this post was submitted on
534 points (73% like it)
830 up votes 296 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 33 comments

[–]Hero_of_Hyrule 18 points19 points ago

Could I get this in a less eye-melting format?

[–]Kmlkmljkl 8 points9 points ago

"I'm sorry if my atheism offends you. But guess what - Religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, murdering of albinos, forcing girls in underage marriages, male & female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia, and rejection of science and reason offends me."

-- Mike Treder

[–]Kni7es 4 points5 points ago

I'm offended by self-posts that become imgur pics for karma. Unless you've got a really good picture to backdrop the text, something that augments or alters the meaning of the quote, there's no point in making text-only submissions that are not self posts.

[–]Gramma42ton 2 points3 points ago

When did we get to the point where "being offended" is somehow supposed to give you privileges?

Yeah, you are offended, how is that my problem?

[–]luciferase0 2 points3 points ago

Then take it up with the religious war-mongers. Meanwhile, there are people who are minding their own business trying to use religion as a crutch to get over addiction, depression, death, poverty, and adversity. That's who you're also offending. If you want to stand on the mountain and say, "Look how strong I am, I don't need that," so be it, but that's on you.

[–]timeless1991 8 points9 points ago

The Reign of Terror and its respective genocides are the "jihads, crusades, [and] inquisitions" of Atheism. Terrible atrocities have also been committed by atheists against religious groups in secular societies like the U.S.S.R.. Oftentimes secular governments will oppress religious groups that threaten their power. Because religions challenge secular preconceived notions of how the world should work, violence is inevitable.

Every thing you listed isn't specific to religion. Everything you listed is a human phenomenon. I find intolerant atheists almost as often as intolerant Christians. The root cause is in humanity. Religion is just a symptom.

[–]DrVonPimp 4 points5 points ago

I agree that committing atrocities is not the sole purview of any one group, but of all humankind. But to say that religion is just a symptom and dismiss it at that, seems a bit premature. Atheism doesn't have any tenants, doctrines, philosophies, or rules. Religion, on the other hand, has books filled with rules demanding violent behavior, priests who have often been complicit extreme violence (European fascism, for instance) for the purpose of maintaining and expanding the influence of their church, and religion makes the claim that death in service to the cause is rewarded with eternal bliss in the beyond.

If you wanted to say that religion and Communism are equally morally bankrupt, you would have a point. But to say that not believing in any gods and the belief that god has a list of specific things he wants you to do and will reward you forever for doing them, to say that those two propositions are equally responsible to bad behavior seems inaccurate at best.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

A wild communism appears!

[–]meriadocdog 1 point2 points ago*

True, however, something you must realize is that in a secular society people are more likely to be tolerant and step back and take a closer look at the situation, while people in a very religious society are more rooted in their faith and the thought that they are right no matter what due to their superior beliefs, and that their actions against others who believe differently than them will please the almighty creator of the universe, the latter reason is what makes religion so much more dangerous than secularism. Atheists and the like do not have to prove anything to a ultimate higher power, so we will look more closely at a situation before acting on something, to see how it will affect others. I can't vouch for the Soviet Union, they were secular, but they had a totalitarian overtone during and after when Stalin was in power, so in effect they had an almost god-like figure in their "supreme leaders", that they were willing to do anything to please.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

due to their superior beliefs,

Belief in their superiority, not "their superior beliefs". Their beliefs are in no way superior to mine.

[–]meriadocdog 0 points1 point ago

Well, they think their beliefs are superior, but belief in their superiority would also be a great way to state it.

[–]tcb98 1 point2 points ago

Actually, no I am not.

[–]squigs 1 point2 points ago

They offend most of the religious people as well.

But so what? Who cares? Be offended.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

 

[–]rdkitchens 1 point2 points ago

Just learned a new word. Pederasty

[–]defend-freud 1 point2 points ago

It's interesting that pederasty is included---I thought that pederasty was associated mostly with ancient Greek philosophical intellectuals like Socrates (allegedly an atheist and certainly a rationalist)

[–]JackRawlinson 1 point2 points ago

See, I'm not sorry if my atheism offends them. I'm glad it does.

[–]athmi100 0 points1 point ago

For a second I thought that this was gonna be a Hitchens Quote

[–]rdwj 0 points1 point ago

Is that PowerPoint?

