Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religon"

  • 01-08-2007 12:44pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭


    “I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religon”

    say Christopher Hitchenshere

    "We are a poorly evolved mamalian species...our pre frontal lobes are too small, our adrenalin glands are too big and our thumb finger opposition isn't all that great....we are afraid of the dark and are afraid to die and we believe in the truths of holy books that are so stupid and so fabricated that even children see through them...and I think religon should be treated therefore with ridicule and contempt and I claim ythe right to do so..."

    Powerful words indeed. Hitchens seems to argue that from an evolutionary point of view, we are still an easily frightened species of undeveloped mamals, irrational and superstitious. I can but agree with him there. He reckons that religon is ineradicable within people who are frightened of the dark and of death. These overwhelming fears lead people to the 'false' comfort of religon, so they can imagine that there is a gracious benefactor overseeing their voyage through life. It is our primordial fears that have lead us into superstition and that religon is, therefore, essentially the result of fear.

    On Islam

    "It makes quite large claims for itself, it says that it is the final revelation, it says that God spoke to one illiterate business man in the arabian peninsula,three times through an archangel and the resulting material that you can see when you read it is largely plagarised from the old and the new testament, almost all of it actually is plagarised (ineptly) from the the old and the new testamnet and it is to be accepted as a divine revelation and as the final and unalterable one and that those who do not accept this revelation are fit to be treated as cattle, infidels, chattel....well I tell you what, I don't think Mohammed ever heard those voices, I don't believe it and the liklihood that I'm right as opposed to the liklihood that a businessman who couldn't read had bits of the old and new testamnet dictated to him, I think puts me near the position of being objectively correct but who is the one under threat?

    I think that Christopher makes an excellent point here and obviously it's not exclusive to Islam, so why are we more protective of religous opinion, declaring every under the sun sacred when in fact the position of objective truth more than likley falls on the side of the opposer of religous doctrine. It seems to me that these laws being brought into place to protect religon are in facts laws to curb the right of speech on such topics. If we not free dismantle the constructs of religon and openly criticise it's practice or history then we simply are relenting on our duty as enlightened beings and afford these insitiutions more piety and sacredness until eventually the slightest negative thought of any malcontented individual is treated with an instant beheading, hanging or other similar ritualistic cultist events with which all exclusive societies have always associated themsleves with as if it reinforces their connection with some supernatural element when in fact all it does it underline their staion as one of superstition and ignorance.



«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fighting words indeed,

    There is of course no such thing as an under-evolved animal, so I'm not quite sure what he means. It seems like a rather round-about way to say "idiot", and I don't particularly like the quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo that evolutionary development increases intelligence or would make people less religious.

    Enlightenment (which I'm all for) has nothing to do with evolution.

    He is right about religion being a product of fear, fear of death, fear of the unknown etc. He kinda answers his own question there though. People show religion an unreasonable amount of respect because of the desire to not invoke this fear in people. Such acts can be uncomfortable for both the religious person and the sceptic.

    So when someone goes "I'm praying to God that I don't die of cancer" most people wouldn't go "Heck that won't do any good, God doesn't exist .. you are going to die for sure"


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,949 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    stevejazzx wrote:
    “I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religon”

    say Christopher Hitchenshere
    Hitchens - a complete nob. His book "God is not Great" the worst book on atheism I have ever read. An embarrassment really. How he is perceived as an intellectual is beyond me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Wicknight wrote:
    Fighting words indeed,

    There is of course no such thing as an under-evolved animal, so I'm not quite sure what he means.

    Yes but it is true that an animal may evolve further. Anyways I think he is simply trying to underline our inadequacies or what may be percieved as our inadeqaucies in respect of our place in the world.
    wicknight wrote:
    It seems like a rather round-about way to say "idiot", and I don't particularly like the quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo that evolutionary development increases intelligence or would make people less religious.
    Enlightenment (which I'm all for) has nothing to do with evolution.

    Ok I've see an number of threads go down the enlightenment/evolution road to diastrous consequnces so lets not go there. Clever poeple will indeed know that evolution is exclusively a physical event.
    wicknight wrote:
    ....People show religion an unreasonable amount of respect because of the desire to not invoke this fear in people.

    I'm not quite sure exactly what you're saying here...the only reason I can think of why the authorities afford religon so much protection is becasue they intend to preserve it as an institution, which they can may use for their own ends.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Hitchens - a complete nob. His book "God is not Great" the worst book on atheism I have ever read. An embarrassment really. How he is perceived as an intellectual is beyond me.

