Holes In Kelly's Main Page Argument "Atheism Correlated With Societal Health"
Offline Next time you cite statistics on the number of atheists in a country, take them from an unbiased source, not an atheist website! The source uses numbers that are painfully inflated in a glaringly obvious way. Here is the list you presented:
1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
Totally the reverse of what is true. Where did they pull these numbers from? Here are some numbers from the CIA factbook "Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%" atheists were not stated explicitly but I assume they are part of that 13%.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html
Wikipedia also verifies these numbers. (High number of Lutherans) "The majority (78%) of the population belongs to the Church of Sweden, the Lutheran church separated from the state in 2000. Other Christian denominations in Sweden include Roman Catholic (see Catholic Church of Sweden), Orthodox, Baptist, and other evangelical Christian churches (frikyrkor = "free churches"
. Some of the Sami practise Animism. There are also a number of Muslims, Buddhists and Jews in Sweden." The numbers are indeed different, but they fall in the same range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
Here's one more if you aren't convinced. "According to recent estimates, about 84% of the population belong to the Church of Sweden." http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-RELIGIONS.html
2. Vietnam
True. The majority of people do consider themselves non-religious here, but Vietnam isn't necessarily the most socially stable country, with significant amounts of poverty.
3. Denmark
"Evangelical Lutheran 95%, other Christian (includes Protestant and Roman Catholic) 3%, Muslim 2%" This means that Atheists would occupy around 1-4% of the population given a resonable margin of error
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/da.html
In a 1999 EVS poll,[1] Danes were asked to identify the nature of their belief in God.
- 21% said "A personal God"
- 31% said "A spiritual force"
- 19% said "I don't know what to believe"
- 23% said "I don't believe there is a God"
- 6% did not respond
These results clearly differ, but still are a far cry from the supposed near 85% rate of disbelief. Remember, this is a poll, so not quite as representative as a demographic representation. Also, keep in mind that "I don't know what to believe is not necessarily agnosticism, but it could be "i don't know whether or not God is spiritual or personal but still believe."
4. Norway
"Religion in Norway is overwhelmingly Protestant (Evangelical-Lutheran) with 82.9% belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway which is an established religion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy_in_Norway
5. Japan
Harder to say exact figures, because the majority of the population is either Buddhist, Shinto or a combination of the two. Buddhists can either believe in God or not.
6. Czech Republic
This is also correct, with about 59% falling into the atheist, agnostic or non-believer categories. Problem is that this country is not a good example of any of the things you spoke about "societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality." not really a shining example, although not horrible relative to other post communist states.
7. Finland
Evangelical Lutheran 89%, Greek Orthodox 1%, none 9%, other 1% nowhere near the minimum roughly 50% it would have to be to pass #10. http://atheism.about.com/library/world/AJ/bl_FinlandIndex.htm
8. France
This one is also right... although the around 50% stat is probably pretty high, depending on how rigorous your standards for what you define as catholocism. The majority are catholics but there are degrees of how serious they are.
9. South Korea
Also high levels of non-religion. Moderately good societal health (excellent when compared to North Korea though).
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
Fairly high levels of skepticism, but much lower than 49%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia. Again, this is not the country that you would want to point to as a shining example of atheism.Also, much bigger than the very inaccurate data that you present is the very fundamental statistical fallacy that you commited. It is called the correllation/causation fallacy. Just because two things are correlated DOES NOT mean that they necessarily caused each other, as you seem to believe. Case in point...the number of cars in a city is directly correlated with the number of murders per year. That is a very fundamental fallacy of logic. What I am neglecting are the other factors that change when I increase the number of cars, namely population. You are clearly forgetting that a number of countries in Africa became religious due to the work of missionaries. So in reality, poor living standards preceded the Christian and Islamic beliefs in those countries.
Please read this article, it should clarify this fallacy for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation- Login to post comments
ArrAhhhaaa
Proof That religification + old age = higher rates of-death
One could. Actually my best friend at school was a jehovah's witness. He transgressed one holiday to the USA by having sex with a woman who he wasn't married to (apparently American girls love the English accent). He felt he had blown his chances of 'getting in' and was a nervous wreck thereafter. I say these things because I've seen them.
And I agree with you. There is a difference in my opinion, albeit a small one.
Say you have a party which forms based on strong family values and mistrust of anything different. It would draw like-minded people to it certainly, but they need more votes than that. Moderate people aren't going to support that platform without a reason. Most people I know are thoroughly ambivalent towards homosexuality, apart from the religious ones. I hope you will take this in a contemporary context and think carefully about any Naziism or Communism references. Just in case:
Treaty of Versailles
Serfdom
Another example:
Our ex-communities secretary Ruth Kelly (a member of opus dei no less) who was responsible for equality legislation in the UK, was absent during a number of parlimentry motions to legislate for greater equality for homosexual people.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article363108.ece
This is a member of parliment who's job it is to ensure equal rights for everyone taking it upon herself to miss votes (in effect an abstention) which would deliver just that because of her own personal prejudices. I don't think that this is right.
I'm not gay but I am an egalitarian and it disturbs me that a lot of people can't enjoy the same freedoms I do.
