So that explains the Gott Mit Uns belt buckles.
Those were not a Nazi innovation. That inscription on the buckles was a German Army tradition that went back to before Germany existed as a unified state.
So that explains the Gott Mit Uns belt buckles.
@LordsFire in fact, Nietzsche deconstructed the concept thoroughly. The closest thing to a rational morality in atheism comes from nontheistic religion—Buddhism and Confucianism in short—where the “nontheism” still relies on an orderly and purposeful creation and merely refuses to anthropomorphise its creator. And even that is just one interpretation of those beliefs which is not necessarily true.
Everyone has faith in something and atheism doesn't make you any smarter or more enlightened or superior.Arguing about religion has always been a pointless endeavor, because you cannot reason with faith.
Massacre of priests and the cultural revolution of Mao. Directly tied to their atheism and desire to see society as atheists. If you want to say something like the crusades are tied to christianity you have to say that is tied to atheism.but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it was related in any way to the atrocities those regimes perpetrated.
This is both wrong and insulting. I do not believe what I believe because one day I just decided I wanted to. I don't believe it because some older generation passed it down to me. I very carefully analyzed and considered the world around me and what ideology it seemed to correspond to, and I've done bottom-up reviews of that analysis multiple times.
Sure, there are people out there who just believe whatever they like the sound of. Even more who just believe whatever was passed down to them. And most people are very captive to motivated reasoning, and unwilling to change the ideology they've arrived at, regardless of facts.
That doesn't mean that it has to be this way.
Atheism absolutely has things to do with the atrocities perpetrated. As I've said before, atheism creates a moral vacuum, as well as a cultural and power vacuum. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, created cults of personality, and stepped into the role of 'god' within their culture, doing as they pleased, and acting out the worst impulses of human nature.
We are seeing in Europe today the inward-focused result of the nihilism that atheism inevitably brings, when no ultimately satisfying purpose or meaning can be found within that framework. People try to find what pleasure they can, and wither away.
If you think I'm wrong?
Show me the rational framework for morality within atheism. Show me the rational framework for purpose or meaning within atheism. Nietsche couldn't, Kant couldn't, I really doubt you can, but I'm willing to listen if you want to try.
You are joking, right?
Secular ethics - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Religion is not only not essential to morality, it actively hinders it, seeing as it relies on fear of punishment rather than cultivation of genuine empathy in order to instill adherence to its moral code.
For every atheistic regime that perpetrated an atrocity I can give you ten religious ones that did worse.
The percentage of atheists in prison is much, much lower than their share of the population in every country that doesn't criminalize atheism itself.
For every prosperous country that has a theocratic or semi-theocratic component I can give you ten similar countries that fail horribly and ten secular countries that prosper.
Sounds to me like these religious ethical frameworks are another case of "should work in theory" but crash horribly in practice. Like communism.
That's complete nonsense. You are spouting exactly the lines as communists who failed utterly in this regard.Religion is not only not essential to morality, it actively hinders it, seeing as it relies on fear of punishment rather than cultivation of genuine empathy in order to instill adherence to its moral code.
That's not actually possible. In terms of sheer numbers of dead I believe Mao ekes out a win and relative to the nation size Democratic Kampuchea takes the win in terms of numbers dead relative to the population and sheer senseless cruelty in their slaughter.For every atheistic regime that perpetrated an atrocity I can give you ten religious ones that did worse.
That's complete nonsense. You are spouting exactly the lines as communists who failed utterly in this regard.
That's not actually possible. In terms of sheer numbers of dead I believe Mao ekes out a win and relative to the nation size Democratic Kampuchea takes the win in terms of numbers dead relative to the population and sheer senseless cruelty in their slaughter.
Which atheism does as well. What atheists largely don't realize is that they too have religious beliefs.Religion doesn't rely on fear, anyway. It simply teaches you how the Cosmos works and explains the way to you that you can act in your own best interest and that of people you care about by following the universal design.
Those were not a Nazi innovation. That inscription on the buckles was a German Army tradition that went back to before Germany existed as a unified state.