    Tim..he is exceptionally overbearing at times and his voice can initate in some people an almost instant contempt but I have no doubt that he is a powerful intellectual and authority on the subject at hand, religon.

    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/Blasphemy.mp3

    Listen to the above, it is a brilliant debate between him and Stephen Fry on the incitement to religous hatred bill...

    I haven't read God is not Great so can't comment there but his historical texts abnd essays on the American constitution and his new book about Orwell are all IMO quite good.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    stevejazzx wrote:
    Yes but it is true that an animal may evolve further.

    That assumes evolution is a linear process. Its not.

    An organism may develop more complexity (which is I think what you mean here) but that doesnt suggest that it is more or less evolved than any other animal, rather it is more adapted to its environment and specific mechanisms it uses to exploit that environment.

    However, the trouble with Hitchens is I think he lets heis temper and fluidity in prose run away with him.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    That assumes evolution is a linear process. Its not.

    That assumes that 'further' can only infer a linear direction when in fact it is a quite flexible word. Anyways lets not have this debate, I am not a biologist but I think Christophers proposition is fairly valid.
    hivemind wrote:
    However, the trouble with Hitchens is I think he lets heis temper and fluidity in prose run away with him.

    Yes on tepmer..however after listening to him and Stephen Fry debate I must admit that he is an extraordinary orator.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭joe_chicken


    stevejazzx wrote:
    "We are a poorly evolved....

    Poorly evolved for what?

    Bullshìt like that is worse than fùcking creationism... I couldn't be bothered reading the rest of his toss.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    stevejazzx wrote:
    Yes on tepmer..however after listening to him and Stephen Fry debate I must admit that he is an extraordinary orator.

    Ok, I wont argue the point over evolution, its semantics anyway and only matters to a small number of people.

    However, regarding oratory, lol, lets not forget some other fantastic orators such as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Castro, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Snr and the ultimate goober David Icke. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Poorly evolved for what?

    Bullshìt like that is worse than fùcking creationism... I couldn't be bothered reading the rest of his toss.

    Biologists day in and day out tak about how evolution has aided animals to survive in thier respective habitats, so the comment is realitve. Of course we could all get really clever and say haha evolution doesn't have to amount to anything, it just is..but unless you are a great authority on the subject and are prepared to utterly destroy the rest of his arguments then what is the point of posting...is it just to show that you obviously intllectually superior to the rest of us who might be considering his proposition...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Ok, I wont argue the point over evolution, its semantics anyway and only matters to a small number of people.

    However, regarding oratory, lol, lets not forget some other fantastic orators such as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Castro, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Snr and the ultimate goober David Icke. :D

    Bizare..so what if former dictators were good orators...what does mean, prove do for us in any context? Quite a baffling way to go about discrediting someones abilities. It's like saying vegetarianism is bad becasue hitler was a vegetarian...or that atheism is bad becasue Stalin was atheist. Please think before you type.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    stevejazzx wrote:
    Bizare..so what if former dictators were good orators...what does mean, prove do for us in any context? Quite a baffling way to go about discrediting someones abilities. It's like saying vegetarianism is bad becasue hitler was a vegetarian...or that atheism is bad becasue Stalin was atheist. Please think before you type.

    Please note the use of a wide toothed smiley. It was a response meant in good humour.

    I was pointing out that you are taking Hitchensons word for it and defending him and your stated basis for doing so was that he is an excellent orator.

    A mere parody, a lampoon if you will, hardly worthy of your ire and derision.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭joe_chicken


    stevejazzx wrote:
    Biologists day in and day out tak about how evolution has aided animals to survive in thier respective habitats, so the comment is realitve.

    No idea what you're talking about.
    stevejazzx wrote:
    Of course we could all get really clever and say haha evolution doesn't have to amount to anything, it just is..but unless you are a great authority on the subject and are prepared to utterly destroy the rest of his arguments then what is the point of posting...

    His whole first paragraph is based on the fact that we are "poorly evolved".

    That makes me angry. We evolved to suit our environment. Making points about our "small frontal lobes" and then lumping in these comments with comments about religion, using "we" all the time (with an undertone of "them") suggests to some people that he might not be talking about them, just those stupid "poorly evolved" small lobed religious people.

    Fùck off Christopher.
    stevejazzx wrote:
    is it just to show that you obviously intllectually superior to the rest of us who might be considering his proposition...

    Accusing me of intellectual snobbery is hypocritical to say the least.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,949 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    stevejazzx wrote:
    Tim..he is exceptionally overbearing at times and his voice can initate in some people an almost instant contempt but I have no doubt that he is a powerful intellectual and authority on the subject at hand, religon.
    For me it's nothing to do with his voice.