I imagine it isn't your surname?
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
That may be, but you cannot use that one example to generalize
What does Nazism or Communism, or the Treaty of Versailles have to do with this?
That reflects more on the person rather than the political party.
I just made up the name Cpt_pineapple.
The pineapple doesn't really mean anything.
No, but I can use it as an example of how religion has made someone into a nervous wreck. The burden was just as telling on his parents.
I was making an example of religious values providing positive cohesion and validation for negative views. I was hoping that you wouldn't use naziism or communism as a refutation for this, and happily you didn't dissapoint me. These were extreme political movements borne of extreme circumstances of deprivation and hardship.
The point I was making with this (as above) is that it can be used as an example of where religion has forced its values on this woman. If she wasn't religious then I suspect that she would have fought harder for greater rights for these people as was her remit.
Also : Bombings in Pakistan yesterday, carried out by religious extremists. Without that religion, would they have carried out the bombings?
I was just interested.
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
Many things can cause 'nervous wrecks'.
Wouldn't you think the actions of the religous terrorist to be 'extreme' and 'borne of extreme circumstances'?
Notice, how the terrorists are mainly in politically unstable countries? (Russia, Israel, Pakistan etc....)
For example, none of the 9/11 hijackers were Americans by birth and were all foriegn here on visas.
now, is she anti-gay because she's part of the party, or is part of the party because she's anti-gay?
Yes. Most likely.
I've always argued that the root of the terrorist attacks is founded on secular ideology. For example, the withdrawl of occupying troops, the overthrowing of a democratic leader etc..
Granted, religion is used as a tool, but it's not the root cause.
While, we're on that subject, do you actually want people to 'Pillar' your Arse?
Atheists have no such claim to the moral high ground. Atheism has been tested the last century - it proved every bit as brutal as religion. If you want to measure raw numbers for the 20th Century, I think you will find that atheism is the biggest killer.
Hitler was not a Christian. If you read what he said in private about Christianity you will see that he hated the religion. Don't throw him in with us - he was a murderer and a liar. Check your facts first.
if you'd bother to set your freethinking mind to work, the OP was criticising Kelly's argument that atheism helps bring about better societal health and such. In order to refute that claim the OP employed a few methods - one of which included pointing out the inflated numbers of atheists. His claim had nothing to do with saying "more people believing in God means He must exist!". You seem to have a one-track mind: arguments do not always follow some permutation of defending or criticising the point "does god exist?".
You're just widening the definitions to falsely inflate your numbers. You can't justly include these people. Grab a group of 20 people who don't regularly attend church and don't call themselves atheists or agnostics. Ask them what they believe about God. They may say "I don't know, but it sure as hell won't be atheism" as much as "I'm not even sure that a god even exist", or perhaps even "I think that we are all one and joined in God". Church attendance is considered important to Christians, but just because many don't go does *not* mean they're atheists. I personally know people like this who absolutely deny atheism. You have no justification for trying to include this secluded group in your camp.
This is just plain stupid, Kelly: your argument here has flaws. As the resident philosophy "expert" I'm sure you are well aware that it is very common practice to attribute a name with an argument. Just flicking through some philosophy of mind material:
Title of an article:
Your ridiculous argument that atheists help make society better didn't just appear from nowhere. It was a formulation of your mind, and you chose to share it with us. If you can't handle the pressure of being asked to defend your arguments, then perhaps you shouldn't make them at all. People use bad reasoning. I have. You have. You can't just distance yourself from the claims you make. Your argument isn't just "out there". It has mistakes, and people might legitimately refer to it as "Kelly's argument of atheism being good for society", because they won't want to call it their argument. Note that this does not mean that the argument will be rejected because of who made it - it should still stand and fall on the basis its validity and soundness. The upside of this all is that if you make a good argument, people will say "Kelly's argument of atheism being good for society is greatly troubling for theists".
I realise you probably just don't like opening up your forums and seeing there a new thread by some theist saying "The problems with Kelly's argument of X". You groan, and think, "another personal call - I don't have time for this!" Well, maybe you don't. But if you want to post poor arguments on the front page - arguments you expect others to think about - then you darned well better expect that people are going to object to it. We don't have scholarly journals where we can respond to your arguments. We have:
a) Someone else's website that's critical of yours, where we preach to the choir
b) Your forums, where we can actually make the original poster (in this case, you, Kelly) aware of the faults and hopefully enter dialogue
Of course, dialogue may not be your interest. You might just be points scoring for atheism...and threads like this distract from putting another tally on the scoreboard.
Brian, you want us to post in the original thread - but that gets long, tedious and messy. And it's not always the best way to have a focussed discussion. Arguments often have many aspects - you can write an entire argument criticising just one of numerous problems with an argument. Kelly, your philosophy expert, will no doubt be very familiar with this.
And one more thing - on the note of "as if I have nothing better to do than debunk your nonsense" - I've rarely seen you or brian last more than a couple of posts responding to any argument! No demonstration of any ability to understand the intricacies of an argument or the scope of its conclusions. Everything is so black and white, easy answers, without facing the subtle realities of the world. You seem to have delusional ideas that a world bereft of theism would be some kind of utopia - as though the last centuries experiments weren't enough to prove you drastically, hopelessly, wrong. The truth is that atheists and theists are capable of just as much evil and good. But this seems lost on you.
