Opinion on religion, Has it hurt or helped humanity more?

Posted by: Unknown95

So religion is an extremely old practice and for all the time it's existed has it helped to build humanity or has it caused more damage to it?

  • It's hurt humanity

  • It's helped humanity

51% 22 votes
49% 21 votes
  • I would have picked helped, but Islam made me pick hurt. It is a putrid set of laws that govern putrid people and cause them to do disgusting things in the name of their "Allah". Without Islam religion would be no problem.

  • Religion is a tool, like a weapon: The more powerful it is, the more destruction it causes. Don't give me the same excuse gun nuts give: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The more secular civilizations thrived.

    Posted by: reece
  • Overall religion has hindered humanities progress due to its hinderence of technological advancement during certain periods of history as well as its use to oppress minority groups. I have no idea where people are getting this idea that religion got us to the top of the food chain through unification as humans were already forming groups before religion ever came about.

  • Religion has been the cause of massacres and untold harm. It is a system that keeps the powerful in power by policing another person's spirituality. If you study the history of religion, it's plain to see.

  • The only positive aspects can be gained from the simplest human activities. The negative effects we know very well. Proof that the net effect is not positive: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/religious-belief-and-societal-health/

  • We would have developed A LOT more quickly if the Pope, during the medieval era, didn't have so many restrictions on the people

  • Purely because without it we wouldn't have made it to the top of the food chain. Religion started to unify huge numbers of homo sapiens 70,000 years ago, and almost immediately afterward we became top of the food chain. We could have been eaten ages ago otherwise.

  • Its had a tremendous effect on bringing people together and establishing a shared set of moral goals for people to follow.

  • Does it hurt people? Yes. But I think more people are aided by religion than ailed.

  • There is a significant difference between various interpretations of religion. I believe it is a mistake to lump them all into one category. While it is true that evil men have used religion as justification for achieving their own ends, it is not just to castigate all believers because of it. Much good has also come of religion and the idea that blaming all of Christianity for the crusades of between 700 and 1000 years ago is just sloppy research. Only one Christian denomination was involved in that then, and not all that are extant today.

  • It really depends, it's had both positive and negative effects, if there was a middle ground option to vote, I would have chosen that. But from what i've seen, a lot of irreligious people complain about things like theocracies, crusades and etc. Most of the arguments on it hurting humanity seem to stem from Western/Abrahamic religions. Eastern religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc. (some aren't even considered religions by many) seem to have less of a negative impact, and seem to have less extremists and fundamentalists following the religion. So it really depends on what religions you're talking about. I'd say abrahamic religions though seem to have more of a neutral impact on humanity, often people commit immoral acts for political reasons or to gain power, they may just use religion as an excuse, the "negative impact" seems to be quite exaggerated by atheists and (mainly) militant anti-theists. This question seems to be too black and white though.

  • Religion has unified more than hurt.

  • It has helped humanity in one way as it has brought people closer to God, but it has also started wars and fights across the World, but as a Christian I believe Religious Freedom is one of the most important rights a human should have.

  • It helped humanity because God created it.

  • There are many times when it has been used as a tool to control and corrupt the minds of subjects which is bad, but the religion itself is very good for setting guidelines of morals, and the purpose for being here. This is of course excluding satanic like cults.

  • Not denying the negatives, however let's acknowledge that original (unaltered) religious texts can't back up most of the harmful things being done. Therefore, I would blame humans, not religion. Because humans altered religious texts to fit their own desires (you may argue that religion was created by man, however you can't prove that) P.S. check out what the Islamic world did to the development of science and technology during the Golden Age. You'll be shocked... Peace x