    I have read:
    God Delusion , End of Faith (Harris), Why I am not Christian (Russell), Atheism a VSI (Baggini) and Breaking the Spell (Dennett) and Hitchens' God is not Great which is easily the worst.

    He's like a fusion of Michael Moore, Kevin Myres and an angry A&A poster atheist who enjoys fire insults at people who disagree him.

    (I think an A&A mod would warn Hitchens, if he posted some of his God is not Great rhetoric in this forum.)

    Hitchens has a good turn of phrase and rhetorical skill but overall that book is about as intellectual as the Sunday Indo. He has no expertise of Philosophy, Science and Theology.

    In 300 or so pages there were two good points, I had n't heard before.

    1. An argument that facism was a derivative from Catholism.
    2. The Jesuits used to check people's family tree and if they had any Jewish blood they were not allowed be a Jesuit.

    The rest of it is full of logical fallacies and just plays to a particular audience of what I would call: "angry atheists" - atheists that are still angry that their parents made them go to mass or the Priest challenged their morals etc.

    An intellectual should have the gift of being able to make people think; all Hitchens does in that book is laugh at how some people think.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    No idea what you're talking about.

    You asked poorly evoled for what..I answered. He was speaking in a relative way. he wasn't lecturing on the finite cause and reaction of evolution.
    joechicken wrote:

    His whole first paragraph is based on the fact that we are "poorly evolved".

    That makes me angry. We evolved to suit our environment. Making points about our "small frontal lobes" and then lumping in these comments with comments about religion, using "we" all the time (with an undertone of "them") suggests to some people that he might not be talking about them, just those stupid "poorly evolved" small lobed religious people.

    Fùck off Christopher.

    Man..you just don't like him which is fair enough.

    joechicken wrote:
    Accusing me of intellectual snobbery is hypocritical to say the least.

    Ok..whatever man.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    In 300 or so pages there were two good points, I had n't heard before.

    1. An argument that facism was a derivative from Catholism.

    Dawkins brought up a similar point on the God Delusion (rapidly becoming the tome of budding atheists), as a response to the claim that Hitler was an Atheist where he shows (to those who werent already aware - leavinig cert history class) that Hitler was infact a Catholic.

    There are many theories indicating that much of his dislike towards the Jews was either fostered or reinforced by his Catholicism (which is traditionally anti-semetic).


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,949 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Dawkins brought up a similar point on the God Delusion (rapidly becoming the tome of budding atheists), as a response to the claim that Hitler was an Atheist where he shows (to those who werent already aware - leavinig cert history class) that Hitler was infact a Catholic.

    There are many theories indicating that much of his dislike towards the Jews was either fostered or reinforced by his Catholicism (which is traditionally anti-semetic).
    Anti-semitism manifested in most forms of Christianity. Have a look at Martin Luther's:
    On the Jews and their Lies.

    Dawkins is making a different point w.r.t. to Hitler and Catholism. His main point is that he is trying to rebutt the "atheists can also be lunatics and trouble makers" argument which many theists use referencing Stalin, Hitler etc. when they are rebutting the simplistic "look at all the wars religion causes" argument atheists use.

    I don't think Dawkins rebutts it very well either but that's a different topic for a different thread.

    The irony is, Hitchens gives out about these sectarian and biggotted attitudes that manifest in many Religions, but he is just propagating his own biggotry and intolerance.

    Most critical readers will think "Pot, Kettle and Black".


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Anti-semitism manifested in most forms of Christianity. Have a look at Martin Luther's:
    On the Jews and their Lies.

    Dawkins is making a different point w.r.t. to Hitler and Catholism. His main point is that he is trying to rebutt the "atheists can also be lunatics and trouble makers" argument which many theists use referencing Stalin, Hitler etc. when they are rebutting the simplistic "look at all the wars religion causes" argument atheists use.

    I don't think Dawkins rebutts it very well either but that's a different topic for a different thread.

    The irony is, Hitchens gives out about these sectarian and biggotted attitudes that manifest in many Religions, but he is just propagating his own biggotry and intolerance.

    Most critical readers will think "Pot, Kettle and Black".

    Sorry, I see what you are saying I misread it the first time.

    However I disagree, Dawkins is merely responding to claims that Hitler was an atheist (along with stalin) and they killed loads of people which is the claim that many theologians have made regrarding atheism and a lack of morality (extreme out come being war).

