The Compassionate Faith of Hitleroonism

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He wasn't equating Hitler and Jesus Christ, he was equating Hitler and God. And you are correct, that is grossly unfair to Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's the fundamentalist interpretation of God, I'm ok with it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?

Sodom? Noah's Flood?

EDIT: Actually, scratch that. It doesn't make any difference whether the Great Flood literally happened or not. The 'moral' of the story suits my purposes just fine.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like the hypothetical. I don't think it would be rude to simply criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf. But I think there would be rude and insulting ways of criticizing. A lot of them probably would be insulted if you simply declared Hitler to be an evil guy. In their minds you would be saying that the philosophy they follow is an evil philosophy even though it's not at all. Because that is what most would infer if you just started saying randomly, "Hitler was the antichrist."

I think there would be a better way of educating these people about the past than initially declaring Hitler a villain. You could try to show them that the lifestyle they lead isn't based off of Hitler's teachings before you start attacking Hitler. At the same time I'm not quite sure it would be worth trying to change everyone's mind if it would make no difference in society.

Another two points:

- I'm not necessarily saying that you were trying to be insulting and rude before. But I can assure you that many people would be insulted by the comments you made. It seems like you could phrase your claims more eloquently. Again this relates to whether or not you want the Hitleroons or whoever to listen to you. If you don't care whether they change their minds or embrace truth/reason, then I guess there is no reason to care whether they are insulted or not.

- I hardly think you can equate Hitler and Jesus Christ. Although I think your hypothetical made the argument a lot clearer.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't equating Hitler and Jesus Christ, he was equating Hitler and God. And you are correct, that is grossly unfair to Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL..I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] vhawk

[bunny]

I understand although I confess I am not making myself clear at all of late.

My point was intended to be that the analogy breaks down. With hitleroonism the hitler-attacker and the strangely-interpretive-hitler-follower both agree he exists. They disagree on his motives and character(presumably).

In the atheist attacking christianity, they disagree on the authorship. So the atheist is NOT saying "your religion is fine, but you are misinterpreting the words of what is actually an evil being, however well intentioned you may be". Rather they are taking the view that the only source of the religion is the religious people themselves. Thus, an attack on the religious beliefs doesnt have the third person element that the attack on hitler does.

Having said that, I personally dont find it insulting to attack people's beliefs, nor to label a belief stupid. However, I do think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you hold a stupid belief, you must be stupid - this is not correct as you may be misinformed, alternatively it may just be a blind spot in an otherwise impeccably rational mind.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the hypothetical. I don't think it would be rude to simply criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf. But I think there would be rude and insulting ways of criticizing. A lot of them probably would be insulted if you simply declared Hitler to be an evil guy. In their minds you would be saying that the philosophy they follow is an evil philosophy even though it's not at all. Because that is what most would infer if you just started saying randomly, "Hitler was the antichrist."

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey - it gets their attention.

[ QUOTE ]
I think there would be a better way of educating these people about the past than initially declaring Hitler a villain. You could try to show them that the lifestyle they lead isn't based off of Hitler's teachings before you start attacking Hitler. At the same time I'm not quite sure it would be worth trying to change everyone's mind if it would make no difference in society.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this forum, rationality is frequently assumed. But my desire to share my frustration about Christianity isn't rational. so I can't evaluate myself according to that standard. I can say that it's probably more rational to find a way to express my ideas than to simply keep them to myself, but putting it in the terms of a mission statement is beyond me.

Call me a cynic or an apathetic, but I don't think it's in my power to destroy religion. And if it were, I'm not sure I'd want to go about it - it's not my job, and it would be very drastic. In terms of changing people, I believe in leading by example. If my actions and ideals are more effective, then they will presumably succeed on their own merits. There is the idea of the "virus meme" that disturbs me, but propaganda isn't what I'm about. Let other people do the macrophaging, where (and if) it's necessary.

I think Jesus (as depicted in the New Testament) was a manipulative sociopathic con-man, and it's frustrating to me that nobody else shares that view. So I have an itch to express it, but I don't want to go crashing anyone's party. I'll scratch that itch by posting on a philosophy forum, where (eerily enough) some people actually agree with me. It's really that simple. No high-minded goals here, or at least none that are developed enough to let out of the sandbox.