Now don't you feel embarrassed?
By the way, which number of atheists are you claiming to be inflated.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Really? This is from religioustolerance.org and you may want to note that these are CURRENT--not just past--examples of violence and genocide due to religious differences. (The site does add that they interpret communism as a form of religion, likely due to the fact that communism is a form of state worship.)
Also look at this page for more examples.
It is important to realize that most of the world's current "hot spots" have a complex interaction of economic, racial, ethnic, religious, and other factors. We list below some conflicts which have as their base at least some degree of religious intolerance:
Chechnya
You're the only one here who needs to do some fact-checking.
Need more?
Actually, the data that I presented (which you keep referring to as "Kelly's argument" ) only showed a statistical correlation between the atheism and societal health. FTT's rebuttal and stats have been shown to be outdated and invalid, along with his assertion that the sources were biased. Maybe you need to set your dogmatically impeded mind to work before posting next time.
First of all, it's not my argument. Secondly, I don't recall Descartes having a messageboard where any logically challenged idiot could come and attempt to refute his work. There are not enough hours in the day to squander them on people who lack the intellectual integrity to look at statistics objectively. (Like I'm doing now, and as Sapient told me, is not a good usage of his or my time.)
Again, not "my" argument--just some interesting and relevant information that I wanted to share. I have made no attempt to"distance" myself from any argument I've ever made--I simply don't have the time. I've already wasted almost an hour on you.
Yeah - it's annoying and it happens all the fucking time because you people generally don't know what the hell you're talking about. That was not a poor argument--it was data. It comes from a reputable source and that has been pointed out numerous times in both threads relating to it. Did you read them, or just want to take the more expeditious (and dishonest and ignorant) route to "putting another tally on the scoreboard"?
Hate to pull the trump card on you, but these are our forums and we can decide where posts should go. I don't see you spending all day managing and running a network in which you try to maintain a semblance of order.
I wish I had more time to respond to these types of things--but I don't. I would love to respond in depth to every ignoramus on this Jake-forsaken internet who thinks that presenting data that represents a statistically significant correlation is somehow an "argument" and also belongs to me personally (I wish it did)--but I don't.
This last statement is likely the most absurd thing I've ever read and only demonstrates your ignorance of how anybody here operates and your blatant attempt to disparage us and detract from the argument. There's so much bullshit here that I can't even begin explaining to you how many ways in which you are sorely mistaken. Take off the god goggles and give life (not just yours, everyone's) a good hard objective look and come back and tell me that religion will save the world. YOU, my friend, are deluded.
Atheist Books
Who says irony is wasted on ... etc.
Want to see atheism in practice? Watch. See? I'll do it again. Did you miss it? I just murdered a billion people out of the natural bloodlust all people have if a book doesn't give them a vague message about killing being bad.
But, seriously, if Hitler wasn't a Christian by your standard, then Stalin and Mao weren't atheists by mine. See how the no true Scotsman can be used by either of us? Moving on... As Sam Harris pointed out, Mao, for instance, didn't suffer from an overabundance of rationality. Kim Il Sung is posthumously still the "Eternal President" of North Korea. Presenting radical communist states as the fulfillment of some kind of inherent atheist ideal is a straw-man.
Atheism, as contrasted with religion, is not an organized belief system, philosophy, or theological system. There are no tenets of atheism that can be pointed to as the cause of those genocides. You may as well blame football as it doesn't have any tenets that can be pointed to either. Atheism was not the cause of those genocides.
The blame lies with intolerant dogmatism. They accepted communist doctrines unreasoningly and supported it through totalitarianistic anti-intellectualism. Any scientists or intellectuals who opposed the doctrine of collectivism, and anyone else who rallied against it, were murdered, and those scientists, intellectuals, and lay people were comprised of many atheists. It was this intolerance of intellectualism and dissent to their faith-based creeds that led to these genocides, and atheists were quite frequently the victims of it. This so-called "turning point of history" was truly no different than the hundreds of years that preceded it that were ruled by the intolerant dogmatists of the theocracies. Considering the victims, of which many were atheists themselves, it makes me wonder whether you are arguing on the side of the victims or on the side of the people who victimized them.
Please reread what Kelly quoted. The statistics clearly indicate that the figures apply to atheists, agnostics, and disbelievers in personal God concepts (meaning the figures included deists and pantheists). The statistics provided were as accurate as can be expected from the extremely limited amount of research in this area.
I agree that church attendance is not a reliable way to determine the amount of atheists.
However, I would also contend that the amount of people who call themselves atheists or agnostics is also not a reliable way to determine the amount of atheists. The proof of this is inside the very text you wrote that I just quoted. Atheism simply means not-theism. Anyone who would say they are not theists are atheists. However, there is much stigma to the word atheism. Atheism is associated with communism, wickedness, impiety, and so on but none of these stigmas actually apply. I'm not communist, wicked, nor impious unless impious is meant to include the upholding of truth and reason in the face of dogmatism. Many people avoid the label of atheism because of those false stigmas even though the label of atheism would be rightly applied to them.
