The Interface Between Science and God

originally posted by: slowisfast
The honest questions to ask next is, 'Who is his Almighty Creator?", "Who is his Lord?".
Are you inferring that he's talking about the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible?

Is that really an honest question?
It is well known that he's a catholic, are you trying to muddy the waters a bit?

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”

[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Of course it's an honest question.

His mother was a Catholic and he was raised one. A lot of people are raised in a home with a belief system and then abandon said belief system. Correct?

A political leader will say things publicly that they might not actually believe. History is filled with that. Do you agree?

I have quotes too.

Hitler's words.

Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953

11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

originally posted by: slowisfast
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Of course it's an honest question.

His mother was a Catholic and he was raised one. A lot of people are raised in a home with a belief system and then abandon said belief system. Correct?

A political leader will say things publicly that they might not actually believe. History is filled with that. Do you agree?

I have quotes too.

Yes people can abandon beliefs, and yes politicians will lie.

And yes you do have quotes, granted anything labelled "secret conversations" I would question.
Some claim the anti christian rhetoric was added in the french translation from which the english translation came.

Of course adding things would create inconsistencies in the book like...
"An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)"

"We don't want to educate anyone in atheism."

It seems everything he said and did publicly support the faith he claimed to be.
Whilst everything claim against is questionable and inconsistent.

You have to take people at their word and their actions, relying on questionable material and ignoring everything else is probably not the best way to the truth.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'm not in disagreement with you.
I do think it's an honest line of questioning and in no way muddies the waters.

I'm not going to speculate regarding conspiracy surrounding translation and addition, unless there is proof. I'll be happy to accept the tension that comes with conflicting stories and resolve it in my own mind.

All we can do, 75 plus years later is look at available information and make the best educated guesses we can.

We can't truly 'know' anything regarding his true beliefs.

All we have is what is documented, reported to be said, and his actions.

If he was Catholic(Christian) then his actions are a direct affront to the author of that belief system and in direct contradiction with that worldview.

Please don't be confused...I don't think Hitler was an atheist. And based off of your quotes it's very possible, believable even, that Hitler was neither a Christian or an Atheist.

The waters of history are muddy enough as they are. I don't believe asking honest questions(which I believe mine is one, although unanswerable) in an attempt to get closer to truth is, in any way, a negative, especially knowing that the truth we desire we'll never actually attain.

Although not associated with the OP, I enjoy this dialog.

originally posted by: slowisfast

I'm not going to speculate regarding conspiracy surrounding translation and addition, unless there is proof. I'll be happy to accept the tension that comes with conflicting stories and resolve it in my own mind.

www.jstor.org...

"For example, one oft-repeated quote comes from 13 December 1941: "But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery" (Stevens and Cameron's English, again matching Genoud's French verbatim). But the original German says, "Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly." The difference in meaning here is radical, and again shows how Genoud (hence the Trevor-Roper translation) has distorted Hitler's criticism of one form of Christianity (which implies he believed there was a true Christianity) into a thoroughly anti-Christian sentiment."

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Thanks for the link. I'll register and read at a later date.

See that's the thing though. Even if that one quote was poorly translated(or worse lies interjected to paint a false picture) it has no bearing on the, to steal a word from Christianity, 'fruits' of his life. His actions were a direct affront to the teachings of Christ. No one in their right mind can say that Hitlers actions were that of a Christian. I believe he certainly believed in a God. He might even have called himself a Christian, or his 'religion' Christianity. But it would have been a Christianity of his own making. With a disciple of one.

I'll be interested to read the rest of the document to see if the errors in translation continue.

Through my reading, and if I'm being honest, speculation, I think Adolph Hitler, while raised Catholic, transformed into an Occultist in adulthood. From his beliefs, to the people associated with him, to the Reich itself. Seem, at lest to me, heavily influenced by Occultism and the Mystery Schools.

It's very speculative but at this point, it's what seems to best fit. Regardless of his claims, the man wasn't a Christ follower.

And I might be wrong...It's ok if I am. Because I don't truly care seeing as how it has no bearing on my life. It's just fun to think about.

a reply to: slowisfast

Thankfully the good book is so open to interpretation it doesn't really matter.
Everyone picks and chooses what they like, interpret it how they like, and ignores the rest.