[ QUOTE ]
- I hardly think you can equate Hitler and Jesus Christ. Although I think your hypothetical made the argument a lot clearer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't my intent. If I were to equate Jesus with anyone, it'd be Josepth Smith, Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard. Hitler was an amalgam, because I believe the actions of the God of the Old Testament were analogous with those of Hitler (the cult of personality was more like Jesus).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand although I confess I am not making myself clear at all of late.

My point was intended to be that the analogy breaks down. With hitleroonism the hitler-attacker and the strangely-interpretive-hitler-follower both agree he exists. They disagree on his motives and character(presumably).

In the atheist attacking christianity, they disagree on the authorship. So the atheist is NOT saying "your religion is fine, but you are misinterpreting the words of what is actually an evil being, however well intentioned you may be". Rather they are taking the view that the only source of the religion is the religious people themselves. Thus, an attack on the religious beliefs doesnt have the third person element that the attack on hitler does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. It's true there's no clear source of blame, like Hitler. But at the same time, modern Christians are no more responsible for the Bible than my Hitleroons are for the concentration camps. There is a third person, it's just hard to clarify - partially the writers of the gospels, partially Roman Catholicism, partially the ancient Hebrews, and maybe Jesus himself (if he existed and fit the image of him described in the New Testament).

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I personally dont find it insulting to attack people's beliefs, nor to label a belief stupid. However, I do think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you hold a stupid belief, you must be stupid - this is not correct as you may be misinformed, alternatively it may just be a blind spot in an otherwise impeccably rational mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Below are some links and an explanation of what I'm talking about. What you guys are calling "religion" is a very recent phenomenon. You might understand this, but many of the arguments that are being made here are against fundamentalism.

wikipedia article on fundamentalism

The Fundamentalism Project was a decade long project funded by the American Academy of Arts and Science that produced five volumes of research on 75 different fundamentalist movements throughout history. Over 100 scholars from around the world contributed. I haven't read that much of it, but it's really fascinating stuff. They concluded there are five basic characteristics shared by all fundamentalisms:

1. Men hold the power and women are seen as subservient.
2. All rules apply to all people. There can be no pluralism
3. The rules have to be handed down to the next generation precisely.
4. A rejection of modernity and a desire to return to a previous "golden age" that never really existed.
5. The denial of history in a radical way.

Here's a review of it by The Council of Foreign Affairs:
link

I randomly googled it and found a shorter summary if you scroll down on this web page.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I personally dont find it insulting to attack people's beliefs, nor to label a belief stupid. However, I do think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you hold a stupid belief, you must be stupid - this is not correct as you may be misinformed, alternatively it may just be a blind spot in an otherwise impeccably rational mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I do too. But I also try to avoid making comments that will be perceived as insults. I admit I'm probably overly sensitive to that.

madnak, I didn't ever mean to suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion. I probably did at some point and started this whole debate.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I would really, really like to know what you mean by fundamentalism. You seem to have an extremely broad view of it. What parts of the Bible am I allowed to believe are literal and still avoid being called a fundamentalist, by you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Below are some links and an explanation of what I'm talking about. What you guys are calling "religion" is a very recent phenomenon. You might understand this, but many of the arguments that are being made here are against fundamentalism.

wikipedia article on fundamentalism

The Fundamentalism Project was a decade long project funded by the American Academy of Arts and Science that produced five volumes of research on 75 different fundamentalist movements throughout history. Over 100 scholars from around the world contributed. I haven't read that much of it, but it's really fascinating stuff. They concluded there are five basic characteristics shared by all fundamentalisms:

1. Men hold the power and women are seen as subservient.
2. All rules apply to all people. There can be no pluralism
3. The rules have to be handed down to the next generation precisely.
4. A rejection of modernity and a desire to return to a previous "golden age" that never really existed.
5. The denial of history in a radical way.

Here's a review of it by The Council of Foreign Affairs:
link

I randomly googled it and found a shorter summary if you scroll down on this web page.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certainly arguing against that, but certainly not exclusively that. How can you claim that the Great Flood story isn't barbaric and far, far worse than the Holocaust?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I am certainly arguing against that, but certainly not exclusively that. How can you claim that the Great Flood story isn't barbaric and far, far worse than the Holocaust?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware that I claimed that.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am certainly arguing against that, but certainly not exclusively that. How can you claim that the Great Flood story isn't barbaric and far, far worse than the Holocaust?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware that I claimed that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, YOU didn't, but a large number of theists who don't come even close to fitting your criteria for fundamentalists do. And they think that story is just fine by them.