this post was submitted on
31 points (73% like it)
48 up votes 17 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 24 comments

[–]Augrills 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Malcolm X was basically a black supremacist, and I don't think he's a pillar of positive ethics. That said, there are people who leave a positive print on the world of all walks of life. There are also people of all walks of life whose prints were covered in shit and cheetoh dust.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think a better exmple for Malcom X would be Muhammad Ali

[–]Scottmkiv 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This really isn't that helpful. Good doesn't have a universally agreed definition.

I say that people can only be good to the extent they ignore superstitious nonsense and deal with the facts of reality.

The more you follow the commands of a holy book like the Bible or Quran, the worse a person you are.

This picture makes it seem like religion is unrelated to goodness, but it actually has a negative correlation.

[–]mgsbtardis -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, nobody commits genocide with the motivation of secularism and atheism.

[–]drakeblood4 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Stalin committed genocide with the motivation of antitheism and political manipulation.

[–]Scottmkiv 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lack of belief in god doesn't automatically make you a good person, but actin out the ideals of the Bible or Koran does make you a bad person.

[–]Keljhan 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To be fair, Malcom X and MLK Jr. weren't exactly the paragons of ethics in their days.

[–]troffle 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To be fair, looking at Bill Gates's business practices pretty much shoots down the idea of him being "ethical" either. I kinda cringe every time I see him held up as a "good" atheist. "Rich and doing stuff with money he'd have to pay otherwise in tax" atheist, maybe...

[–]Damianvv 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't necessarily like the term "evil". That makes it sound like there's a supernatural element to our behaviour.

[–]Personality1of5 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, 'A' for effort and all, but there can never be an end to a debate centered around subjective concepts such as good/evil, right/wrong, and morality - which are steeped in tradition, culture and heritage. Call me pessimistic, but no amount of logical discussion can ever conquer the deeply instilled emotions attached to the subject.

[–]BFNentwick 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We will never end the good/bad debate because some things just aren't clear cut. But on the flipside we can certainly arrive at the conclusion that certain things may be good or bad. There is nothing you can point out about helping an old woman cross the street that would be immoral. You can, however, point out the harm that comes from things like genital mutilation and the repression of homosexuals.

I agree we will never end this argument completely, but religion is certainly the worst approach.

[–]chunkyyluvr5 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The only problem that I have with this is that the religious extremists commit their crimes in the name of religion. In the name of their god. They say that they were doing their god's work etc. When someone of non-belief does terrible things. They don't say they're doing it in the name of non-belief.

[–]BFNentwick 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, religion or lack of doesn't determine morality. If nothing else this just points out that while religion cannot be the source of morality, atheism, (with it's lack of dogma or moral guidelines), is incapable if doing the same on its own. The difference is that we can turn to empathy and reason to derive a moral code. When applied correctly this may lead to grey areas, but rarely if ever leads to discrimination or harm.

Religion on the other hand imposes very specific rules disguised as morals, which are clearly harmful. I don't think I need to actually put the Hitchens quote here, we all know the question.

[–]ScottFree37 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I could never give up enough upvotes

[–]retrodetta -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hitler really wasn't Christian :/ Just saying, he attempted to use propaganda that appealed to Christians during the beginning of the third reich...but he is quoted numerous times as a godless man. shrugs.

[–]troffle 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He's also quoted numerous times as a Christian. So how do you determine which was really which?

[–]Scottmkiv 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And why does Christianty get a pass when he repeatedly claimed to be a Christian? Why does Christianity get a pass when the church couldn't be bothered to excommunicate him?

[–]retrodetta 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Because he openly admits in letters to his wife that he is just using the Christian church as a means of convincing a larger demographic to side with him. Christianity has a lot of atrocities to answer for, but Adolf Hitler does not count amongst them.

[–]troffle 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Christianity gets a pass because we have people like retrodetta (reference re: these letters of which you speak please retrodetta). People who believe that True Christians (tm) (i.e. People who make Christians feel good) can do no wrong.

[–]retrodetta 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Like I said, those quotes come from direct manipulation of the people to appeal to their affiliation with the Christian church. He was not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination. A lot of what I am saying is referenced in the Intelligence Squared debate on the motion that the world would be a better place without religion. People a lot more studided on the topic assert that Hitler was a godless man through and through.

[–]troffle 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reference, please? So far, only link I've found is a Christian Science Monitor article talking of a letter from Hitler seen as his first reference to the "problem" of the Jews. Not a scrap of mention of disbelief on his part.

All you've done is assert that the Christian quotes are a fake and the not-Christian quotes "really truly are what he was really thinking". Seriously, you're going to need a lot more than that to look even slightly believable.

[–]retrodetta 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

http://fora.tv/2011/11/15/Debate_The_World_Would_Be_Better_Off_Without_Religion#fullprogram

The panel member against the motion answers a question from the crowd about Hitler being a Christian somewhere around 1:10:00ish. The entire debate is very factual and well researched with information from notable experts in their respective fields. I'd recommend watching the debate in its entirely, Hitler does come up more than once.

[–]troffle 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Strongly suggest you background-read about this comment.

That's one reference to one book by Hugh Trevor-Roper about the "Nazi Christ".

Trevor-Roper's idea of "research" was to look at what others have researched, then interpret them according to ideas out of other domains.

He's also the guy who "authenticated" the Hitler Diaries.

His translation of Hitler's "Table Talk" wasn't a direct translation, it was a translation of a previous translation from a previous French book - which was already considered to be inaccurate. The takeaway phrase is no one "who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said."

And, by the way, if Christians can denounce somebody as "not being Christian" because of the way they behave, then we have an equal right to claim somebody is Christian because of the way they behave - like denouncing atheism, having close ties to the Catholic Church, promoting Christianity, growing up with Catholic ritual, adorning the SS officers with Christian symbols and statements...

And I'd question the idea that any "entire debate is very factual and well researched" when Dinesh D'Souza is one-quarter of the active participants.

(Edited for formatting, sorry about that.)

[–]troffle 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're just asserting that your quotes are your way. He was a Christian by many not-very-stretches of the imagination. Where was he schooled, by the way?

People equally well studied on the topic assert that Hitler was a Christian with strong ties to the Catholic Church who made sure that Darwin's work was banned and burned too.