that's right, brian, delusion was totally the prime motivating factor in all those things.  economic conditions?  social conditions?  all secondary to belief, because belief exists in a fucking vacuum.

NO.

THEY.

CAN-

FUCKING-

NOT!!!!!!

you blinders-wearing fucking cunt!

YES THEY FUCKING CAN!

If you think politics cant be treated like a religion, move to North Korea and try to challenge their communist party, see how far you get. The state is the God.

Not only did Hitler set up his Nazi religion his officers had "Gott Min Uns" "God is with us" on their belt buckles.

Swallow and follow.

Hitch thought you should. I concur.

that is one possible etymology among several.  look it up.

and you can call north korea's personality cult just that: a cult.  you can call it brainwashing.  you can call it programming.  you can call it mass delusion.  you CANNOT call it RELIGION, because that IGNORES the meaning of the term RELIGION.

the kims promise to lead humanity to a better future.  they do not promise a fundamental alteration of what humanity is.  they do not promise a fundamental alteration of what existence is.  therefore, as much as their nonsense might offend you, it is NOT A FUCKING RELIGION.

and obviously, "liberation" was too fucking vague for you too.  look up the sanskrit term moksha.  that is what i mean by both "escape" and "liberation," and that, in one form or another, is the raison d'etre of all religions.  no promise of moksha, no religion.

oh, and read your history, dipfuck.  "gott mit uns" had been on the belt buckles of the german military since prussian times (at least).  even hitler knew how conservative the german military was (which is why he relied so much on his police force to get shit done), and since he wanted to make it clear that his reich was a direct legitimate continuation of the holy roman empire and the prussian empire, he saw no reason to change it.  oh, and there were lots of other belt buckles with lots of other different phrases or no phrases.  i hate to tell you this, but showing a photo of a belt buckle with "gott mit uns" on it is not some fucking evidential coup de grace.  the only thing "gott mit uns" on a belt buckle is evidence of is "gott mit uns" on a belt buckle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_k9h0ieDGE#t=227

This is one reason religion is poison. These morons not only belittle atheists by calling it a "fad", but are not scientists themselves and are basically brainwashing their viewers into fearing science.

ok, so basically a "religion" is anything brian finds manipulative and/or harmful.  i'm not sure why he insists on the term "religion" but i think it's because he's invested so much of himself in the rhetoric of the new atheist movement for so many years that he cannot countenance the possibility that SOME of that rhetoric might not be sound.

as for me behaving like a theist, i'd like the other witnesses of this train wreck of a thread to weigh in on which of us is more guilty of that behavior.

I don't personally believe that Hitler believed in much of anything to be honest.

I think he pandered to whomever he wanted to get the results that he wanted.

He knew that big festivals, patriotic frenzy, beer and the fact that a better economy was going down would only get the people into a frenzy.

I doubt very seriously that he even took his fucked up notions of eugenics all of that seriously. I think the idea of having a name in history that he had conquered the world and built a mighty Reich was more of his belief system than anything else.

Truth to be told, when people start bringing up that "so-so was an atheist" I just simply say that its a fallacy of equivocation.

If I pointed out that serial killer and cannibal Albert Fish was a Presbyterian (a devout one actually) would anyone even remotely give that argument any sort of consideration ?

To be it is just plain dumb to even debate about Stalin being an Atheist or whether Hitler was. That to me is simply brainless theists grasping at straws.

Easily countered by simply rattling off a list of good people who were/are Atheists.

To be the whole argument of dictators are atheists is the same logical fallacy of saying = Hitler and Napoleon were all short men. Thus all short men in power become ruthless.

It's a plain and simple waste of time.

Translation, "It is fair when I win an election, but unfair when I lose an election"

Yes because corporate welfare, tax shelters and rewards for shipping jobs overseas,  for the past 30 years has worked sooooooo well.

I agree that improving conditions will make religion less relevant, which is why religion is a poison, because instead of focusing on economics, the religious right uses it as a distraction to pit otherwise those who should focus on their wallet issues against each other.

Which is why there is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion"

AND "No religious test" in the oath of office.

AND  The Barbary Treaty Article 11, "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

No,  just the opposite, if we keep doing what the right wants we will end up looking like Somalia, a few rich convincing poor religious people to kill for them.

Which makes them bully crybabies  just like a God "If I can't have you no one can".

There is a difference between can't and don't want to. But don't give me any crap that the uber rich cant afford higher taxes.

That is precisely what people have been criticizing you for. EXC did not say anything of the sort and it doesn't need to be translated because he was writing in English. You are the only person in the world who got that message from what EXC said. Rather than address what EXC actually said, you reach into your bag of phrases and choose which one you are going to rant about. It is very much like a popular technique that politicians use in debates or press conferences where they have a series of prepared answers and just plug one in, even if the answer bears no relation to the question that was asked. They figure that no one will pay attention to what question was asked because in the recaps the media tends to just play the answers due to time limitations.