It should also be noted that agnosticism is not distinct from atheism or theism. All agnostics qualify as either a theist or an atheist. An agnostic atheist might say, "I do not know if the universe was brought forth by the act of a conscious entity or not, but I have not been presented with any evidence that would justify my belief in a conscious first-cause so I don't believe in one." An agnostic theist might say, "I do not know if the universe was brought forth by the act of a conscious entity or not, but (it is a reasonable inference || I have faith that it was)." I am agnostic atheist and Cpt_Pineapple is an agnostic theist. It cannot be deduced from an agnostic-vote that the person disbelieves.
In the text I quoted, you have used a misdefinition of atheism. Agnosticism is concerned with knowledge (what one knows) while atheism and theism are concerned with belief. There are three positions one can hold in the belief-spectrum: (1) I accept the proposition as true; (2) I reject the proposition as false; (3) I neither accept nor reject the proposition. If you ask someone whether they would apply (1), (2), or (3), to themselves for the proposition "the universe was created by a concious entity or the universe itself is a conscious entity" then you will be able to determine if they're theist or atheist. If someone says (1), that person is a theist. If someone says either (2) or (3), that person is an atheist, seeing that a-theist only means not-theist. There is no such thing as someone who is neither a theist or an atheist. There is no such thing as agnosticism in the belief spectrum for that question, for agnosticism is concerned with knowledge, not belief.
Kelly did not do the research. She did not type the argument. Kelly should not be attributed with having done either of those. She merely quoted a website, which quoted an online article, which is no longer online but found as an article in "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" by Dr. Phil Zuckerman. The only thing Kelly should be attributed as doing is typing the title for the forum topic--which she admits in the other thread had to be mutilated due to character constraints--and saying that she felt vindicated by the research. We cannot deduce from the mutilated topic title that they accurately reflect Kelly's position as to whether causality or noncausality can rightly be inferred from the data. She should only be attributed with saying it vindicated her position. I put forward a credible argument earlier that shows how it can rightly be said to vindicate atheism (and also deism and pantheism), so there is little to fault her with.
I don't recall Kelly ever making such an argument. Kelly, being someone who understands the working of the human mind to an appreciable degree, almost certainly holds the position that even if religion or theism were to vanish there would still be societal problems. As far as I can tell, you are creating a strawperson of her position.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Can stop with 'X leader was Y.'?
Hitler also killed Christian and Stalin also killed atheist.
See, folks this is why I get pissed when people pull the 'Your leader is eviler than mine' bullshit.
You know what? We should all just convert to pantheism. I have yet to see a pantheist commit genocide, ergo it is the correct stance and I'm right.
It's very nice that Brian tries to shield you from the time sink that is forums. I personally am aware also of how much time it consume - which is why I will be responding to your post only. It contains the elements of answers to further posts anyway, so the others should not miss out.
That's just absurd. If ever an example of the "no true scotsman", here it is. The Soviet Union, an atheist and communist, was responsible for a great number of murders the last century. Fine if you want to say that he was misguided or wrong. Just extend me the same courtesy of not lumping me in with the KKK. Atheists and the religious are equally capable of murder or charity.
I was responding when I made my comment to someone who tried to point to Christians who committed genocide. My response was completely appropriate and fair to counter his point. I didn't attempt to use this point as a counter to your argument.
You didn't even try! I gave you a very big clue...that he was a liar...and you didn't even take it. Well, here it is for you, some other things that Hitler said about Christianity:
These references I took from http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html, but they were lifted from the book Hitler's Table Talk. I hope you will now appreciate why Christians can justly claim that Hitler was not one of them.
Besides, anyone can call themselves a Christian. Christianity is more than just saying a few words. As I'm sure you've read in the Bible, there were many times people called themselves true believers yet acted contrary and were rejected for it. Even *if* these secret conversations of Hitler's were not available, we would still be justified in saying that he was not a Christian.
I'm sorry that you feel dialogue with me is wasted, but it was your choice to respond. But I am still confused. If you agree that the data merely shows a correlation, and does not in fact specify which way (if any) the causation goes, then why did you reference it? How can you state that you felt "vindicated", if the data does nothing but show a correlation? Please tell us, how does this data help you feel vindicated? Because I don't see that in the raw data - so I assumed you must have drawn some conclusion from it. You have already tried to distance yourself from the title you made, which seems to be drawing an unwarranted conclusion. What about your sense of vindication - where does that come from? Going back to the original thread and your second post:
This is drawing a conclusion beyond what the data presents. That is what I aptly considered "your argument". The data doesn't say that atheism isn't harmful for society. It doesn't demonstrate anything either way. You had to present some kind of argument to that conclusion.
You can and will do what you want. I was just pointing out what I thought was a good reason for starting new threads.
