(Ron) By his carnage he is known. (another example of the death of 1000 qualifications)
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:57:15 -0400 (00896824635, 19980602164033.RMBO9946@briandea)
KOLLER
Why do I get the impression that nothing would convince Ron. It seems
that he wishes to kill this theory of his by qualifying it over and over as
more evidence is piled up it. Ron, there is nothing in Hitler's writings to
suggest that he was an atheist, but there is more than sufficient
evidence to indicate that he was a theist, deluded as he may have been.
Hitler certainly was not the first theist to evoke religious symbolism to
justify his atrocities, and he's not likely to be the last.
But let's suppose for the sake of an argument, it was conceded that
Hitler was an atheist. Exactly how do you go about establishing cause
and effect between his lack of belief and his actions? What evidence can
you propose that would lead one to conclude that such a relationship
exists? Who, knows, maybe us atheists will use the same (il)logic as
theists and claim that Hitler wasn't a real atheist!!
BTW, I recently concluded an online debate where a Christian was
asserting that (1) Hitler was an atheist; and (2) because of that, he
committed his atrocities. After posting about 300 lines of quotes by Hitler
and his henchmen regarding Hitlers beliefs and motivations, this Christian
ran away from the debate and in typical religionist fashion refused to admit
he was wrong.
If Till is willing to permit the lengthy post, I'll be glad to do the same
for Ron who I am confident will not admit he is wrong; but I'll enjoy
seeing his assertions shot down all the same.
RON
OK, let me try to re-state this question in such a way that you cannot
evade it. Are you willing to accept every person who claims or claimed
to be an atheist as your representative? As the representative of
atheism in general? If not, then what is the point of your argument? How
can you expect Christians to accept Hitler as our representative?