Adolf Hitler Was A Christian

In the comments on my post about the Australian pastor who conned thousands of Christians into believing he had cancer, Matt wrote:

I would highly suggest for you, and any one else interested to read the book The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions by self-professed secular Jew and mathematics/philosophies teacher David Berlinski.
This tells the story of a Jew who was forced to dig his own grave prior to being shot by a German soldier. Prior to being shot, the old Jewish man advised the German that “God is watching what you are doing”. The Jewish gentleman pointed what i think is the real problem with atheism. If you have the time please check the book out.

Matt, I just read the review you linked to but obviously not the book yet. For the benefits of others, the end of that story about the Nazi and the Jew is:

“If there is no God to watch what you are doing, then why should you be circumspect in your behavior? Certainly the Germans at Auschwitz, who gassed Samuel Goldfein, did not believe that God was watching them. As Berlinski points out, that is the real problem with atheism.”

I’m going to point out a couple of flaws in that quote.

First of all – the Nazi regime was Christian! Adolf Hitler was a Christian. In Mein Kampf he wrote:

“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.”

In a speech in 1922, he said:

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

Hitler could not have come into power without the support of the Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany at the time. So, for a start, the reviewer of the book is ignorant.

Read more about Hitler and his Christianity here.

Now, let’s address the other suggestion from the reviewer which, I assume comes from the book.

Personally, I find the concept that humans who don’t believe in imaginary beings will become murderers to be completely asinine and offensive to the extreme.

Perhaps religious people believe that they personally would become murderers without their imaginary god keeping them in check. Many of us, however, are quite comfortable trying hard to be decent human beings without having to imagine some kind of sky bully keeping an eye on us. We try to do good things because being good is a end in itself. It doesn’t require some kind of supernatural pay-off. Now, I’m certainly not perfect. I’m made lots of mistakes in my life and hurt people, but never intentionally. I’ve been an atheist since I was 8 years old and I have no desire to kill or rape or steal.

I will also point out that in the history of the human race over the last 2000 years, Christians have been responsible for way more violence than atheists. I wrote a post about this some time ago.

So this sky bully concept doesn’t seem to keep Christians from committing regular atrocities. I’ll point out that the USA seems to consider itself a Christian nation (at least that’s what I hear from time to time) and they are the most violent country on the planet at the moment, actively invading other countries and waging economic warfare on many others.

I would go so far as to say that, not only does religion not curb violence, it BREEDS violence. The core tenant of all religious belief is “those that don’t believe what we believe deserve eternity in hell”. That is the most intolerant and violent philosophy I can imagine.

Atheism, on the other hand, doesn’t have a code that preaches violence.

So… what say you to that?

Watching Christopher Hitchens Videos

I’ve only discovered this morning how brilliant Christopher Hitchens (author of “God Is Not Great”) is when he talks. Check out this video for starters then make your way through some related YouTube clips.

The Church Of LOTU

As you know, over the last year I’ve been working on a book about religion. During this time, while I’ve been debating the subject with people on the show and in person, one of the common arguments I’ve heard for keeping religion is “people need something to believe in”. I used to scoff at this statement. I certainly don’t feel that need. I’m happy with my own assessments of what’s right, what’s wrong, what is true and what is false. However, it struck me recently that perhaps other people aren’t like me. Perhaps they do need help figuring answers to the big questions. Perhaps they would like a place to gather on a regular basis with like-minded people to discuss the subjects of life, the universe and everything. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons religion continues to survive in the 21st century.

Atheism doesn’t have such a place. As an atheist, I don’t have a place where I can gather with other atheists to discuss “the big questions”. And, while this isn’t a problem for me, I got to thinking that perhaps it might be a hurdle for the new atheists, the people who are reading Dawkins and Hitchens and are preparing themselves to let go of superstition and mythology to embrace critical thinking and logic.

Scientific literature, and working scientists, rarely seem to attempt to play the role of answering the big questions either. There are exceptions, such as Carl Sagan, but these are truly the exceptions to the rule. Scientists provide us with the best information they have about how it all works and they leave it up to us to decide what that means to our individual lives.