I have no doubt that Hitler had the same inconsistent view of god as everyone else claiming a certain faith.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: slowisfast

Thankfully the good book is so open to interpretation it doesn't really matter.
Everyone picks and chooses what they like, interpret it how they like, and ignores the rest.

I have no doubt that Hitler had the same inconsistent view of god as everyone else claiming a certain faith.

Yes and no.
Don't stop at those claiming a certain faith. Extend that to all off humanity. We're all inconsistent in our thinking.

a reply to: slowisfast
True, however this was just in your response to your assertion that he wasn't a "true" christ follower.

Christians vary across a broad spectrum that covers feeding the needy to bombing abortion clinics.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Please show me a sect or denomination of Christianity that finds mass genocide of human persons acceptable. Based on his actions, which violate the teachings of Jesus, it's a safe assumption to infer that he wasn't a true Christ follower. I would extend that as well to those in the South that claimed Christ while lynching and raping black folks.

Same can be said about atheism, though. From the kind, secular humanist, who feeds the needy to someone like Jeffrey Dahmer who liked to dismember and eat people who said:

"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then-then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing."

Dahmer is more consistent with the worldview he claimed(I believe in prison he came to some sort of faith) than the man who bomb an abortion clinic in the name of Jesus or the "Christian" klansman

a reply to: slowisfast

So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:34

That covers christians and genocide I guess.

Regarding Dahmer? Atheism gave him no reason to be good. It didn't give him a reason to be bad.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

When you cherry pick Old Testament verses to suit your needs it will put you in error and expose you inherent misunderstanding.

I thought we were talking about Christianity? Which involves Christ, his teachings and the movement that followed after.

If you'd like to talking about the seeming contradictory and tough to swallow passages in the Old Testament that deal with extreme violence, I'd be happy to. We can do that via PM or in a different thread if you'd like.

With Dahmer, you are correct with your statement but it goes further than that, if one is thinking consistently. The atheist has no objective way to differentiate between good and bad. Words like good and bad should be irrelevant to the atheist. What Dahmer did wasn't bad. It was merely illegal seeing as how the only arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong' is the state which institutes the law.

originally posted by: slowisfast
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

When you cherry pick Old Testament verses to suit your needs it will put you in error and expose you inherent misunderstanding.

I thought we were talking about Christianity? Which involves Christ, his teachings and the movement that followed after.

If you'd like to talking about the seeming contradictory and tough to swallow passages in the Old Testament that deal with extreme violence, I'd be happy to. We can do that via PM or in a different thread if you'd like.

With Dahmer, you are correct with your statement but it goes further than that, if one is thinking consistently. The atheist has no objective way to differentiate between good and bad. Words like good and bad should be irrelevant to the atheist. What Dahmer did wasn't bad. It was merely illegal seeing as how the only arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong' is the state which institutes the law.

This is christianity, Jesus never quoted the new testament.

I'm an atheist and believe in right and wrong.
Tests have shown that other animals also have a sense of right and wrong without the need for religion.

Are you honestly saying without a 2,000 yr old book you would go raping and pillaging?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: slowisfast
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

When you cherry pick Old Testament verses to suit your needs it will put you in error and expose you inherent misunderstanding.

I thought we were talking about Christianity? Which involves Christ, his teachings and the movement that followed after.

If you'd like to talking about the seeming contradictory and tough to swallow passages in the Old Testament that deal with extreme violence, I'd be happy to. We can do that via PM or in a different thread if you'd like.

With Dahmer, you are correct with your statement but it goes further than that, if one is thinking consistently. The atheist has no objective way to differentiate between good and bad. Words like good and bad should be irrelevant to the atheist. What Dahmer did wasn't bad. It was merely illegal seeing as how the only arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong' is the state which institutes the law.

This is christianity, Jesus never quoted the new testament.

I'm an atheist and believe in right and wrong.
Tests have shown that other animals also have a sense of right and wrong without the need for religion.

Are you honestly saying without a 2,000 yr old book you would go raping and pillaging?

It is certainly part of Christianity but it's not all of Christianity. Would you like to discuss it outside of this thread? Or is your mind settled? When I was an atheist I had a very similar view of the atrocities in the Old Testament so I know where you're coming from.

I'm sure you do believe in right and wrong. I never said an atheist can't believe in right and wrong or that they can't be moral persons. I know a great many moral atheists. Some more so than their Christian counterparts. The argument isn't that an atheist can't be moral it's that they have no objective reasoning as to differentiate between good and evil. In the naturalistic worldview there is no 'right' or 'wrong'.