[–]othergeneration 0 points1 point ago

Don't be sorry for what you believe in. Ever.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago*

Terrible atrocities have been committed by communists against religious groups in secular societies like the U.S.S.R. Communists following the holy precepts of their prophet Marx, who commanded them "Go thou and kill all the churches, for they are offensive to mine eyes". Or words to that effect. Holy books (The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital) taken as unbending Scripture, obeyed blindly and unquestioningly, without regard for the rights or lives of those who didn't believe in the communist utopia that would surely follow.

Marx's intentions were probably that they should simply close down the churches and forbid the practise of religion, but hey, guess what? Some people interpreted his Holy Word a little too literally. What sort of mindset does all this remind you of?

Newsflash: As for including the Nazi's in that little rant? Nazi's weren't atheists. They were mostly Christians. They persecuted atheists as well. Hitler actually claimed in 1933 to have wiped them all out. Positive Christianity was the offical Nazi religion.

Edit: To sum up, whether they were atheist or not is irrelevant really. The problem here (as with religious extremism), is blind unquestioning righteous belief by the masses in their holy cause, and enforcing an inflexible dogma upon others as interpreted from the holy books by their leaders. Believing that they are the only ones with the right answers, and that this gives them the right to kill all those who oppose them.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago*

Hitlers "Statements against atheism

Hitler often associated atheism with bolshevism, communism, and Jewish materialism.[62] Hitler stated in a speech to the people of Stuttgart on February 15, 1933: "Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."[63]

In a radio address October 14, 1933 Hitler stated, "For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant."[64]

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."[65]

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler states: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."[66]

During negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of April 26, 1933 Hitler argued that "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."[67]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views#Positive_Christianity"

some of the citations, and an extra on his religious views:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=PxZoAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

http://books.google.ca/books?id=I6DYAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

http://books.google.ca/books?id=rQuMOxF08jcC&pg=PA111&redir_esc=y

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

on table talk, from what I have found on wikepedia:

"Controversies

Although considered authentic, contentious issues remain over particular aspects of the work, including the reliability of particular translated statements within the French and English editions,[5][14] the questionable manner in which Martin Bormann may have edited his notes,[11][15][16] recommended caution using the Table Talk as a historical source,[17][18][19] and disputes over which edition is most reliable.[5][6]"

"Historian Richard Carrier maintains that much of Trevor-Roper's English edition is actually a verbatim translation of Genoud's French, and not the original German.[9] Carrier shows that a textual analysis between Picker's original German text and Genoud's French translation reveals that Genoud's version is at best a poor translation, and in some instances fraudulent.[5] Many of the quotations used to assert Hitler's anti-Christianity are derived from the Genoud–Trevor-Roper translation. Carrier cautions that no one "who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said."[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk

Further, on table talk:

"Carrier states that Hitler does indeed criticize the Church and various Christian dogmas in the Picker and Jochmann text of the Table Talk. For example, Hitler argues against belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, in favor of a spiritual one. Carrier suggests these criticisms are only directed at Roman Catholicism and the institutionalization of religion generally. Historians Richard Carrier, Werner Jochmann, and Richard Steigmann-Gall state that Hitler was certainly religious, citing him expressing a belief in God, divine providence, and Jesus as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[5][11][20]"

Also, It is a false dichotomy to claim that it is either the christianity or atheism. Attempting to show that he was anti-christian, which is clearly in dispute, does not show he was an atheist.

Also, his actions speak louder than words, he managed to kill a lot of people, (not christians), and conquer everything in sight. If he was so anti-christian he sure did a poor job of showing it for a guy who had no problem killing everyone else.

But more on your favored book, which shows once again that he was not atheist:

"Steigmann-Gall, in his study on the Nazis' attitude towards Christianity, states that Hitler's criticism of Christianity in the Table Talk, if reliable, reflects a newly formed anticlerical attitude which began in 1937. Steigmann-Gall suggests that this change might have emerged as a result of Hitler's frustration over his failure to unify all German Protestant churches.[20] Despite his private rupture with institutional Christianity, Steigmann-Gall emphasizes that Hitler continued to hold Jesus in high esteem, considering him to have been an Aryan fighter who struggled against Jewry.[20] In Hitler's view, Jesus' true Christian teachings had been corrupted by the Apostle Paul, who had transformed them into a kind of Jewish Bolshevism, which Hitler believed preached "the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire."[30] The Table Talk also shows he continued to wish for a united Christian Church of Germany.[30][31]"

I would also suggest finally, that if hitler was an atheist (he wasn't) it says nothing about any other atheists.

