@Serendipper
To have a theory you need correlation and mechanism, but you have neither unless you can cite one instance when atheists allied themselves for the racially pure cause. Once you complete that task, then you can propose a mechanism that explains the correlation.
On the other hand, I have an abundance of correlation associating theists rallying together for the morally absolute cause of racial purity. And my mechanism to explain the correlation is the mindset one chooses to view the world which stems from acknowledgement of absolute truth requisite to theism.
I can give you examples of predominantly theistic nations allying themselves, against the 'racially pure cause', can you give me an example of a predominantly atheistic nation allying itself against the racially pure cause?
That's a contradiction in terms. Theists are by definition absolutists. I posted a video (on this thread I think) where two bright guys discuss every possible angle for knowing absolute truth: one says absolute truth cannot be known without god and the other says absolute truth cannot be known. The only reason to be a theist is to substantiate absolutism.
Atheist Ayn Rand was a moral absolutist, theist Spinoza was a moral relativist.
And for some people, being a theist makes them happier, because they feel cared for.
Absolute = made up. If the yardstick for determining "good values" is the absolute truth you made up, then how can the values be said to be good?
I'm not necessarily against, and may be in favor of someone absolutely supporting values I relatively support.
And while absolute = made up, made up doesn't necessarily = absolute.
An atheist might say a good way to get from A to B is a straight line, or they might say a good way is to take the scenic route. Good and bad are relative to attainment of a goal, so whatever the goal is determines what is considered good.
An atheist may say it's relatively, or absolutely good to kill a person, or people.
Theism and democracy are antipodal. Watts noted the dichotomy of the america people who claim to be citizens of a republic but worshiping a monarchical king. If people think the best model for the universe is a monarchy, why would they think the best form of government is a democracy? Indeed, those same people insist a small group of people control the masses lest mob rule prevail. The atheists, residing on the Left, think democracy is the best form of government and reject the monarchical model of the universe.
Are animism, deism, pantheism, polytheism and trinitarianism (gracious or merciful monotheism) on the one hand, and democracy on the other antipodal?
In service of their emperor god, sure.
When did Mao claim or his followers proclaim him to, literally be a god?
Then why only conservatives ban drugs? Clearly they blame the drug.
They blame the dealers and users too, that's why they imprison them, meanwhile progressives blame the addiction, which they attribute to an absent or abusive conservative father, capitalism, poverty...anything and everything but the individual.
Stop catering to rich people and neither are a threat. The rich cannot serve in government or it's the fox guarding the henhouse.
While instituting checks and balances (which ought to include the division and, right limitations of powers (I have little respect for corporate sovereignty, but great respect for the sovereignty of individuals, families, communities, nations and small businesses) will help, any and every institution, including, perhaps especially government, is corruptible, and government corruption is the worst, because it's organized violence.
Republicans ban everything. Dems only guns.
Democrats ban you from banning people, and behaviors from
your family, business, country, club, community and church.
Shit!
Obedient robots.
Trump, like Hitllary can get away with soft tyranny, not hard.
There are only greed wars and righteous wars. How many were greed wars?
Greed masquerading as religious, or secular righteousness is the rule, real righteousness the exception.
Where is evidence that progressives coddle muslims? I haven't researched it specifically, but last time I looked up Merkel, I found she was conservative. Is there someone who is not really a conservative under a socialist banner coddling muslims?
And the German parties to the left of Merkel want to coddle them even more.
Trump wants to ban all or some Muslims permanently or temporarily, ban all Muslim refugees, institute more background checks and surveillance on and of Muslims and he's not afraid to use the term radical Islam, meanwhile democrats oppose him on all this.
I thought progressives didn't want a border. They also want to reduce the military.
They want a looser border, and while they, say they want to reduce the military, they're often nearly as hawkish as Republicans, and both the green party, and the libertarians would probably reduce the military a hell of a lot more.
I haven't seen anything he distorted. Afterall, Hitler lamented jesus was a weenie.
Here's just one example:
To accord with Nazi antisemitism, positive Christianity advocates also sought to deny the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_ChristianityConjecture.
Referring to Hitler as Christian makes about as much sense as referring to Stalin as a communist.
Other than claiming to be Christian, not only was everything Hitler did and said unchristian, but it was anti-Christian.
There's no such thing as a perfect Christian, but so what?
There's no such thing as a perfect anything.
Hitler was about as far from Christian as one could possibly get.
The question now is: for how long was Hitler, consciously anti-Christian?
In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained that "Positive Christianity" was not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor was it dependent on "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied, rather, it was represented by the Nazi Party: "The Führer is the herald of a new revelation", he said.
In such elements positive Christianity separated itself from Nicene Christianity and is considered apostate by all of the historical Trinitarian Christian churches, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.
I don't see the significance of this.
The Nazi Party was at best apathetic about Christ's divinity and at worst hostile to Christ, and so at best apathetic about or hostile to Christianity.
