'm refuting an argument that Hitler was an atheist, therefore Nazi Germany and its atrocities were based around atheism.

[Poltergeist]

I'm refuting an argument that Hitler was an atheist, therefore Nazi Germany and its atrocities were based around atheism.

My comment wasn't addressed directly against you, but against implication that Hitler's Christian belief is relevant for Christianity as such, a thing implicitly believed by many. It was more of a rhetorical question ("He was believer. And? Who cares?") addressed at those ideological moralizers who think that Hitler's religion or Spanish inquisition has any relevance for the essence of the (Christian, in this case) religion in general. The question was addressed at them without me knowing whether you hold such view yourself or not.

[Puddle of Mudd]

My comment wasn't addressed directly against you, but against implication that Hitler's Christian belief is relevant for Christianity as such, a thing implicitly believed by many. It was more of a rhetorical question ("He was believer. And? Who cares?") addressed at those ideological moralizers who think that Hitler's religion or Spanish inquisition has any relevance for the essence of the (Christian, in this case) religion in general. The question was addressed at them without me knowing whether you hold such view yourself or not.

Oh well, I agree with you, and apologize for misunderstanding you with an insulting manner.

Friends? *Holds out hand* :)

[Lutiferre]

My comment wasn't addressed directly against you, but against implication that Hitler's Christian belief
Hitler was not a Christian believer.

[Poltergeist]

Oh well, I agree with you, and apologize for misunderstanding you with an insulting manner.

Friends? *Holds out hand* :)

OK, no problems.

[Poltergeist]

Hitler was not a Christian believer.

That still remains a controversial issue. He seems to have remained "cultural Catholic", at least to a certain extent. However, his ideas seem to be incompatible with any Christian or Catholic worldview. I am undecided.

But reductio ad Hitlerum is ridiculous anyway.

[Lutiferre]

That still remains a controversial issue. He seems to have remained "cultural Catholic", at least to a certain extent. However, his ideas seem to be incompatible with any Christian or Catholic worldview. I am undecided.

But reductio ad Hitlerum is ridiculous anyway.
Well, exactly right. And his anti-Christian statements reveal his extremely pragmatic mindset - religion was only good insofar as it served his ideology. As he said, we want no god except Germany.

Nevertheless, I am not making a "reductio ad hitlerium", and certainly for you, not speaking about truth, but making an observation about the moral nihilism of many anti-Christian ideologies and of the moral anarchy of atheism (e.g. disbelief in the God of Christianity) which is an undeniable fact. If I were to kill your mother, you if you were an atheist could at best voice your disapproval. On a fundamental level, there would be nothing wrong with it, just a chemical reaction in your brain leading to your disapproval.

The same is the case for war and conflict.

That has nothing to do with truth, as I rightly noted, if truth is taken in an objectivist sense; it has to do with the moral structure of a worldview.

Now, I happen to deny an objectivist view of truth, and affirm an existential sense of truth which includes moral integrity, and therefore, this falsifies atheism for me.

[Brännvin]

The Thirty Years war is thanks to Protestants, heretics who willingly rebelled against the rest of the establishment in Western Europe.


Lovely comment! :eek:

Well, this was started because the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand II decided to abolish the Peace of Augsburg, which allowed the German confederations to choose whether they wanted to become Catholic or Protestant. This decision angered the Protestants so they decided to revolt.

The Catholics then had to retaliate. Both sides ended up making alliances with other countries, which turned this war from being a solely religious war, into an international political war within Europe.

[Lutiferre]

Lovely comment! :eek:

Well, this was started because the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand II decided to abolish the Peace of Augsburg, which allowed the German confederations to choose whether they wanted to become Catholic or Protestant. This decision angered the Protestants so they decided to revolt.

The Catholics then had to retaliate. Both sides ended up making alliances with other countries, which turned this war from being a solely religious war, into an international political war within Europe.
None of which would have ever happened if that heretic Luther had been burnt at the stake. The lives and souls that could have been spared if it wasn't for heresy are a great many. One man and so much death.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Now, I happen to deny an objectivist view of truth, and affirm an existential sense of truth which includes moral integrity, and therefore, this falsifies atheism for me.

Are you insinuating morals come from religion, and thus atheists are without any?

[Lutiferre]

Are you insinuating morals come from religion, and thus atheists are without any?
No. I am insinuating the total lack of moral order, and therefore moral integrity, in a worldview and world without God.

[Loki]

None of which would have ever happened if that heretic Luther had been burnt at the stake. The lives and souls that could have been spared if it wasn't for heresy are a great many. One man and so much death.

Luther was a hero. :coffee:

[Lutiferre]

Luther was a hero. :coffee:
For an atheist, yes, because Luther led to more secularisation and the division of Christians into thousands of denominations and hence, further weakening of the unity and orthodoxy of Christianity, and an endless stream of heresies.

But what I was talking about was really the series of wars he started, which could have been avoided hadn't he been a schismatic in whose interest it was to divide rather than unite.

His objections toward some abuses in the Church at the time were probably correct. Note that not all of his 95 theses were rejected by the Papal Bull, and the abuses were condemned and resolved. But his theological infusions, his revision of the bible (he tried to exclude several levers from the biblical canon, including Hebrews and James), his personal pride, had nothing to do with that and were totally unwarranted.

[Puddle of Mudd]

No. I am insinuating the total lack of moral order, and therefore moral integrity, in a worldview and world without God.

OK, so what I'm hearing is atheists lack the proper morals compared with a theistic belief system which conveys 'moral integrity'.

However, I ask you this, which theistic belief (since belief systems range into the hundreds, even thousands) conveys the necessary 'moral integrity' needed to live an non-sinful lifestyle, and what makes that belief the correct one?

[Lutiferre]

However, I ask you this, which theistic belief (since belief systems range into the hundreds, even thousands) conveys the necessary 'moral integrity' needed to live an non-sinful lifestyle, and what makes that belief the correct one?
Your whole approach over-interprets my statement and makes it artificial. It was only my viewpoint of atheism, as a Christian. I never said "As a theistic belief-system-believer" which could mean a variety of things. My point was that I see every moment of my existence as a part of my subjective experience of truth, and that this is what excludes atheism as a possible worldview in regard, for instance, to moral integrity.

[Frigga]

All of this talk about religious wars, and without religion, there would be no wars I think is a little bit of wishful thinking. Humanity has always had, and always will have an Us And Them mentality. I think that Trey Parker and Matt Stone did a good job with that thought of there being only atheism in the future with their two South Park episodes Go God Go, and Go God Go XII in season ten. Even if everyone was atheist, we would still bicker about little nuances about who's idealogy is better. It is our human nature.

[Brännvin]

Ironic that, it was Luther who popularized the Gospels. ;)

[Lutiferre]

Ironic that, it was Luther who popularized the Gospels. ;)
Or at least, thats one of the articles of faith of Lutheranism. How convenient!