Unfortunately for you, most people on this site actually pay attention and can tell that you are responding with a post that isn't related to any of the points made. You really should go apply Jay Carney's job, you are a natural. 

And again, how does that relate at all to what you quoted?

I am rather glad that you brought that up because I am in a debate (well, it is a degenerate train wreck at this point) with this dickhead on Facebook that keeps claiming a lot of Anti-Catholic stuff and claiming that Hitler was a devout Catholic.

Now, while I am not defending the Catholic Church on this one, it is a bit annoying to go back and forth with this moron about that thinks only the Protestant Fundamentalism were the ones that spoke against persecution. (Easily dismissed by all of the anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther and the Inquisition which can demonstrate that witch burnings and trials was not just a solely "Catholic" thing.

NOW. I may or may not respond to this fucktard that I am debating (well, not even worthy of being called a debate with a moron) but I would like to have more information about what you have stated for future reference.

I am guessing that the key would be in Hitler's writings, but I can't seem to find any Anti-Catholic statements made by him.

Contrary to what a lot of "internet intellectuals" I call them seem to think. Google is not always a very good source of accurate information.

i'm not sure if he actually wrote a lot of invective specifically against the catholic church, but he was definitely down on christianity in general.  he followed nietzsche's lead in seeing it as an immature, altruistic fantasy for the weak (bc altruism was only for the weak in his mind).

tbh, he didn't write much about god or religion either way, but what he did write was negative.  it seems he didn't really care that much about the issue, which definitely gives the lie to him being "devout."

the only problem with taking hitler's nods to christianity as evidence of his being a christian is that we know both he and himmler were planning a total revamp of german religious life once the war was won: an official aryan church, with elements of the catholic mass, certainly, but also with strong overtures of germanic and norse polytheism.  even then, it's hard to conclude that hitler believed in wotan any more than the trinity.  i think the only sound conclusion we can draw from a holistic examination of hitler's writings is that he used popular religion when useful, cared nothing about it when it wasn't, and ultimately believed in nothing but his own capacity for being the savior of the aryan race.

if we are satisfied with defining "christian" as someone born into the religion who pays lip-service to it, then yes, hitler was a christian.  but you should know most christians are not satisfied with this definition.

Oh really? Did you know him?

So what is the magic number where you make the claim? A million?

Hitler was raised Catholic and he did maintain relations with the church, although the argument that he did so purely for practical reasons is very strong. The few people who knew him personally spoke of him hating Christianity. We really don't know whether he believed in any type of god or not. Whatever he believed, he kept close to the chest. He certainly was not devout in any religion.

precisely.  a person's outward professions are not always conclusive, especially if those professions are rare and lukewarm.

i was raised protestant and still attend my old church at least once every time i visit the states, mostly as a social call and out of respect for my devoutly religious grandmother, whom i have no interest in trying to "change" because she's one of the sweetest, most self-sacrificing people who's ever lived.  does that make me a protestant?

here in the village in slovakia i frequently attend catholic mass because i play lead guitar for the youth choir.  i'm happy most of them are there, especially the teens, because it keeps them from getting bored and going to the bars or starting to mess with drugs (here in slovakia, if you can see over the bar in most places you can get a drink).  no one else around here is offering anything constructive for the kids to do and the choir leader is my neighbor and a good guy.  i'm happy to help him out and he knows my views and we have an unspoken agreement to just let it be.  does that make me a catholic?

well, that's fuckin' it, folks.  brian, the fuckin' expert on everything, just settled another decades-long debate for us.  why are you not in the halls of power?

hitler, unlike you and me, was a motherfucking politician, and a successful one at that.  if you're too fucking naive to see or too blockheaded to admit that the words politicians say and the pictures politicians pose for, especially successful politicians, often mean dick, welcome to one of the world's tiniest minorities.

this is the reverse situation of dawkins and obama.  you say hitler was a theist because you want him to be a theist.

NEWS FLASH, BRIAN.  only fucking moronic dicks speak conclusively where there's no conclusive evidence.  in this case, evidence we have.  conclusive evidence we don't.  don't you ever fucking use words like "probably," "it seems," "most likely," "doubtful," "it's possible to conclude," etc.?  you know, all those phrases rational people use?

Hitler was very interested in architecture, art, and music.

Also was a very passionate vegetarian that believed that meet eating was "corpse eating."

I think this is really a good point to bring about when it comes to the fallacy of equivocation when theists argue : "Well, Hitler was an atheist."

I never really hear of anyone using that argument to go against vegetarians.

Why ? Simply because that would be easily debunked by the sheer number of people on the opposite end of the spectrum that are vegetarians.

