Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And I'm only quoting google because it's quick, and because the only thing you've offered was "trust me I know what i'm talking about!!"
No. You're just quoting Google because you have precisely zero idea how a scientific analysis of source material works, hence you simply throw it at me as it comes.
Jesus, I just got done with Veneficus and "secular Humanism", or the absence of religion, I REALLY don't know why I keep saying Secularism. And PLEASE provide sources Nai. I know all of this information, and I also know that Hitler is a walking contradiction.
Let me tell you once again: That you happen to just accept the monotheistic religions as "real religions" is your problem, not mine. You'll find nobody that would agree to the idea that Nazi Germany was a secular state - because his leader and all organizations attached to the government followed religious views. Granted. Those spawned mostly from paganism which you personally don't want to accept as religion. But you can't use your own definition of the term "religion" as basis for an argument.
So if Hitler never denied the idea of a secular Germany, and Hitler was anti Christian, then where is this "religious" Hitler? You can't even tell me a single religious belief. And I find it amusing that you discount the sources I used because they come from google(ignoring the bibliographies completely), yet you throw one out and suddenly, "HITLER WAS RELIGIOUS!!!"
Did you happen to completely overlook the quote of Hitler himself I presented? He did deny the idea of a secular Germany because he needed people with a religious mindset to replace Christianity with the Nazi-pagan "religion of blood".
And wow. The bibliographies. Given that you didn't read a single one of those books and therefor don't know their content I find it quite hilarious that you dare citing them. I could also take a trip to wikipedia, quote the literature lists from the various Nazi-related articles and then go "Boo. You ignore my sources". Way to debate. Especially since you ignore my sources - maybe because I make reference to books I've read with page number included? D'oh.
And maybe I was off with a Secular Germany, and I should have amended it to "absence of religion", but you yourself claimed that Hitler never denied the idea of a Secular Germany, and you keep repeating that Hitler was "religious", yet you can't produce a single belief that made him that way. How about the fact that he was batshit insane because he couldn't get over the fact that he was rejected from the Art Institute 3 times?
"Absense of religion" would also be false, because we don't use your personal defintion or religion here. And I didn't claim that Hitler denied the idea of a secular Germany - but the exact opposite. That he spoke against a secular Germany. I even quoted him on the issue. Start reading or stop debating.
There, I bolded the important parts. Holy hell, you mean you can be anti semitic and NOT focus solely or at all, on the religion, instead focusing on the background and culture? Or is this where you tell me that wikipedia isn't a valid source, or try and make a convincing argument for the idea that you can't separate the background and culture from the religion?
You didn't answer my question. Define the word "jew" without making a reference to religion. I'd love to see that.
Please look up the definition, and tell me what religious motivation Hitler had for hating their background(hint: there was none because he wasn't a practicing Christian nor can you pinpoint any of his religious beliefs).
Apparently, you still don't get it.
Where does antisemitism come from? Of course it was a totally religious thing over the course of centuries. Do you want to deny that? Anything to do with "racial" aspects wasn't introduced before the 19th century when Arthur de Gobineau wrote his book "An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races" - which wasn't specifically antisemitic. Later on the (religious) prejudices were stripped from religious conotations. Still they remained religious in origin.
Just as example. "The Jews are greedy" seemed to be a rather common prejudice. Where does that come from? Apparently from some Jews who had a great influence in the financial world. How did that happen? Basically, Jews were the only persons allowed to change interest for lending money, because a Christian wasn't allowed to do that when giving money to another Christian. Consequently, the only "professional" money lenders were Jews. And the reason for that rule can be found in the New Testament, where Jesus drives the money lenders from the Temple.
So while the prejudice is (superficially) not religious, it is in a historic dimension. Keeping that in mind, I'd really love to see one prejudice against Jews that did not spawn from religious thoughts.
And once again, you're throwing out a few sources that claim Hitler had religious beliefs, but you ignore mine that state the opposite and use a weak rationalization such as alleged bias, and "thurr from the internets lol!"
I quoted Hitler himself, for god's sake. And I didn't ignore your sources. The only one here that ignores your sources happens to be yourself. All of them insist that Hitler wanted to replace Christianity with another religious mindset. Fact. You ignore that because said religious mindset doesn't fit your personal definition of "religion". That's kindergarten level debating - if even that.
First off, prove he believed all of this shit because he was a walking contradiction, as I've proven through the LSAT inference example. And no, I don't consider cults or paganism "religions", but if you want me to clarify for "ethical monotheism", I can do that.
Okay. Hitler was a walking contradiction. That means: Even if you had a source claiming that Hitler was secular (and you don't - which is funny enough), you couldn't prove it because "he was a walking contradiction". So this is, basically, a matter of taste? Thanks for the "argument".
And you really think that "ethical monotheism" follows different fundamental principles than other religions? Aristokrat has already pointed to a similarity of religions and political ideology. Open your eyes.