Which atheism does as well. What atheists largely don't realize is that they too have religious beliefs.
Trust me, everyone thinks they've come to their conclusions rationally; and oftentimes, they're right, from their perspective at least. However you notice how I made a claim, that at least one moral precept of Judaism and Christianity (the Golden Rule), was actually taken from a preceding culture, ancient Mesopotamia, instead of "direct divine revelation"? And what was the reaction to that?This is both wrong and insulting. I do not believe what I believe because one day I just decided I wanted to. I don't believe it because some older generation passed it down to me. I very carefully analyzed and considered the world around me and what ideology it seemed to correspond to, and I've done bottom-up reviews of that analysis multiple times.
Sure, there are people out there who just believe whatever they like the sound of. Even more who just believe whatever was passed down to them. And most people are very captive to motivated reasoning, and unwilling to change the ideology they've arrived at, regardless of facts.
That doesn't mean that it has to be this way.
Nope. But people did come before you, and I believe there was revelation to them. Jesus gave us the perfect edition of revelation.That sounds like a pretty transparent attempt at delegitimizing those who came before, by claiming ownership of their ideas after the fact.
I think a distinction needs to be made here between personal religion, and organized religion; and it's the latter that tends to run into such issues as GoldRanger pointed out, as it tends to involve giving a lot of power to a handful of people over the spiritual well-being of others.Religion doesn't rely on fear, anyway. It simply teaches you how the Cosmos works and explains the way to you that you can act in your own best interest and that of people you care about by following the universal design.
I think a distinction needs to be made here between personal religion, and organized religion; and it's the latter that tends to run into such issues as GoldRanger pointed out, as it tends to involve giving a lot of power to a handful of people over the spiritual well-being of others.
Trust me, everyone thinks they've come to their conclusions rationally; and oftentimes, they're right, from their perspective at least. However you notice how I made a claim, that at least one moral precept of Judaism and Christianity (the Golden Rule), was actually taken from a preceding culture, ancient Mesopotamia, instead of "direct divine revelation"? And what was the reaction to that?
I'm not questioning what got you to this point, but how you react to conflicting data. With immediate rejection, as pretty much everyone does when it's something they care deeply about.
I suppose I can see where you're coming from with that position; but it only holds under said worldview, which I do not share. From my perspective, you're just completely delusional.You're again making unmerited assumptions on my behalf, one which fails to understand the worldview I'm operating from.
My argument wasn't 'other people didn't think such things before,' it was 'the reason other people thought this before, was because they recognized part of how God designed them to operate.'
Yes, the Judeo-Christian expression of the concept may have come later, but divine revelation of Truth through Jesus was not the creation of that concept, it was, as the term indicates, a revelation of the concept.
Claiming that my rejection is nothing but an emotional response is insulting, and given how little you know me, quite unfounded.
I suppose I can see where you're coming from with that position; but it only holds under said worldview, which I do not share. From my perspective, you're just completely delusional.
Meanwhile, as an agnostic theist, my thoughts are that there's probably some sort of higher power out there, but I thoroughly reject the notion that anyone on this earth has ever known what that higher power is or wants. I mean sure, from a philosophical perspective, there is a lot of value that can be gleaned from the various religions; but the same could be said of any other work of fiction.I'm glad we understand each other then. It's important to recognize when your conception of the world is fundamentally different from that of another person's. Frankly, it's necessary to have a useful discourse at the deepest level.
I think that people who persistently deny the existence of God are delusional. Not as an insult, but as a factual descriptor; the evidence is there, they just reject it.
Looping this back around to the subject of the thread, I think that this is the foundational problem of Europe. They've rejected the fundamental truth of reality, and are playing games with various pleasant fantasies in how they try to make their cultures, economies, and governments operate. As these fantasies don't actually correspond to reality, it's causing them no end of grief.
And like most people voluntarily living in a fantasy, they react forcefully to people trying to point out that the fantasy is not, in fact, real, and act like the problems caused by the clash with reality are the fault of the people pointing it out, rather than their refusal to accept facts of life.
I'm sorry, but Europe's problems have nothing to do with religion.