I think there is a tendency to take a really evil human being and demonize every aspect of them to the point that there can be no allowed qualities about them to where one can admit anything about them had any human qualities.

I remember reading about some university somewhere that did not want Wagner to be played because it was one of Hitler's favorite composers. Utterly ridiculous.

I did not know that art/aesthetics would have had an influence upon some of the ideas that Hitler developed, but given his notions of super highways and grand structures, I can see why that would be.

It reminds me of a fictitious film with John Cusack, where a Jewish artist meets a young Adolf Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany. In the film, Hitler is portrayed as a somewhat neurotic character that can not properly find his niche.

Near the end of the film, Cusack is blown away by the sketches of infra-structures, monuments and future highways. Proclaiming that Hitler has finally found his art niche.

                              Wagner was so anti-semetic he was known to conduct orchestras performing music written by Jewish composers with gloves on,  so he wouldn't have to touch the actual score.  On the other hand his son-in-law was Jewish.  Why would Wagner even conduct Jewish music?   The orchestra Director chooses the music, a guest conductor ; Wagner was among the busiest of his day; conducts what he's paid to conduct, or he doesn't get paid. Just a case of money over ruling opinion.

I think that Hitler's ideas (and not just his religious beliefs) are what have kept, historians, behavioral science experts, psychologists and everyone else involved in the subject completely baffled for since the time of Hitler.

People have been forever trying to unravel the puzzle as to what could/could not have been.

I really do not see much of a way that the riddle will ever be solved.

Strangely enough, while the name Hitler seems to inspire much hatred and outrage, not too many people seem to have the same reaction to saying : Mao or anyone else that has been attributed to being a dictator.

Not too long ago, I began reading a book called :Stalin by Walter Lacquer.

How accurate that it is, I have yet to know, without reading other books about the Soviet Union (a particular interest of mine as of late for no real reason).

Stalin to me, seems to be more of an enigma that Hitler and here is why.

According to this book (which is just basing off of records that were revealed AFTER Glasnost, so again, accuracy could be questionable)

Stalin was not a very good public orator, not given to drumming people up to super-patriotic frenzies, lacked in social skills and out of the original revolutionaries, was seen as the least likely to succeed in the party by guys like Trotsky and Lenin.

While Lenin and Trotsky and others, spent most of their exile in Siberia writing pamphlets, and engaging in political activities, Stalin on the other hand, spent all of his time fishing, hunting and enjoying as much leisure as possible. (Which probably would have been minimal in Siberia).

Stalin also did not seem to stick his neck out much for the party during the pre-revolution days nor did he seem to be that interested in party politics. One of his jobs was simply running documents around and such, but no real public positions of danger.

Stalin was also severely lacking in a lot of social skills and was not good with people in general.

Yet, despite all of this, he gets to rule for years and is able to get the image of a grandfatherly old gentleman that is gently guiding his people.

It is rather odd to note that it was only days after his funeral, that a lot of adoration stopped.

Before that time, not a single song, poem or graduation ceremony would not have at least one minor homage to Stalin. (Again, this is according to that one book and until I get more material on the subject, its accuracy is open to debate).

While Trotsky and Lenin are both fascinating characters to me (Lenin having no interest in revolution until his brother's assassination and Trotsky being the intellectual that he was) I think the biggest mystery out of all of them would have to be Josef Stalin.

i think far too much has been made of the role lenin's brother's execution (it was his brother who was the would-be assassin) played in his revolutionary motivation.  it's true in later years he sometimes cited his brother as an example, but the idea it was the prime, or even sole, motivation of his revolutionary ideology is due to mythmaking both by the communists and the cold warriors.

revolutionary conspiracy was a prime way for young intellectuals to act out and express themselves in the backward, reactionary, hyperreligious tsarist society.  becoming a revolutionary was almost part and parcel of being a young intellectual in those days, and not just in russia either.

You would be surprised, Siberia is a popular hunting destination. The country has the largest brown bears in the world, elk, caribou, snow sheep and five species of deer. It is also a popular destination for the dedicated fly fisher, mostly due to their population of taimen. I didn't know Stalin was an avid outdoorsman, but if I was stuck in Siberia, I would spend my time hunting and fishing too. 

LOL. It sounds like you will know exactly what to do if you ever get exiled to Siberia.

If I could find where the women and vodka was located. I'd probably enjoy myself there too

    Siberia also has the world's largest species of big cat, twenty-five percent of the world's timber and the world's deepest lake.  Not to mention that Siberia is really, really vast.

Well since Siberia has one of the highest alcoholism rates in the world, finding alcohol shouldn't be a problem at least if you like vodka. Unfortunately, even in Siberia you can't escape the nanny state "drinking is bad for you" fuckers.