I got an amen! Thanks so much! This is a special moment.

You get the Relm Seal of Approval, meaning!


You win:

Adhesive Medical Strips

WOW! Thanks so much! I will treasure this forever.

Wow, lots to respond to! This will be fun! :-)

lol honestly? You do realize mein kampf was propaganda right? Hitlers book was meant to rally the people behind him. At the time he was writing it, hitler was afraid of scaring off the Christians, they made up a big chunk of the germen people.


Hitler was a Darwinist through and through and darwins ideas partly justified hitlers preachings of races inferior to the Aryans. In all honesty, its really just bullshit to say the man was a complete Christian or an atheist, he was just basically an insane and used ideas from both to grow his beliefs. Pointing figures to Christians or atheists and saying he was one of us is a cheap move by both groups and im tired of it. In conclusion, you both need to grow up and stop using evil men in history to drag the other persons religion or belief system through the mud

Did Hitler's Religious Beliefs Matter? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-E9EmeFXjk

A youtube video? Nice source.

In truth Hitler believed in junk science (aka Eugenics).

Edited 2/5/2016 18:18:54

" A youtube video? Nice source. "

Ikr XD

It honestly doesn't matter whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian, if he was a woman or if he took drugs.

He did what he did, and trying to find some group to say "Hitler was ______, and that's why he killed th Jews. If ______ didn't exist, we wouldn't have the Holocaust" is a waste of time.

Let's stop worrying about the monsters of the past, and focus on making sure such a tragedy on that scale will not happen again.

Classic ad hominem. It's the argument that matters, not the source of the argument. [Edited to add: Even Bozo the clown can state an argument that is valid, and if it's valid, that's all that matters. The entertainment value is just a bonus.]

Edited 2/5/2016 19:04:54

It's the argument that matters, not the source of the argument.

No you are wrong. That's why politicians and scientists don't use Ask.com and Quora as sources. Come on bro use your big big big head of your's. Sources matter. Ask any professional.

Edited 2/5/2016 18:57:45

Exactly. In fact, The source in many cases is the most important thing that matters.

"It's the argument that matters, not the source of the argument."


^ That's like saying Its the gun that matters, not where I got it

focus on making sure such a tragedy on that scale will not happen again.

Understanding how and why it happened, and what lead to it, IS how you make sure that is never happen again.

By the way, no one here said that Hitler did this because he was a christian, i was just responding to the claim that Nazi germany was an atheistic society, wich is completely false.

I don't know why you would dismiss an argument just because it comes from a youtube video, rather than because of its content. Youtube is an incredible ressource.

The argument he makes in the video is against Faith, and how it allows people to be manipulated. The core of the problem is blind faith, not this religion, or that religion.

No you are wrong.

No, I am right. I said, "Classic ad hominem. It's the argument that matters, not the source of the argument."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

You have attempted to dismiss the argument made in the Darkmatter video based on an irrelevant characteristic, it being a Youtube video. You have not addressed the actual argument at all. That is classic ad hominem.

Exactly. In fact, The source in many cases is the most important thing that matters.

But not in the case of a logical argument. For logical arguments, the only thing that matters are its validity and its soundness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.[1] It is not required that a valid argument have premises that are actually true,[2] but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. A formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness#Of_arguments

An argument is sound if and only if

1. The argument is valid, and 2. All of its premises are true.

For instance,

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The argument is valid (because the conclusion is true based on the premises, that is, that the conclusion follows the premises) and since the premises are in fact true, the argument is sound.

The following argument is valid but not sound:

All organisms with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

Since the first premise is actually false, the argument, though valid, is not sound.

---

"It's the argument that matters, not the source of the argument."


^ That's like saying Its the gun that matters, not where I got it

Here you are committing a fallacy of false analogy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy):

A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy.

An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.[2] One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.[2]

A logical argument is not like a gun-related criminal offences in the sense that logical arguments stand or fall on the basis of their validity and soundness alone. Gun-related criminal offenses are inherently tied to a person, namely the accused. Logical arguments are not inherently tied to any person; they can be made by anyone and they still stand or fall only depending on their validity and soundness.

This is basic logic 101. If you don't know enough about a subject, shouldn't you refrain from making bold claims about it, without learning about it first? I seem to recall you saying something to that effect. Here's an intro, titled "Logic 101 (#1): Introduction": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBjAyrX7wms

[Actually, that looks like a really good course. Here's the complete playlist: ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBjAyrX7wms&list=PLKI1h_nAkaQq5MDWlKXu0jeZmLDt-51on]

Edited 2/5/2016 19:27:40

... Just when you thought that this thread would die.....

