I'd just like to say that this is one of the best recaptionings,<-- that's not a real word lol, of this video clip I've seen. The logic, quotation, and sources provided are exceptional, thanks for the lesson. =D
Every so often, an uneducated, illogical fool lands on this video and makes an utterly stupid, unpunctuated comment such as, "Idiots Hitler was an Atheist".
The video, information box, and my comments address the two lines of reasons that demonstrate why such comments are stupid. First, facts. Second, fallacies of logic.
No, I'm poking fun while addressing the problem that many theists try to attack atheism (tu quoque fallacy) by claiming that Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Hitler definitely was not an atheist. Stalin had attended a seminary.
I sincerely hope that Catholics are no longer anti-semitic. Unfortunately, early Christianity (particularly Pauline and Marcionic) was anti-Jewish. We all know that anti-semitism tragically persisted until recently.
the early christians were jews. stalin may have attended seminary, but he was very atheistic in the sense that he was very driven to abolish religion theres too much research that points out his opposition to any organization other than the government, he killed more of his own citizens than those that were killed in the holocaust to do so. There arguement is not that a tenant of atheism is murder. what they don't articulate is that absoulutly has tenants and thats how it comes down.
What utter tosh! Since you are American and appear to be a fundie, I shall forgive you for your execrable English and obvious ignorance of history.
Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who did not set out to found a separate religion. The Ebionites were Jewish Christians. The other groups that I mentioned discarded Jewish law (a la Moses) and became actively anti-Jewish. Your argument is equivalent to saying that Muslims are Christian, or Protestants are Catholic.
2. Stalins anti-religious policies had zip to do with atheism. He viewed state religion as a powerful opponent to his megalomaniacal plans. He was extremely paranoid and killed political opponents, including those close to him in his party.
Its not "tenants" of ... Its "tenets" of Atheism does not have tenets per se. Lack of belief scarcely qualifies as a tenet.
Go away and google the definition of "atheism" and "tenet".
The likes of terrec cannot, or will not, see that Stalin and other megalomaniacal despots were motivated by power, and not by ideology. This is also true of megalomaniacal despots who happened to be religious. There are considerably more of the religious brand of tyrant scattered through history.
History also demonstrates that religious ideology, rather than the lack thereof, has caused considerable misery. This includes the Shoah (for which theists try to exculpate religion).
That is true. But when a tyrant believes that he has a higher power behind him and that he is justified in every action he takes, he becomes even more of a threat. It might (read: Will) motivate him into doing even more sinister things than he would otherwise do, because he believes that he will be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
So what difference does it make if Hitler or Stalin were both atheists acting in the name of atheism? Does that suddenly make the god claim true? hmmm. umm. no
You're right -- of course it would make no difference to the veracity of god claims.
However, that is the logical, rational approach to the question. Fervent religionists are not high on logic, so they are swayed by such fallacies. They are trained to revere "belief" as "truth".
It's interesting that they are using the "Hitler was an atheist" fallacy much less often than before. If we repeatedly knock their illogic down, they have to switch over to the latest propagandistic device.
Actually, what theists are doing is not the "tu quoque fallacy". It would only be so if it was ONLY offered in reply to the comment that "theists are evil". If the theist is trying to support the argument that "in the absense of God anything goes, no right, no wrong" then it certainly is not a tu quoque reply.
Wrong. Christians use tu quoque fallacies repeatedly -- in this and other contexts.
Theists evoke Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc in response to atheistic complaints that religion has done, and continues to do, harm. In this sense, their arguments are not merely tu quoques, but they are inaccurate because none of the megalomaniacal authoritarian atrocities ordered by these fiends were motivated by atheism per se.
I'd just like to say that this is one of the best recaptionings,<-- that's not a real word lol, of this video clip I've seen. The logic, quotation, and sources provided are exceptional, thanks for the lesson. =D
Valkes 1 year ago
Every so often, an uneducated, illogical fool lands on this video and makes an utterly stupid, unpunctuated comment such as, "Idiots Hitler was an Atheist".
The video, information box, and my comments address the two lines of reasons that demonstrate why such comments are stupid. First, facts. Second, fallacies of logic.
