3 ms·

The Nazi movement had Christian influence. Whether it influenced the movement in a malicious way is arguable but Nazism wasn't an entirely secular movement. Hi

by 0134340 10y ago

The Nazi movement had Christian influence. Whether it influenced the movement in a malicious way is arguable but Nazism wasn't an entirely secular movement. Hitler used the term in Article 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, stating: "the Party represents the standpoint of Positive Christianity". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity And to be intellectually honest, none of those you stated committed atrocities in the doctrine of atheism because it has none. Don't throw atheism under the bus when someone criticizes your religion because atheism is the lack of belief in gods, nothing more.

reitanqild 10y ago
Listen up: I'm not here to pick on atheists. I do have many friends who are and I think I see many who behave more decently than many religious. It is only when someone mounts sweeping attacks on all or specific religions, based on things that, -while done in name of said religion-, are not described in the sacred texts of said religion, -then I do use the opportunity to gove a little history lesson. Because if I and other Christians should feel bad because genocide of X, Y and Z then certainly atheists should feel bad because of the reign of terror, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. Or rather; not. None of us should. If we should feel bad about anything it is that we aren't doing more now. That certainly bothers me.
- formula1 10y ago
  Thats really what I got out this particular segment. Religion to the individual is more important than the political implications. Theres an argument to be made about what the human mind is more likely to latch on to and what is worth having faith in. But here we see that it is a stronger power than those who try to abuse its name. And that in itself is rather beautiful in my opinion
- vacri 10y ago
  As an atheist, why should I feel bad because someone else also lacked a belief in any particular religion? There's no atheist text to follow, no atheist moral guidelines. It's just an absence of belief in religion - there's no shared base there. Similarly, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot weren't working off some sort of atheist guidebook; atheism was incidental to their 'religion', which was communism. They didn't spread atheism for atheism's sake, they oppressed religious powers because they were competitors for power. And as the OP said, Christianity today is still used to persecute and oppress. Catholicism still covers up paedophile priests. There are states in the US where an atheist is barred from holding office. Fake 'faith healers' continuously bilk people out of their money. Some flavours of the faith don't allow women to be priests. Yes, there are abusive atheists in modern western democracies, but those atheists are not saying things like "women can't hold positions of power" or "ain't no paedophiles here" or similar to protect their atheism. You're tired of feeling bad because of the dark corners of your religion? I'm tired of the canard of Stalin/Mao/Pot.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    > And as the OP said, Christianity today is still used to persecute and oppress. Catholicism still covers up paedophile priests. There are states in the US where an atheist is barred from holding office. Fake 'faith healers' continuously bilk people out of their money. Some flavours of the faith don't allow women to be priests. I defend none of it. Just be so intellectually honest as to admit that Christianity brought a number of good things and Atheists hasn't been without fault and we can meet in the middle. As I have mentioned before I don't like religious flamewars on HN.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      > As I have mentioned before I don't like religious flamewars on HN. You take part in a lot of them.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        You are right. Maybe I should just flag and move on. I still hope I am right when I say I never start and I rarely downvote opponents, instead trying to present the other forgotten point of view :-/
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    A lot of the confusion here has to do with the lack of regulation around the word "Christian". If a genuine evil person is deluded enough to call himself Christian, does that make Christianity responsible for his deeds? When a Muslim murders a club full of gay people or slits the throat of a Catholic priest, does HN upvote a comment that blames Islam? > Some flavours of the faith don't allow women to be priests. The only thing (arguably) Christian mentioned in this thread is this doctrinal issue because it's the only thing supported by some amount of scripture (though good-faith Christians disagree on this particular issue).

by 0134340 10y ago

reitanqild 10y ago

Listen up: I'm not here to pick on atheists. I do have many friends who are and I think I see many who behave more decently than many religious. It is only when someone mounts sweeping attacks on all or specific religions, based on things that, -while done in name of said religion-, are not described in the sacred texts of said religion, -then I do use the opportunity to gove a little history lesson. Because if I and other Christians should feel bad because genocide of X, Y and Z then certainly atheists should feel bad because of the reign of terror, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. Or rather; not. None of us should. If we should feel bad about anything it is that we aren't doing more now. That certainly bothers me.

formula1 10y ago
Thats really what I got out this particular segment. Religion to the individual is more important than the political implications. Theres an argument to be made about what the human mind is more likely to latch on to and what is worth having faith in. But here we see that it is a stronger power than those who try to abuse its name. And that in itself is rather beautiful in my opinion
vacri 10y ago
As an atheist, why should I feel bad because someone else also lacked a belief in any particular religion? There's no atheist text to follow, no atheist moral guidelines. It's just an absence of belief in religion - there's no shared base there. Similarly, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot weren't working off some sort of atheist guidebook; atheism was incidental to their 'religion', which was communism. They didn't spread atheism for atheism's sake, they oppressed religious powers because they were competitors for power. And as the OP said, Christianity today is still used to persecute and oppress. Catholicism still covers up paedophile priests. There are states in the US where an atheist is barred from holding office. Fake 'faith healers' continuously bilk people out of their money. Some flavours of the faith don't allow women to be priests. Yes, there are abusive atheists in modern western democracies, but those atheists are not saying things like "women can't hold positions of power" or "ain't no paedophiles here" or similar to protect their atheism. You're tired of feeling bad because of the dark corners of your religion? I'm tired of the canard of Stalin/Mao/Pot.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  > And as the OP said, Christianity today is still used to persecute and oppress. Catholicism still covers up paedophile priests. There are states in the US where an atheist is barred from holding office. Fake 'faith healers' continuously bilk people out of their money. Some flavours of the faith don't allow women to be priests. I defend none of it. Just be so intellectually honest as to admit that Christianity brought a number of good things and Atheists hasn't been without fault and we can meet in the middle. As I have mentioned before I don't like religious flamewars on HN.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > As I have mentioned before I don't like religious flamewars on HN. You take part in a lot of them.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      You are right. Maybe I should just flag and move on. I still hope I am right when I say I never start and I rarely downvote opponents, instead trying to present the other forgotten point of view :-/
- humanrebar 10y ago
  A lot of the confusion here has to do with the lack of regulation around the word "Christian". If a genuine evil person is deluded enough to call himself Christian, does that make Christianity responsible for his deeds? When a Muslim murders a club full of gay people or slits the throat of a Catholic priest, does HN upvote a comment that blames Islam? > Some flavours of the faith don't allow women to be priests. The only thing (arguably) Christian mentioned in this thread is this doctrinal issue because it's the only thing supported by some amount of scripture (though good-faith Christians disagree on this particular issue).