The table talk conversations are unreliable sources on Hitler's views. Hitler didn't allow audio or video recordings of the talks. We only have the transcripts because Bormann was reluctantly allowed to pick stenographers. Bormann told the stenographers he had the right to edit the transcripts if they were not fitting. Fitting according to whom? Bormann. Bormann despised church organizations and frequently fought them behind Hitler's back. Bormann tried persuading Hitler to also fight against church organizations but Hitler insisted there wasn't any official party announcement on the matter, nor would there be in the future (VonLang, p.191). It's not coincidence the table talk transcripts, edited by Bormann, would parallel Borman's views while contradicting everything Hitler is known to have said on the matter. There is no reason to think the transcripts accurately reflect Hitler's views and every reason to think they reflect Bormann's views.
No true American drinks tea. No true Communist murders people. No true Muslim participates in violent Jihads. No true Christian sins. No true Atheist makes argumentative mistakes. No true female has short hair. In other words, you're utilizing the No True Scotsman fallacy.
It does demonstrate that atheism isn't harmful to society. Take these statistics, plus the statistics about divorce rates among atheists, the educational attainment statistics among atheists, etc. and combine them together and you have a rather conclusive proof that atheism in and of itself isn't harmful for society. How anyone could argue that the statistics demonstrate nothing is beyond my ability to fathom.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
I cant think of a single person killed in the name of Atheism.
Yes he was. Well he was definitly a theist as where the vast majority of the people doing the killing and telling people to kill.
Yep hilter was indeed a cunt. But he was a cunt theat beleievd in God. He was not an atheist.
Sorry you missed the point. My contention is thus
Church atendance correlates with how religious an area is.
So Church atendance correlates negativly with athesim, religious apathy and agnosticism.
If you disagree with this contention then please say so and justify your claim. Its seesm to be fairly obviously true to me. It is also true that church atendence negativly correlates (by country) with lower crime rates. This to me indicates that atheism, agnosticism or religsious apathy also correlates with lower crime. If this statistical correlation is also a causal relationship is open to debate but whay it does do for certain is destroy the myth that atheism is bad for morality and religion is good for it.
In this case : religion.
I don't know of specifically russian terrorism. Could you elaborate? In the case of the others ... there is a reason that they are not stable. Religion.
Really doesn't matter. She is anti-gay because she is religious.
In this case, Islamic militants attempting to stop a secular politician (and a woman to boot) gaining any power. I will definitely concede that there are also political motives here. But there are still religious motives, and those motives are still bad.
[edit - added link]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7056120.stm
This doen't seem politically motivated. It's pure religious hatred.
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
I never said it can't be, I'm saying it's not the only one.
The Russian school hostages in '04? Russia is riddled with seperatists. I believe the school was taken by Chechens.
Not the only one.
There are religious motives, but my argument is that the actions are rooted on the political. That is, the political motives are their driving force. And yes, they do add the religious motives, but that's just fuel to a fire that's already there.
So, by addressing the political (Through U.N peacekeeping for example.), we attack the foundation. We put out the fire.
I think this would be much more effective than addressing the religious motives. They are just the tip of the iceberg.
I don't think that's any different than what happened in the Soviet Union or Albania.
This goes back to one of my comments I made earlier in the thread. I can name communist states that outright banned religion (Soviet Union, Communist Albania.).
Your problem, Visual_Paradox, is that you see things too simple. There are no subtle realities, complex truths, just plain black and white. Hitler was a Christian, you believe, and that's the end of the story. Atheists are more educated. Atheists are better people.
I am proposing to you that Hitler was a man who desired great power and made use of the tools that were available to him. This included a public profession of faith so as not to find the Church opposing him and to garner the support of the public. But in secret he worked against the church whenever it threatened his growth to power. Hitler may have believed in God, I don't know - he may have even held his own peculiar pagan beliefs, he may have been an atheists. But he was, at the very least, an enemy of the Catholic and Protestant Churches.
A reading of Von Lang's book, with the reference you provided and the chapter context, does not show what you wish. I suspect that you gleaned your reference directly from http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm, as you merge 'von Lang' into VonLang just as he. Jochen von Lang does not support the thesis that "It is well known that Bormann secretly worked against the Catholic religion behind Hitler's back and without his permission" (taken from the URL preceding) - though I certainly believe it would be the case on numerous times. The question is whether Bormann did so both without Hitler knowing and against his wishes, or just without Hitler's public approval. Here are some examples for you...
In reference to church land (but not the land specifically holding church buildings - instead, monestaries and other monuments) that had been damaged by bombings, Bormann wished to ensure that the land was lost to the churches. He sent an unofficial telex to all Gauleiters encouraging them to loot, and justify it by using the land for "hostpitals, rest homes, national-political educational institutions or Adolf Hitler Schools, etc" (p185). Von Lang had this to say about Hitler:
von Lang does not support the idea that Bormann was acting without Hitler knowing, but rather that Hitler was aware of Bormann's acts but tried to distance himself for political advantage. Such is common fare in many organizations, setting up scapegoats. When Bormann was giving the Gauleiters some suggestions for justifying the raids, he proposed framing the churches for contraventions of the law. Von Lang again comments on Hitler's involvement:
von Lang saw Bormann as Hitler's scapegoat, such that when scandals broke out Hitler could distance himself from those persecutions which he unofficially endorsed (p.187).