You have attempted to dismiss the argument made in the Darkmatter video based on an irrelevant characteristic, it being a Youtube video. You have not addressed the actual argument at all. That is classic ad hominem.

Now you've made the fallacy with an ad hominem. Look at what I said again. I wrote "Youtube video? Nice source."

I in no way impugned your character or the video or the argument made by the video. You do realize the meaning of words right?

Also if you'd read my next line "In truth Hitler believed in junk science (aka Eugenics)" you would have seen I was responding directly to your question "Did Hitler's Religious Beliefs Matter?". Stop being a cry baby dude.

Now you've made the fallacy with an ad hominem. Look at what I said again. I wrote "Youtube video? Nice source."

I in no way impugned your character or the video or the argument made by the video. You do realize the meaning of words right?

Fine. Then you simply made an irrelevant statement. That still leaves the argument unaddressed. If you're fine with that, so be it.

Also if you'd read my next line "In truth Hitler believed in junk science (aka Eugenics)" you would have seen I was responding directly to your question "Did Hitler's Religious Beliefs Matter?". Stop being a cry baby dude.

"Did Hitler's Religious Beliefs Matter?" is the title of the video. If you're going to address the question, then you should address the video, where that question is answered.

The statement of the video can be found at about minute 3:

"I'm not saying Christianity caused the horrors of World War 2 [however]
It faciliated the cause:
- blind nationalism
- harsh fascism
- hateful bigotry
- reckless propaganda
- unfetteered greed"

Let me take a look at those points from the standpoint of a bible reader:

I'm not saying Christianity caused the horrors of World War 2
Historically it makes no sense to associate Hitler with any form of practiced Christianity. If someone would falsely claim that Hitler had his ideas from the bible then I would feel attacked however if people falsely state that Hitler was a devoted Catholic then I don't care at all.

blind nationalism / harsh fascism
This is completely contrary to Christianity. Some might wonder why God commanded the Jews in the Old Testament to be militaristic and in the New Testament the opposite for Christians. The reason is that the Jewish hope is earthly and there they had human enemies preventing them from taking their land. The Christian hope however is heavenly. There is no order for Christians to make this world a better place and believing Christians could do so is contrary to the biblical prophecy. There are probably way more fundamentalist Christian believers than there are fundamentalist muslim believers however the reason they don't found their counterpart to the Islamic State isn't that they don't take the bible seriously but that this kind of thinking doesn't have any part in Christianity. There are different fundamentalist Christian camps claiming to be solely bible based however none of those teach any violence against unbelievers (also not secretly in hidden brochures for insiders under the counter).

hateful bigotry
Happens when you follow a perverted form of Christianity. True Christians know that Jesus did all the work for their salvation on the cross and all they have to do in return is... nothing.

reckless propaganda
I don't really understand this point.

unfetteered greed
See my response to "blind nationalism / harsh fascism". The angle of Christianity is towards heaven and not towards this earth.

Edited 2/5/2016 19:37:23

No I shouldn't have to watch a video to hear your argument on the question "Did Hitler's Religious Beliefs Matter". If you want to answer the question yourself then actually answer it...don't cut corners and just link a video.

By the way, no one here said that Hitler did this because he was a christian, i was just responding to the claim that Nazi germany was an atheistic society, wich is completely false.

All of the basis for this is stuff that hitler said; Again, you can't rely on the man, he was out of his mind.

Instead, you have to take into account the oppression of religion that happened in Nazi Germany. Basically every religious group you can think of was oppressed in nazi germany, be it:

Catholics
Jews
Protestants
Jehovah's Witnesses
Bahá'í's
etc.

The Third reich believed in loyalty to state. They hated the idea of a non-governmental force having an influence in the lives of aryans, especially one the ORIGINATED IN JUDAISM. It baffles me how anyone can make the claim that the nazis were christians, they literally murdered millions of jews. How does it make sense that they would ahdhere to a religion rooted in judaic values, one that proclaims that the savior of the world is a jew?

All of the important biblical figures are jews, be it literally everyone in the old testament, Jesus's disciples, Paul of tarsus, or even jesus himself. Your idea frankly makes no sense, and to be honest I kind of agree with the conservative that you may just be googling something and copying and pasting the results here.

Edited 2/5/2016 19:57:51

200th post