Archaenum 2 years ago
You really believe that Hitler was a Catholic? You take one quote to support your position after crying about "poisoning the well"?
jorgekluney 2 years ago
Hitler clearly stated his position in Mein Kampf.
Statements of fact are not well-poisoning.
Is that the best argument that you can concoct? Are you defending Hitler's actions because he was a Catholic boy?
Archaenum 2 years ago
Are you trying to say that since hitler was catholic, that catholics are ant-semetic or are you poking fun at this fallacy?
terrec 2 years ago
No, I'm poking fun while addressing the problem that many theists try to attack atheism (tu quoque fallacy) by claiming that Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Hitler definitely was not an atheist. Stalin had attended a seminary.
I sincerely hope that Catholics are no longer anti-semitic. Unfortunately, early Christianity (particularly Pauline and Marcionic) was anti-Jewish. We all know that anti-semitism tragically persisted until recently.
Archaenum 2 years ago
the early christians were jews. stalin may have attended seminary, but he was very atheistic in the sense that he was very driven to abolish religion theres too much research that points out his opposition to any organization other than the government, he killed more of his own citizens than those that were killed in the holocaust to do so. There arguement is not that a tenant of atheism is murder. what they don't articulate is that absoulutly has tenants and thats how it comes down.
terrec 2 years ago
What utter tosh! Since you are American and appear to be a fundie, I shall forgive you for your execrable English and obvious ignorance of history.
Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who did not set out to found a separate religion. The Ebionites were Jewish Christians. The other groups that I mentioned discarded Jewish law (a la Moses) and became actively anti-Jewish. Your argument is equivalent to saying that Muslims are Christian, or Protestants are Catholic.
Archaenum 2 years ago
2. Stalins anti-religious policies had zip to do with atheism. He viewed state religion as a powerful opponent to his megalomaniacal plans. He was extremely paranoid and killed political opponents, including those close to him in his party.
Its not "tenants" of ... Its "tenets" of Atheism does not have tenets per se. Lack of belief scarcely qualifies as a tenet.
Go away and google the definition of "atheism" and "tenet".
Archaenum 2 years ago
The likes of terrec cannot, or will not, see that Stalin and other megalomaniacal despots were motivated by power, and not by ideology. This is also true of megalomaniacal despots who happened to be religious. There are considerably more of the religious brand of tyrant scattered through history.
History also demonstrates that religious ideology, rather than the lack thereof, has caused considerable misery. This includes the Shoah (for which theists try to exculpate religion).
Archaenum 2 years ago
That is true. But when a tyrant believes that he has a higher power behind him and that he is justified in every action he takes, he becomes even more of a threat. It might (read: Will) motivate him into doing even more sinister things than he would otherwise do, because he believes that he will be rewarded for it in the afterlife.
Squiglypig 1 year ago
So what difference does it make if Hitler or Stalin were both atheists acting in the name of atheism? Does that suddenly make the god claim true? hmmm. umm. no
riseofatheism 2 years ago
You're right -- of course it would make no difference to the veracity of god claims.
However, that is the logical, rational approach to the question. Fervent religionists are not high on logic, so they are swayed by such fallacies. They are trained to revere "belief" as "truth".
It's interesting that they are using the "Hitler was an atheist" fallacy much less often than before. If we repeatedly knock their illogic down, they have to switch over to the latest propagandistic device.
Archaenum 2 years ago
Actually, what theists are doing is not the "tu quoque fallacy". It would only be so if it was ONLY offered in reply to the comment that "theists are evil". If the theist is trying to support the argument that "in the absense of God anything goes, no right, no wrong" then it certainly is not a tu quoque reply.
jorgekluney 2 years ago
Wrong. Christians use tu quoque fallacies repeatedly -- in this and other contexts.
Theists evoke Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc in response to atheistic complaints that religion has done, and continues to do, harm. In this sense, their arguments are not merely tu quoques, but they are inaccurate because none of the megalomaniacal authoritarian atrocities ordered by these fiends were motivated by atheism per se.
Bye.
Archaenum 2 years ago