You will undoubtedly note that none of the above demonstrates the trustworthiness of "Hitler's Table Talks" as being free from modification by Bormann. What it does show is that the historian referenced to justify the claim that they were tainted in ways that Hitler would have disapproved, he actually believed that Bormann's actions were well known to Hitler, and given unofficial approval (and, in many cases, prohibited when they would cause trouble). To further accentuate the point that von Lang did not see Hitler and Bormann as opposed to each other, here is the final paragraphs on pg 191:
These are not the actions of a friend of Christianity. They hold all the signs of a power hungry man who sought to use the Church publicly for so long as it benefitted him, and to suppress it where he could. Hitler was careful. Von Lang paints a picture of Bormann, an eager atheist trying to persecute the Christian Church, and Hitler as a man aware of his actions but distancing himself carefully for the sake of public appearances, and holding him (Bormann) back where it would damage their power. This is a far cry from what you hoped to establish from the reference.
You miss other very real possible explanations of the anti-Christian bias in Hitler's Table Talk. And you do so on shallow grounds, ignoring what seems more probable and is not uncommon in the machinations of dictatorships - Hitler publicly professing faith, and Bormann's bias in selection of Hitler's quotes rather than literal modification. Von Lang shows us not a man that defied the wishes of his lord, but instead a man that was far more eager for the elimination of Christianity, but that Hitler kept in check until the time was right. And I am sure that you are well aware of this. Imagine trying to arouse the American people to war while at the same time publicly professing your hatred of Christianity and desire to eliminate it. You would not be elected, let alone find support for war. In the end, Bormann's goals were finalised by Hitler. They were not secret enemies. Rhetoric is a powerful device, and I am literally amazed that you cannot consider the possibility that Hitler made good use of this to deceive the public regarding his true motives. It seems that your simple view of the world prevents you from recognising what may in fact be true.
We are lead now to questions about the men that Hitler chose to keep so close to him. Bormann's own diatribe mirrors quite closely the rhetoric of today's atheists:
Such talk finds its reflections in today, the false dichotomy between faith and science, the perceived exploitation by the church of power from ignorance, the recognition of God as being nothing more than the power of nature. If you wish me to consider you as different from Bormann, then you should extend the courtesy to Christians too - we are not Hitler's supporters, nor do we support his campaign of murder. You must learn to understand the differences between believers, just as you no doubt expect me to understand the differences between yourself and Bormann.
The No True Scotsman fallacy applies only in cases where the definition of some designator does not make any ruling either way about a particular claim. As in Antony Flew's example:
There is nothing in the definition of being a Scotsman about being a sex maniac. As you point out, there is nothing in the definition of being an American regarding drinking tea - nothing in communism about murder - no prohibition in Islam for Jihads - nothing in the definition of atheist that says they do not make argumentative mistakes, and so on. But you make a serious error when applying this to my argument. I am claiming that there is something in the *definition* of what makes someone a Christian that prohibits behaviour like Hitlers. And while you may disagree with me as to whether the definition of Christianity makes any such statement, it does not represent this fallacy. A Christian, I might rightly say, is one who desires to follow the example of Jesus as recorded. This is an uncontroversial definition. I then say that Hitler's behaviour showed a distinct lack of a trying to accord his behaviour with that of Christ in the Bible. Hitler was therefore not a Christian.
He claimed the title Christian, but that does not make one a Christian. Believing God exists and that Jesus is His son does not make you a Christian. Being forgiven for your sins and trying to accord yourself so your behaviour pleases God is part and parcel of being a Christian. So long as we can claim that Hitler did not act as the definition of a Christian expects you should, the No True Scotsman fallacy does not apply. You seem to have the definition of Christian as being something like 'one who is confirmed as a member of a Church and does not deny that membership' or 'one who believes Jesus was the son of God'. But we have always taught that being a Christian is something far more beautiful and grand than either of those. It is a genuine repentance of sins, a desire to serve, please and worship God, and to obey His commandments as recorded in the Bible. We are fully justified in saying that Hitler does not accord with our definition.
To further drive this example home. If a man should claim himself a Christian while on earth, but we find he stands in condemnation and is cast into hell when we face judgement - that man was *never* a Christian. Will Hitler go to hell for his deeds, according to Christians? Yes! So was he a Christian? No. It is not sufficient to claim the title to be a Christian - it is about genuine repentance and a true regeneration of the soul. It is about a life that reflects the glory of God, His grace and mercy, and tries to please him and to follow the golden rule.
(fyi, Christians do not claim that a Christian does not sin - quite the contrary)
This is an argument which you infer from the statistics, and which we dispute. And it is extremely selective. Shall we measure the effect that atheists have had on society in atheist communist societies like the Soviet Union? Perhaps by men like Bormann? Or will we focus on the societies in this recent survey? The statistics, taken on a more global arena, do not support your contention. What they show, in fact, is that atheists can be good and bad for society, just like the religious. That under everything, we are all human, prone to great deeds and horrid corruption.
Note - I have personally argued many times that atheism lacks any grounds for being good or moral. BUT this is not the same as saying atheists are harmful to society. Christians often confuse this, and say that atheists themselves are unable to do good, but this is just plain wrong.