So… I’ve decided to start a new religion which I’m calling

THE CHURCH OF LOTU.

The Church Of LOTU

“LOTU” stands for the “Laws Of The Universe”. The idea is that this religion, this church, will be fully based in science and critical thinking. It will not worship any mythological deity but will respect, and try to interpret, the laws of the universe as delivered to us by the latest scientific research. LOTU will also endorse the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. Unlike every other religion on the planet today, LOTU will not condemn people who do not agree with us to an eternity of torture and vilification. LOTU doesn’t care what you believe. LOTU respects your right to believe whatever makes you feel good. We may disagree with you. We may debate you vigorously. We may even chide you for believing in bronze age mythologies in the 21st century. We will also, however, fight for your right to believe whatever you want.

Yes, I know that the words “religion” and “church” seem to be incongruent with atheism but they need not. Wikipedia define ‘religion’ as:

“A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.”

LOTU may well have all of those things. Note there is no mention of a supernatural deity in that description.

Wikipedia defines ‘church’ as:

“A church is an association of people with a common belief system, especially one that is based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.”

LOTU is definitely the first but also, obviously, NOT the second. Christians have always been fond of stealing ideas from older traditions (Easter, Christians, monotheism… hell, even the Jesus story is a rip-off of Mithra), so I feel quite comfortable stealing one of their words.

At the moment, I’m working on writing the “scripture” for LOTU but, as I’ve leaked word of it to a few people over the last week, I thought I should throw the doors open and let those of you who wish to join me in the creation of the first new religion for the 21st century. This is Religion 2.0.

To start with, I’ve created a Facebook group (I know, BOO! HISS!) for us to discuss the idea. I hope a few of you will join me.

Creationists Sue Critics To Shut Them Up

I heard about this on a recent episode of the Skeptics Guide To The Universe Podcast. Some guys calling themselves the Extant Dodos have been taking videos posted to the web by the Creation Science Evangelism organisation which “prove” creationist theories and then debunk them, putting the re-edited videos on YouTube. The CSE people don’t like criticism, so they have apparently threatened to sue the Dodos for infringement of copyright and have demanded YouTube take down the Dodos’ videos. The last recourse of people who can’t win an argument must be to sue your critics. The classic bit is that on their website, the CSE folks originally had this clause: “None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely.”

Read more here.

Mother Teresa was a fake

While recording a new episode of the Advaita Show podcast today, my co-host Steve mentioned the recent book that has been published with Mother Teresa’s letters to her spiritual mentors which point out what a big bloody faker she was.

Check it:

Yet no sooner did Teresa start her work in the slums of Calcutta than she began to feel the intense absence of Jesus—a state that lasted until her death, according to her letters.

“The paradox is that for her to be a light, she was to be in darkness,” Kolodiejchuk said.

In a letter estimated to be from 1961, Teresa wrote: “Darkness is such that I really do not see – neither with my mind nor with my reason – the place of God in my soul is blank “There is no God in me” when the pain of longing is so great” I just long & long for God.  The torture and pain I can’t explain.”

And this:

“Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The child of your love—and now become as the most hated one. You have thrown away as unwanted unloved So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them  because of the blasphemy If there be a God please forgive me I am told that God loves me, and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.

Note: “If there be a God…”

And this:

The whole time smiling sisters and people pass such remarks they think my faith, trust and love are filling my very being. … Could they but know and how my cheerfulness is the cloak by which I cover the emptiness and misery, she wrote.

What a big bloody faker. All the time pretending she was spiritually “with it”, and yet underneath she was a mess.

But… I hear you say… what does it matter? Look at the good she did?

Did she? By lying? By faking? By pretending? By letting the world believe her good works were inspired by her belief when really she was devoid of belief?

Imagine, instead, how much good she might have done had she had the courage to be honest and forthright about her lack of belief, and yet had continued to do her good works regardless??

We’ve seen it before – the bigger the poseur, the bigger the fake. Remember that lesson kids.