Great, he cited a lot of stuff to further his propaganda. He also believed that he should be the Supreme being or at another time, the nation of Germany itself should be the Supreme being. So lets discount my examples and take yours!
Wow. Please deliver even more proof for his absolutely religious way of thinking. Is it fun to argue against yourself?
And yet his party destroyed Churchs and had anti Christian/anti religious tendencies. Could it be that the Nazis are just full of shit?
Again you're using your own definition of "religion" which is completely void. And yes, I'm pretty sure they were just full of shit...
No, I just find it funny that you can relate religious extremism with religion, but when something happens that either promotes atheism/secular humanism/the absence of religion, it's automatically dogma.
One question: What else is political extremism than a extreme interpretation of believes which should not be argued be argued? Regarding the specific mindset, religious extremist don't differ from political extremists. Hence why most political extrem ideologies are built like religious systems. I find it funny that you can't get that into your head.
You quoted even less sources than I did,
Debate according to DS: The guy who cites more sources wins. 🙄
and completely ignored my sources, or rather passed them off as arbitrary. IF you're going to attempt to put on this intellectual facade, I expect you to be objective.
A simple lie, and it has been a simple lie since you first typed it down. Pathetic.
LOL@my personal view btw. I can use all of your insults right back at you, and watch you back peddle in the midst of being accused of using double standards.
I'd love to see that. I mean hey: Up to this point you've done nothing but citing source that support my opinion and do only support yours if we would apply your "special" definition of the word "religion". In short: You've lost the debate. And you have - of course - proven that Hitler is a "walking contradiction", torpeding the basis for your entire argument. Nice work there. And it's "backpedal" by the way. Seeing your 4-year-record of doing nothing but that here, you should be able to type the word down properly. And this farce is over. I'm not going to waste further time on this.
Originally posted by Borbarad
No. You're just quoting Google because you have precisely zero idea how a scientific analysis of source material works, hence you simply throw it at me as it comes.
Let me tell you once again: That you happen to just accept the monotheistic religions as "real religions" is your problem, not mine. You'll find nobody that would agree to the idea that Nazi Germany was a secular state - because his leader and all organizations attached to the government followed religious views. Granted. Those spawned mostly from paganism which you personally don't want to accept as religion. But you can't use your own definition of the term "religion" as basis for an argument.
Did you happen to completely overlook the quote of Hitler himself I presented? He did deny the idea of a secular Germany because he needed people with a religious mindset to replace Christianity with the Nazi-pagan "religion of blood".
And wow. The bibliographies. Given that you didn't read a single one of those books and therefor don't know their content I find it quite hilarious that you dare citing them. I could also take a trip to wikipedia, quote the literature lists from the various Nazi-related articles and then go "Boo. You ignore my sources". Way to debate. Especially since you ignore my sources - maybe because I make reference to books I've read with page number included? D'oh.
"Absense of religion" would also be false, because we don't use your personal defintion or religion here. And I didn't claim that Hitler denied the idea of a secular Germany - but the exact opposite. That he spoke against a secular Germany. I even quoted him on the issue. Start reading or stop debating.
I bolded the ironic parts, since the majority of your debate hinges on "your sources are biased", "your sources are taken out of context", "you don't know how to use sources", or "you've never read your sources!" More Irony.
You didn't answer my question. Define the word "jew" without making a reference to religion. I'd love to see that.Hmm.. A jew. I'm a Jew because I was born to two Jewish parents. A reform Jew is a jew who either doesn't believe in a higher being, or that a higher being wrote the torah. A Jew is someone who has traces back to the land of Israel. Your question is irrelevant at this point.
Apparently, you still don't get it.
Where does antisemitism come from? Of course it was a totally religious thing over the course of centuries. Do you want to deny that? Anything to do with "racial" aspects wasn't introduced before the 19th century when Arthur de Gobineau wrote his book "An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races" - which wasn't specifically antisemitic. Later on the (religious) prejudices were stripped from religious conotations. Still they remained religious in origin.
Just as example. "The Jews are greedy" seemed to be a rather common prejudice. Where does that come from? Apparently from some Jews who had a great influence in the financial world. How did that happen? Basically, Jews were the only persons allowed to change interest for lending money, because a Christian wasn't allowed to do that when giving money to another Christian. Consequently, the only "professional" money lenders were Jews. And the reason for that rule can be found in the New Testament, where Jesus drives the money lenders from the Temple.
So while the prejudice is (superficially) not religious, it is in a historic dimension. Keeping that in mind, I'd really love to see one prejudice against Jews that did not spawn from religious thoughts.
I quoted Hitler himself, for god's sake. And I didn't ignore your sources. The only one here that ignores your sources happens to be yourself. All of them insist that Hitler wanted to replace Christianity with another religious mindset. Fact. You ignore that because said religious mindset doesn't fit your personal definition of "religion". That's kindergarten level debating - if even that.