When you say something is evil(like you implied when you picked those Old Testament passages) you assume that there is a good. When you assume there is a good have to assume that there is a moral law, a way to differentiate between the evil and the good. And when you assume that there is a moral law you have to assume a moral law giver.

If there is no moral law giver
There's no moral law
If there's no moral law
There's no good
If there's no good
There's no evil.
If there's none of the above
There's no objection outside of your own opinion on the matter.

Not to get too theological...but I believe that since all humans are created in the image of God, regardless of their thoughts on Him, we have an innate knowledge of good, evil, justice, fairness embedded within our consciousness. Psychiatrists have labels for those that seem to be an aberration of the above...sociopaths, psychopaths, NPD, etc.

You see it in children from an early age before it can even be taught or learned within the social group.

So I do believe that an atheist can be moral and 'religion' is not needed to be so. I also reject your claim that a theist is only moral because of a book. I believe the book explains why we have that innate sense of morality within us to begin with.

originally posted by: slowisfast
It is certainly part of Christianity but it's not all of Christianity. Would you like to discuss it outside of this thread? Or is your mind settled? When I was an atheist I had a very similar view of the atrocities in the Old Testament so I know where you're coming from.

To be honest I'm not really that interested in having genocide or many other atrocities justified.

When you say something is evil(like you implied when you picked those Old Testament passages) you assume that there is a good. When you assume there is a good have to assume that there is a moral law, a way to differentiate between the evil and the good. And when you assume that there is a moral law you have to assume a moral law giver.

There is no absolute right and wrong. In fact the whole idea of absolute authority is possibly the greatest problem we face at the moment. Only the psychopaths purposefully do wrong things, everyone else justifies their position however they see fit which explains the world we live in.

Not to get too theological...but I believe that since all humans are created in the image of God, regardless of their thoughts on Him, we have an innate knowledge of good, evil, justice, fairness embedded within our consciousness. Psychiatrists have labels for those that seem to be an aberration of the above...sociopaths, psychopaths, NPD, etc.

You see it in children from an early age before it can even be taught or learned within the social group.

OK so god creates us all with innate knowledge of good, evil etc.
Except the sociopaths, psychopaths etc. which for a reason only he knows he seems to like having around.

So I do believe that an atheist can be moral and 'religion' is not needed to be so. I also reject your claim that a theist is only moral because of a book. I believe the book explains why we have that innate sense of morality within us to begin with.

I reject that claim also, I wasn't asserting I was asking. The vast majority of christians cannot name the 10 commandments off the top of their heads so I'm sure the book doesn't influence people as much as they like to claim.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

"There is no absolute right and wrong"

I would put money on the fact that you don't believe that. You objected to 'genocide' already. I'm sure you'd object to child sacrifice, child sex trafficking, rape, etc. Not that they are illegal or unwise or undesirable but wrong. Objectively wrong.
Why? Because in your heart(I'm not telling you what you think, only my assumption) you know that human being have an intrinsic worth. Otherwise, if you truly believe in no objective morality, why be outraged at anything?

Anyways...if you have no interest in discussion I'll move along. Cheers.

a reply to: slowisfast

I have my sense of what is correct however a lot of that is social.
The majority is probably based on "the golden rule".

However is killing 1 child to save 2 the right thing to do?

When it comes to right and wrong there's a lot of tricky questions.
I just think we should take responsibility for our ideas and work together to create a moral code we can all be happy with. Which we essentially have done since hammurabi's code.

The idea of an absolute authority allows people to do heinous things if they believe it is the will of said authority.

I am the interface between Science and God.
I accept both evolution within a species and creation.

a reply to: Phantom423

My only objection is why so monotheistic (the video)? There is no reason a person of any faith can not be an objective scientist. The operative word .... objective!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

My only objection is why so monotheistic (the video)? There is no reason a person of any faith can not be an objective scientist. The operative word .... objective!

Yes, I agree. But the major religions of the world are monotheistic so I assume that's why they focus on it. Any person - with or without faith - can be an objective scientist. As the first video shows, many well known scientists are religious but maintain their objectivity and seek the truth when they go into the lab.

The interface between religion and science is really very simple: one requires physical evidence; the other does not.