    The argument on both sides is flawed because it requires that the root cause of wars be based on faith rather than base greed for wealth, territory etc

    However, atheism is not used as a banner to unite one people against another which is, I think, where the issue stems from. Religions are capable of uniting people against a common enemy, notably by claiming that enemy to be "against god" whereas atheism would be uniting people behind a loose association of people who dont believe in something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,949 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    However I disagree, Dawkins is merely responding to claims that Hitler was an atheist (along with stalin) and they killed loads of people which is the claim that many theologians have made regrarding atheism and a lack of morality (extreme out come being war).
    You disagree with what:
    1. What I said?
    2. What Dawkins said?
    3. What the theologians say?
    The argument on both sides is flawed because it requires that the root cause of wars be based on faith rather than base greed for wealth, territory etc
    What do you mean "both sides"?
    However, atheism is not used as a banner to unite one people against another which is, I think, where the issue stems from.
    Who said it was used as a banner to unite people?
    What "issue"?
    Religions are capable of uniting people against a common enemy, notably by claiming that enemy to be "against god" whereas atheism would be uniting people behind a loose association of people who dont believe in something.
    ?

    Sorry I can't follow your post. I don't understand your point(s).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Dawkins brought up a similar point on the God Delusion (rapidly becoming the tome of budding atheists), as a response to the claim that Hitler was an Atheist where he shows (to those who werent already aware - leavinig cert history class) that Hitler was infact a Catholic.

    There are many theories indicating that much of his dislike towards the Jews was either fostered or reinforced by his Catholicism (which is traditionally anti-semetic).

    Hitler was a Catholic in the same sense that most of the posters on the A&A board are Catholic. He was baptised and raised in Catholicism as a child, but explicitly rejected it in later years.

    In the early years of Nazism Hitler made a few positive references to Christianity in order to appease his critics, but as his grip on power became stronger he derided Christianity both in private and in public.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,949 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote:
    Hitler was a Catholic in the same sense that most of the posters on the A&A board are Catholic. He was baptised and raised in Catholicism as a child, but explicitly rejected it in later years.

    In the early years of Nazism Hitler made a few positive references to Christianity in order to appease his critics, but as his grip on power became stronger he derided Christianity both in private and in public.
    "Christianity causes violence" is always flawed anyway because the Christian can just reply, the Christian doctrine is more about peace and love than violence, therefore so and so isn't a real Christian.

    The "political derivatives of religion causes violence" might be a better argument but one could easily apply that also to any edifice that has political derivatives for example nationalism.

    These silly atheism arguments omit these points and are a kin to the logical fallacy: act of omission.

    No society has invented a system whereby violence, murder, rape etc. don't exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote:
    Hitler was a Catholic in the same sense that most of the posters on the A&A board are Catholic. He was baptised and raised in Catholicism as a child, but explicitly rejected it in later years.

    In the early years of Nazism Hitler made a few positive references to Christianity in order to appease his critics, but as his grip on power became stronger he derided Christianity both in private and in public.

    As far as I'm aware there is pretty strong evidence for the idea that Hitler believe in some form of Christian God right up to the point where he shot himself in the head (presumably believing that he was heading to meet him)

    Of course what form that belief took I've no idea. I do agree that it is unfair to classify Hitler as a "Catholic", I would imagine Hitler had his own original idea of religion. He doesn't strike me as someone who would follow some one else's teachings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    As homework this evening, I want everyone to read Mein Kampf.:D

    Meh, from the original post, this guy seems a bit wishy washy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Some reviews of "God is Not Great":
    The problem with Hitchens’ thesis that religion poisons everything is how to explain those who use it to do good. How does Hitchens account for Martin Luther King? Here’s how: King was not really a Christian. Really? Well, at no point did King suggest that those who reviled him would be punished in this world or the next. 'In no real as opposed to nominal sense, then, was he a Christian.' Let’s leave aside the possibility that King’s lack of interest in revenge came from the Gospels … What of godless people who do evil? … Hitchens says that Stalin understood his people’s religious superstitions and mimicked them. So King wasn’t really religious and Stalin was. If that sort of intellectual and moral shabbiness is to your taste, this book should be too.
    Best-selling atheist authors are capitalizing on a wave of ignorance and stupidity. The latest offering, God Is Not Great, comes from a bon vivant with a British accent.

    To be sure, Christian fundamentalists and literalists have given Christopher Hitchens much to work with. For example, Memorial Day saw the opening of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where Genesis comes alive with Adam and Eve alongside animatronic dinosaurs 6,000 years ago. More of God's country in Tennessee is slated for despoliation with a theme park to be called Bible Park USA.

    While the theme park and museum builders have sincere intentions, I wish they'd read some books. And I'm talking about more than the Bible.