Kelly's statistics do not prove that atheists are good for society. In fact, a wider survey of statistics may show the opposite. But it's irrelevant. We all know from having met atheists (and most of you being them) that they are capable of good.
I didn't say Hitler was a Christian. I said the table talk transcripts aren't reliable sources of information on Hitler's views. I did not, here, concern myself with Hitler's personal views. I was only concerned with the validity of the argument that used the table talk transcripts. I also didn't say atheists are more educated. I said the educational attainment statistics lend credence to the argument that organic atheism is good for societal health. You don't have to be a member of the "most educated" group to contribute to societal health. I also didn't say atheists were better people. I said the statistics vindicate organic atheism (and hence organic atheists) but "the study vindicates deism and pantheism in a similar way." I was not presenting an atheism versus theism argument, as you seem to imply.
As soon as you finished your accusation that I ignore the subletities and look at issues in only black and white, you make it abundantly clear in the next three sentences that you should've been accusing yourself, not me.
I'm going to brush your Bormann talk into the trash bin. I didn't say Hitler was a Christian or was not a Christian. I said the table talk transcripts aren't reliable sources of information on Hitler's views, whatever those may be. You substantiated my only argument on this subject. As such, there's no reason for me to argue further on this subject.
I agree. There is no prohibition on genocide in the Bible. There are many genocides throughout the book that is said to be commanded by God or by one of God's prophets. Being the cause of a genocide doesn't make you a non-Christian, it only makes you a bad Christian, if anything. There is no "good person" designator for qualifying as a Christian. If there were, there would be no Christians. Jesus himself said there is none good except the Father. Ergo, goodness and badness cannot be designators for Christian and non-Christian. I think that if someone accepts the following three propositions they should be called Christian: (1) the universe was created by a conscious being named Yahweh; (2) Yahweh had a son named Jesus; (3) Jesus was the Christ. Nothing else I can think of can serve as a useful designator.
You are taking my statements out of context. Anyone who looks through my posts in this topic will see that I differentiated between coersive atheism and organic atheism, just as the research itself did. When I said "Take these statistics, plus the statistics about divorce rates among atheists, the educational attainment statistics among atheists, etc. and combine them together and you have a rather conclusive proof that atheism in and of itself isn't harmful for society" it seems quite clear, from the context of me consistently differentiating between coersive and organic atheism, that I was speaking of organic atheism in that statement.
I would argue that divine command theory is completely inadequate in providing reasons to be good or moral. It provides reasons to behave selfishly and obediently, not morally. If theism is to provide reasons to behave morally, it cannot make appeal to prescriptions by an authority or fears of reward or punishment but must make sound or cogent arguments for why certain things are moral or good and why other things are not. If any theistic system accomplished such a feat, atheistic morality could be justified on the exact same grounds. If you think atheistic morality cannot be justified, you must also think theistic morality cannot be justified because the immediate consequence of that line of reasoning is that morality doesn't exist, only obedience and selfishness.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
I think that it was an eminently reasonable conclusion on my behalf, from the indirect evidence in your post(s) preceding, to conclude that you think Hitler was a Christian. Even though you did not utter those exact words, it seemed obvious to me. If I am wrong, and you in fact believe that Hitler was not a Christian, please correct me.
Regardless, as you say, I likewise "was only concerned with the validity of the argument that used the table talk transcripts". My last post was directed at undermining the premises you used to support your erroneous conclusion, that "[t]he table talk conversations are unreliable sources on Hitler's views". I suggest you re-read my post bearing in mind that I am trying to show why you are wrong to suppose the veracity of the Table Talk quotes are questionable. You have made a mistake to think that I was for some reason attacking your unspoken claim that "Hitler is a Christian". My response quite clearly was an attempt instead to undermine your argument against the transcripts prepared by Bormann.
You better pull my words out of the bin - read them carefully this time. You rejected Hitler's Table Talk as untrustworthy on the following grounds: That "Bormann despised church organizations and frequently fought then behind Hitler's back". You gave the impression that Bormann was something of a maverick when Hitler wasn't watching, who sought to undermine the churches against Hitler's wishes. I cut this argument out from under your feet by showing that the one historian you referenced demonstrated that in all likelihood Hitler knew *all* about Bormann's actions and motivations, and acted to keep him in check at times, and to allow him to proceed at others, when public rhetoric would allow it without repercussions for the party. This destroys your argument for concluding that the "Hitler's Table Talk" transcripts are unreliable.
So I wasn't trying to rebuke, as you suppose, the claim that Hitler was a Christian. Instead, I was trying to demonstrate that your portrayal of Bormann's role with respect to Hitler was wrong - and part of this was showing Hitler's anti-Christian actions. You'll note that my references from von Lang all revolve around the relationship between Bormann and Hitler. You've bought into the lies Hitler constructed in order to use Bormann as a scapegoat, rather than the more subtle truth that perhaps Hitler was always aware of Bormann's actions: but lied to the public in order to maintain power. This is a view far more supported by von Lang. You have not given good grounds for thinking Bormann fabricated the words of Hitler - only perhaps that Bormann would selectively include only those quotes he deemed "most important" - eg, the anti-religious diatribes. Hitler was a man who played on the religious loyalties of the German people, but when providence suited, he worked against it. von Lang shows Hitler empathising with Bormann's views, not being opposed to them. It's just that Bormann's Führer was far cleverer in the art of manipulation than he, that Hitler knew when to draw the sword and when to hide it. This is the impression that one gets from a reading of von Lang.