[–][deleted] ago*

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

"Carrier is an outspoken advocate for atheism. As such he cannot be cited as an unbiased source. His critique of Trevor Roper (a REAL historian who does not have an ideological axe to grind) can therefore be dismissed as biased."

He is atheist so his work does not count. wow. He is not a 'real historian'

Also, Carrier is not alone - "Werner Jochmann and Richard Steigmann-Gall state that Hitler was at the very least religious, citing him expressing belief in a Divinity in the Table Talk ("The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator""

"Well if he was anti-Christian (the Donovan report for the Nuremberg Trials makes this clear), yet not an atheist, what was he? Buddhist?"

are you kidding me. That cannot be serious. He believed in a creator, you know, like all atheists.

"and dissenting Protestant ministers"

yeah, those that were dissenting. Because this was apparently his favored type of christianity until:

"Steigmann-Gall, in his study on the Nazis' attitude towards Christianity, states that Hitler's criticism of Christianity in the Table Talk, if reliable, reflects a newly formed anticlerical attitude which began in 1937. Steigmann-Gall suggests that this change might have emerged as a result of Hitler's frustration over his failure to unify all German Protestant churches.[20] Despite his private rupture with institutional Christianity, Steigmann-Gall emphasizes that Hitler continued to hold Jesus in high esteem, considering him to have been an Aryan fighter who struggled against Jewry.[20] In Hitler's view, Jesus' true Christian teachings had been corrupted by the Apostle Paul, who had transformed them into a kind of Jewish Bolshevism, which Hitler believed preached "the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire."[30] The Table Talk also shows he continued to wish for a united Christian Church of Germany.[30][31]"

Hitler's Table Talks (1953). Night of 29–30 November 1944

To repeat:

"The Table Talk also shows he continued to wish for a united Christian Church of Germany.[30][31]""

Hitler's Table Talks (1953). Night of 29–30 November 1944

For anyone else that might be interested I found a paper from carrier that can be read here, worth the read:

http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php

[–][deleted] ago*

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

calling someone a 'fundy' when they disagree, mature. really. I guess it is not surprising for someone trying to demonize atheists by comparing us to hitler, or worse, that atheists are more hateful than hitler:

"Gee, you would think that Hitler was a regular here at r/atheism - except that the anti-Christian comments here are usually far more hateful and vitriolic.".

I already said that it would make no difference if he was an atheist, it says nothing about atheism, it is irrelevant. That is my position.

However, I looked up your book and your references and found that they were highly contested, by a number of people and are likely a mistranslation. But at the end of the day, your main point is polarising and fallacious in the first place, sources for such an argument aside. And lastly, you agree that he wanted a united christian church, and he believed in a creator.

[–]DaveDodo007 3 points4 points ago

Ya! go you, you know you have lost the argument when you have to use what second world countries did in the middle of the last century. These places have had for centuries brutal governments which killed their populations in the millions. You do know we are living in the 21th century right? So lets get a more up to date picture shall we. Show me the gulags and failed agricultural polices of Scandinavia, France, Czech Republic and Japan. Then compare them to present day god fearing countries like USA, Middle eastern and African theocracies. Then get back to me.

[–]pj1967 2 points3 points ago

Gott Mit Uns.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]pj1967 0 points1 point ago

dickhead

[–]DavidFowlerMusic -1 points0 points ago

THIS SHIT RIGHT HERE

[–]sambt5[S] -1 points0 points ago

Wow guys front of r/atheism, thanks so much :D

[–]sjsuismylife -2 points-1 points ago

Atheism doesn't offend many. Even attacking religion doesn't really get peoples' ire up. What pisses people off is when atheists scoff and attack religion using every logical fallacy in the book. If you, as an atheist, declare that logic is the standard by which we must communicate, and then constantly, and unapologetically, ignore it, people are going to communicate their annoyance with you.

[–]The_Wrong_Advices -2 points-1 points ago

(Willy Wonka) Oh you're an Atheist? You must not like religion, please tell me about it.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

Polite grammar correction:

"offends" -> "offend"

The 's' is only for third person singular. That sentence has over a dozen subjects.