Okay. Hitler was a walking contradiction. That means: Even if you had a source claiming that Hitler was secular (and you don't - which is funny enough), you couldn't prove it because "he was a walking contradiction". So this is, basically, a matter of taste? Thanks for the "argument".
And you really think that "ethical monotheism" follows different fundamental principles than other religions? Aristokrat has already pointed to a similarity of religions and political ideology. Open your eyes
Wow. Please deliver even more proof for his absolutely religious way of thinking. Is it fun to argue against yourself?
One question: What else is political extremism than a extreme interpretation of believes which should not be argued be argued? Regarding the specific mindset, religious extremist don't differ from political extremists. Hence why most political extrem ideologies are built like religious systems. I find it funny that you can't get that into your head.
Debate according to DS: The guy who cites more sources wins. 🙄
A simple lie, and it has been a simple lie since you first typed it down. Pathetic.
I'd love to see that. I mean hey: Up to this point you've done nothing but citing source that support my opinion and do only support yours if we would apply your "special" definition of the word "religion". In short: You've lost the debate. And you have - of course - proven that Hitler is a "walking contradiction", torpeding the basis for your entire argument. Nice work there. And it's "backpedal" by the way. Seeing your 4-year-record of doing nothing but that here, you should be able to type the word down properly. And this farce is over. I'm not going to waste further time on this. [/B]
I've been citing sources that support your opinion? You mean sort of like citing how your premise directly contradicts yourself? Or how you finally admit that Hitler was full of shit so I can't prove your argument, which means exactly the same for your argument, but you've won the debate?
Btw, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=backpeddle
"URBAN DICTIONARY IS NOT REAL!!"
Nai, I've actually already called that your closing argument will be "you're full of shit, insult-insult-insult, your argument sucks, I win, you're tdtd!!" You know, basically the same predictable bullshit you always post when you lack the ability to debate properly and you don't want to continue it. Man, this was too easy. The more time gets, the easier it is to debate with you because you don't actually debate. You have a "script of insecurity", either on your computer or hand written that you follow to the T, which enables you to tell yourself you're intelligent.
And you're right, halfway through the argument I realized that Hitler was indeed full of shit. Yet you've proven your continued ignorance of reality by claiming that it tanked my argument, and you won the debate, completely ignoring that you've tried to prove the exact opposite and failed miseraly. So Nai, +1 for denial and insecurity🙂
Originally posted by Borbarad
I'd thought I've made myself clear, DS.
You said you're done "wasting your time"(ironic for someone spends most of it trying to insult the other person to overcompensate for his low self esteem). What does that have to do with me offering a rebuttal? And if you were done, you'd stop responding. Perhaps we would be more civil to each other if you stop being a walking contradiction(like hitler!!), and start displaying the intelligence you claim to have.
***Waits for identical insult***
Shut up DS.
edit: btw, the quote he was talking about is this:
'In "Mein Kampf" Hitler writes: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Yup. That sounds exactly like something that somebody who doesn't have a religious mindset would write... '
Originally posted by Nephthys
Shut up DS.edit: btw, the quote he was talking about is this:
'In "Mein Kampf" Hitler writes: [b]"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Yup. That sounds exactly like something that somebody who doesn't have a religious mindset would write... ' [/B]
Holy shit, DE takes something he has no knowledge about, and quotes it as the debate clincher!! I've read Mein Kampf and I didn't ignore Nai quoting it, you're behind the curve DE. You need to stick to little children arguments.
Btw DE, you would do well to educate what constitutes as religious, because while he said that, he then went ahead to claim that Aryan Blood is superior to all the rest, and that at some point either he would be the "Supreme Being", or Germany itself would be the Supreme being. But we're glad to know you know nothing as usual.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I was just pointing out the quote you were asking for. 😬'You'll have to post it again.'
No need to be a douche about it numbnuts. 🙄
You mean you didn't type "Shut up DS" before quickly editing?
Edit: Here you go DE, and if Nai wants to read it he can, although I'm sure he will claim he either knows all of this already, or the source is stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism
edit: That doesn't take away anything from the fact that he said that he was on a mission from 'the Almighty Creator.' But yeah, he wasn't religous at all.
I did type that. I fail to see how that makes me, 'DE takes something he has no knowledge about, and quotes it as the debate clincher!! I've read Mein Kampf and I didn't ignore Nai quoting it, you're behind the curve DE. You need to stick to little children arguments.
Btw DE, you would do well to educate what constitutes as religious, because while he said that, he then went ahead to claim that Aryan Blood is superior to all the rest, and that at some point either he would be the "Supreme Being", or Germany itself would be the Supreme being. But we're glad to know you know nothing as usual.' Or whatever.
I was just telling you to shut it becuase you're acting like a big screaming baby. I wasn't actualy formulating an opinion until my above post. Learn to read before you accuse DS. 🙄