Moving on...
It seems I misunderstood this point. Could you please elaborate on what 'the educational attainment statistics' are?
You are using "designator" in a different way to what I was. What I take you as meaning is that there is no necessary attribute of being a good person in order to be a Christian. One can be a bad person and still a Christian.
Here is what Christianity teaches - repentance. Repentance does not just mean saying you are sorry, it means turning around and changing who you are and how you act. What a true Christian shows, is not that they are a good person, but that they are a bad person who is trying to be good - striving to become a better person. John 15 says:
And Galations 5:
As you can see, we believe that a true Christian, being chosen by the living God for salvation, will show signs of repentance and growth - by their actions it should be obvious who they are. Not just by some declaration of belief in a handful of basic truths. Christianity is about a changing life. Which leads me to your next point:
It seems far more appropriate to call someone a Christian who is a follower of Christ. Someone who considers themselves one of His disciples and seeks to emulate Him. Within the Catholic and Protestant churches we believe that there are many people who believe these three things and are not Christians - including many despicable cults, and other religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (Latter Day Saints). Each group claims to be Christian, I'll admit that. But you must learn to distinguish between us. For one very good reason - you expect the same of us. As you said:
If you want me to respect the differences between yourself and what you call 'coercive' atheism, then return the favour. Whatever belief or lack of belief Hitler had in God - it is not the same as ours. For our teaching prohibits the behaviour which he displayed, as unbecoming servants of the Lamb of God. If you can't accept a difference between us and people that claim the title Christian but make a mockery of it - then I won't consider you as any different from 'coercive atheists'.
I wasn't trying to defend my views regarding atheist and theistic morality systems - I was trying to point out that I personally accept the idea that atheists can be good people, despite my views of atheistic morality. I try to stay on topic though, and would like to focus on our main conversation rather than start this tangent.
It certainly isn't the only one. But in this case it is religion. It is an example of how religion can cause delibarate unhappiness. Are you refusing to acknowledge this on purpose?
Actually Chechen liberationists. Despite being islamic, I'm not going to try and claim this as a religious outrage when it is certainly a political action. They aren't Russians though, and they would argue with that description.
Pretty much. Example: Yitzhak Rabin, murdered by a fundamentalist for helping to end one of the great travesties of the 20th century. It was a land-grab, but not a political one in the eyes of the fundamentalists. They were taking back the land that "God gave them" after the diaspora.
Actually I believe that religion should be kept out of government for just this reason.
What happened in Albania? I do think this is different. It is religious value-replacement at its worst. An excuse for brutality.
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
No, I acknowledge it.
[edit]
My point was that you seem to be specifically picking out religion. Where I could also pick out stuff like bad relationships, poor finicial decisions etc...
Does that mean we should get rid of relationships? No, we should learn from our mistakes and work towards improvement.
[/edit]
I said Russia, because Russia is the target.
What do you think would have happened if religion wasn't involved?
And, you know what? I agree. Religion should be kept out of government, but an individual person can still hold a religion.
In Albania, all religion was illegal.
That is why I said it wasn't different. Leaders banning opposing views isn't uncommon. But I will do more research on Eritrea.
[edit]
Perhaps, I should clarify. I agree that religion can fuel terrorist acts, but my argument is that it is not the key issue. Take out religion, and they will replace it with something else.
However, the core of the problem is the political motivations. That is what we should be focusing on.
[/edit]
Well... I live in Norway, I have been in Sweden lots and lots and lots of times as well as in Denmark and Finland.
Any statistics based on theism due to membership in a state church, as in Norway, is totally, utterly and mindbogglingly wrong. The fact is that most people don't care, they don't give a rats, or other mammalians, ass about the fact that they're members.
But, and here we go, most are agnostic, atheist or woo-woo people. I know lots of pretty young to pretty old due to my singing in choir, being active in theatre and other culture related work. Of those I'd guess that only a rough 10% are religious, about 50% has stated that they don't believe - from agnostic to anti theist. I know two that are a bit woo-woo as well as deistic, two are married to a priest and I know one of those too. He's a devil on the soccerpitch and isn't at all afraid to toss back a beer or seven.
Anyway, those who live here, experience how things are from day to day would know a bit about the conditions, right?
All in all - we don't really care. We have a small pack of nutters
even creationists and ID's but they're the laughing stock off the rest of us as we know better.
The programmes for kids really teach them
science, evolution, the geological age of the earth and all other
things that are evident facts in a good way.
One day I hope Growing up in the Universe will replace
Sesame Street or whatever you guys have over there, that'd be sweet
Bottom line is that the numbers Kellys link to are most probably correct as they comply with my experience over a mere 31 years of conciousness.
If any christian is sure that rapture is imminient, I'll be happy to receive their worldly goods, thus ensuring that said theist don't have trouble with the camel, rich man and eye of a needle problem.