    Consider the great works of literature written by Christian authors. Though I saw these authors mocked in graduate school, the force of their ideas prevails. Their wisdom and humanity contrasted sharply with the nonsensical nihilism put out by trendy authors.

    Reading Milton led me back to the Bible. Shakespeare revealed the evil of atheism through characters like Iago. Dostoyevsky exposed the evils of pride and self-devised "justice."

    How odd, then, for Hitchens to invoke literature as he does:

    "We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books."

    But Hitchens must be banking on a readership that has not read Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky. These Christian authors dramatized the themes and stories of the holy book that Hitchens disparages.
    Wikipedia wrote:
    Responding to Hitchens' statement that "all attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule," Peter Berkowitz of the Hoover Institution quotes a palentologist that Hitchens himself commended--Stephen Jay Gould. After a survey showed half of all scientists are religious, Gould said that "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism." For his part, Ross Douthat remarked that "Hitchens's argument proceeds principally by anecdote, and at his best he is as convincing as that particular style allows, which is to say not terribly."


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    PDN wrote:
    Hitler was a Catholic in the same sense that most of the posters on the A&A board are Catholic. He was baptised and raised in Catholicism as a child, but explicitly rejected it in later years.

    In the early years of Nazism Hitler made a few positive references to Christianity in order to appease his critics, but as his grip on power became stronger he derided Christianity both in private and in public.

    Actually you are wrong.

    Hitler referred many times to Germany as Christian state and his obsession with the occult stemmed from a Judeo Christian understanding of the same.

    From studying the nutter you realise that he was not merely a crank but a zealot who justified his actions through religion, philosophy, politics and socialism. Religion may not have caused the things he did but he used it like he used everything else in his life, to gain power.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28 Enyeez


    I somewhat agree with the topic, BUT!, if we didn't have religion, we'd be hating over something else, boxers or briefs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    You disagree with what:
    1. What I said?
    2. What Dawkins said?
    3. What the theologians say?

    What do you mean "both sides"?

    Who said it was used as a banner to unite people?
    What "issue"?

    I disagree with your critique that Dawkins does not rebutt the arguement well. He makes a perfectly sensible argument against the position that atheisms lack of religious guidelines lead to moral degeneracy and this was the cause of wars and ethnic cleansing.

    My point regarding both "sides" is the side claiming religion causes wars and the side that says atheism causes wars (genocide, ethnic cleansing insert your moral outrage of choice). Both arguments are flawed because they presuppose the wrong driving force behind such atrocities.

    I mentioned banners as a methaphor, something that unites people, "we are all this particular thing that you arent so we can kill you" ... you have seen banners before right?

    However, I would point out that no atheist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings in the name of a god who, for all intents and purpses, should be able to wipe out unbelievers with a mere thought.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Actually you are wrong.

    Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

    Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
    National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

    10th October, 1941, midday:
    Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

    14th October, 1941, midday:
    The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

    19th October, 1941, night:
    The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

    21st October, 1941, midday:
    Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

    13th December, 1941, midnight:
    Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

    14th December, 1941, midday:
    Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

    9th April, 1942, dinner:
    There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

    27th February, 1942, midday:
    It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Enyeez wrote:
    I somewhat agree with the topic, BUT!, if we didn't have religion, we'd be hating over something else, boxers or briefs.

    This is a common charge leveled at the anti-religion crowd (of which I'm a member).

    But would we really? Boxers or Briefs won't promise you eternal afterlife, it doesn't tell you that you are special and loved from a supernatural deity, it won't convince you that you are the chosen people.

    I think people seem to underestimate quite how powerful a hold religion has on the lives of people because it claims to offer so much that nothing else can.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    PDN wrote:
    Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

    Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
    National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

    10th October, 1941, midday:
    Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

    14th October, 1941, midday:
    The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

    19th October, 1941, night:
    The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

    21st October, 1941, midday:
    Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

    13th December, 1941, midnight:
    Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

    14th December, 1941, midday:
    Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

    9th April, 1942, dinner:
    There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

    27th February, 1942, midday:
    It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

    I wont deny that.

    Trouble is that his religious position was deeply confusing.

    He defintiely believed in a god that was actively taking part in life itself rather than a detached spirit.

    However, as i pointed out, I refered to Hitler in the first place merel as a great orator and nothing else. This is getting WAY off topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,553 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Yeah, maybe leave Adolf out of it.
    We could all trawl Google and find Hitler quotes suggesting he was/wasn't a Christian.

    I wouldn't have said religion is the main cause of hatred - that would be xenophobia pure and simple.
    But no doubt it is a widely used excuse.


Advertisement