That is the assumption I reject on the basis of what I said before. You may as well claim I pretended to be christian in case I run for president one day.
If we caught a political party pretending to be Christian for at least the last 8 years of its existence (1937-1945, which is when they committed their atrocities, mind you), than not only is there no reason to believe they weren't pretending to be Christian the entire time, but if anything they probably were.
replacing the bible with Mein Kampf is a silly notion and I can't believe anyone in the Nazi party would have envisioned so. Either germans are much dumber than I thought or historians are dreaming.
He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.
Adolf Hitler
Historians probably have fair-good reasons for believing this was Alfred Rosenberg and the Nazi Party's intent, what reason do you have for disregarding them?
You haven't presented any.
I posted that on here myself a couple weeks ago. What's your point? In the whole nazi party, two guys were paganists. And that's theism.
There's too much emphasis on Hitler and not enough on the Nazi Party.
even if Hitler was Christian (which he wasn't, in fact he was (consciously) anti-Christian), the Nazi party had some pagans, irreligious theists, so it can't be blamed solely on a single religion.
You have incentive to lie and are appealing to others who have incentive to lie in order to paint Hitler as a liar in his own book.
I have no incentive to lie, I'm agnostic, and insofar as historians have reason to lie, Hitchens, who was an atheist and vehemently anti-Christian, all the more so.
All this is moot anyway since what's at issue is whether the people were theists and whether Hitler needed to leverage that theism in order to commit atrocities.
The point is not all theism is equal, some forms are easier to use to commit atrocities, or good deeds for that matter than others.
So, suspect is a better word. "I don't have faith confidence in my statement, I know suspect it to be the case." That isn't reasonable lol
I have reason to suspect.
It's irrational to be 100% certain of anything.
If you didn't do that, then how would you pass his class?
This is a philosophy forum, not his class, there is no authority here.
But still, critical thinking aside, it's not likely Chomsky is going to be wrong. It's more likely that you are going to be wrong.
Says the guy who casually dismisses what multiple historians have to say about the Nazi Party's religion.
Perhaps unlikely, but if unlikely, that still doesn't mean it's not worth critically examining him.
It's also unlikely he's 100% right and his reader 100% wrong where they disagree or his reader has doubts or questions, and if the reader doesn't critically examine everything, he'll never uncover what Chomsky is wrong about.
Two heads are better than one.
So long as the reader is fairly knowledgeable and reasonable, if he critically interprets Chomsky, he, and you'll be getting Chomsky's brain + the reader's, instead of just Chomsky's.
Insofar as history and sociology are art, Chomsky may be popular among academics primarily for his art.
Insofar as history and sociology are about man's love of authority, certainty and hierarchy, he, and his school of thought may've been somewhat arbitrarily chosen to be number one, because there has to be a number one, even if many of the alternatives are about equally knowledgeable and reasonable.
Chomsky may be highly regarded because he's primarily, well, highly regarded, many of his colleagues may've happened to be mistaken about him, and the colleagues of those colleagues may've had faith in their judgement, and so on down the line, so a big part of Chomsky's success may be luck, many people highly regarding him primarily because many people highly regard him, and few people ever critically examining him.
Yes and they want the poor to pay for it.
They want everyone to pay for it.
Republicrats aren't seeing the money, so why do they care? No, it's about fairness to their dimwitted minds: they think if the rich have to pay a tax that's it's only fair that the poor also pay the tax. That's the rationale behind the gas tax: let the ones who use the roads pay for the roads. But the corps get far more use from the roads than regular people.
Republicrats are bribed by special interests who stand to gain from their allegiance.
There are only two ways: either the economy is circular or unidirectional: either the wealth recirculates or moves up.
You think too much about money, and not enough about the fact that those who choose to work will have to worker harder for less stuff if millions of people quit their job to live solely off UBI.
How are you going to increase everyone's salary when the only possible way (outside of dictating wages) is to give people money for free? Read carefully: The only way to cause wages to rise is to give people the option not to work. Once people have the option to opt-out of the workforce, corps will have to raise wages to entice them back in. Alternatively, you could be dictator and decree wages higher or you could socialize all of industry such that every industry is under the management of the government and then everyone will be a government worker, then you could set wages how you like. But as long as private industry exists, then wages will be based on people's options, and if people do not have the option to work, then wages will always be low. The only way to hurt the poor is to hurt yourself.
Here's what I mean by what I'm now calling BSI (basic supplementary income):
Government directly pays the employed and
involuntarily unemployed 10000$ annually at the richest 1%'s expense in addition to whatever their employers or welfare are already paying them themselves, it doesn't force employers to raise their wages.
Having properly reared kids is imperative to society. People's knowledge about those other things doesn't matter so much.
How're you going to know how to take care of your kids if, according to you, you don't even know how to take care of yourself?
Either way, what are you worried about?