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
UtherPenguin says2015-08-24T22:29:39.4323204Z
@bballcrook21 Example of these "putrid laws"?
reece says2015-08-24T23:05:33.1767432Z
Religion brings people together just to divide them.
dietorangesoda says2015-08-24T23:30:00.5989161Z
Ohh reece i love that quote
Greg4586 says2015-08-24T23:39:55.3384315Z
Ages ago it definitely helped humanity so much more by uniting tribes and civilizations. In the modern age it definitely hurts humanity more though.
PericIes says2015-08-24T23:56:08.4515461Z
Do you know what I think hurts humanity? When people post 50 polls that ask the exact same question.
TBR says2015-08-25T00:11:37.6614258Z
Sure UtherPenguin. What is Sharia for drinking? Adultery? Yes they are putrid laws.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T00:39:46.6822785Z
In Saudi Arabia, one guy who was a blogger was jailed for 10 years and sentenced to 1000 lashes for simply saying he would rather have Saudi Arabia as a secular country.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T00:40:14.8410005Z
That's one example of the "putrid laws."
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T00:47:50.5910861Z
I go by the mentality of understanding your enemies, so I took the liberty of reading many parts of the Quran. That book is more disgusting than the 2 girls 1 cup video. You are bound to sworn devotion to Allah, who by Islamic definition is an all powerful being that requires you to kill and maim non Muslims as part of your "Jihad." Most Middle Eastern nations are ruled by strict Islamic law. There are heavy restrictions on your life and liberty. A woman becoming a Muslim would suffer the same fate and be as stupid as a black man that would become a slave, willingly. Islam has a complete disregard for the female gender. Christianity teaches modesty and gender roles, in which the mother takes care of the children and teachers manners as well as morals. Islam teaches that women are inferior and subordinate to men and that they cannot reveal any parts of their body. Christianity has nothing that is forced, it is all recommended. I'm not going to make comparisons between the two religions, but it is evident that Islam and Democracy cannot coexist. Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end." Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals." Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..." Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! They cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..." Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert. Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims. Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war. Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T00:48:49.9974093Z
Also, you have not yet told me if you are ready to debate on the stupidity of Pan Islamism. I will start the debate if you'd like.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T00:49:58.7853765Z
Hey, someone just build the Great Wall of Chi- (i mean) Text.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T00:50:19.1224945Z
What if bballcrook21 and genesis are the same person?
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T00:54:47.6833805Z
I don't know who genesis is. Is he/she someone that used to be on ddo a long time ago? Also, I do not know what happened with that text. I put it all into paragraphs but it just went into 1 section.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T00:56:42.0343125Z
Genesis was a troll that would keep switching personas, but his last persona before he left to edeb8 was being extremely anti-Islam.
TBR says2015-08-25T00:57:07.6345689Z
@bballcrook21 - There is no text formating on the polls. It will strip all cr/lf
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T00:57:11.4098657Z
Like heil, he kept multi-accounting after his original account got banned.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T00:58:03.0003885Z
@TBR I know, it's so stupid. DDO even has limited formatting in the forums, i've seen other forums that are years ahead of DDO forums.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T00:58:26.9158017Z
Oh, well I am not genesis, whomever that may be. On the other hand, I am extremely anti-Islam, so maybe I have something in common with him/her.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T01:00:05.9471409Z
I doubt he was anti-Islam, he was just a troll. He's went through other personas in the past, originally he was just a young earth creationist and religious zealot troll.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T01:01:21.3282737Z
Oh, well in that case, I am not like genesis. I do have a hatred for Islam, but I am not trolling.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T01:01:56.0155741Z
I suggest you debate UtherPenguin.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T01:02:35.0869649Z
I was going to debate UtherPenguin about Pan-Islamism. I sent him a challenge but he turned it down.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T01:02:43.7451869Z
I'll challenge him again.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T01:02:58.7591763Z
I too also used to have some issues with Islam, but i've changed my mind after seeing some more moderate muslims or whatever defend the attacks and claims against the religion. A lot of the "violent" quotes from the Qu'ran from what i've seen seem to be taken way too out of context.
TBR says2015-08-25T01:03:03.1988857Z
I dislike Islam in nearly the same proportion as I do Christianity.
Oreo222 says2015-08-25T01:03:11.4576577Z
Is it just a coincidence that bballcrook21's profile pic is of Donald Trump?
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T01:03:31.6441871Z
He used to like Rand Paul.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T01:30:50.7100413Z
I do not disliked Muslims, but I dislike Islam. The main reasons being that I am Christian, and I do not agree with Muslim views, as well as the fact that without Islam, half the world's problems would go away. I used to like Rand Paul, but he has shown his establishment ways, and is nothing like his father. I changed to Trump because I do not like illegal immigration and I cannot stand political correctness. I've read the Art of the Deal and this man knows more about the economy than any other candidate. I would also support Ben Carson if it came to that though.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T01:33:31.5345649Z
http://www.debate.org/debates/Pan-Islamism-Would-Be-Dreadful-In-Application/2/ I challenged him to a debate.
TBR says2015-08-25T01:36:05.6503127Z
Well, its gratifying to know you are only 15.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T01:37:50.4856045Z
@bballcrook21 I sort of agree, Rand Paul seems to be "selling out" to appeal to conservatives.
Oreo222 says2015-08-25T01:39:17.1259401Z
That's sort of what sellouts do though
58539672 says2015-08-25T03:42:08.7560373Z
@reece The establishment of religion has no more divided people than the establishment of the nation state.
Donderpants says2015-08-25T04:46:49.8296398Z
Am I the only one who used scientific and historic evidence on the "Help" side?
reece says2015-08-25T09:26:53.1820011Z
@58539672 Secular nations/states are and have been more welcoming of outsiders.
reece says2015-08-25T09:28:33.0401615Z
That's just one of many reasons why they thrive more.
tajshar2k says2015-08-25T18:09:37.3761790Z
Pan Islamism is basically when the U.S needs to keep the Middle East de-stabalized.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T18:22:14.6609183Z
I dont think you really know what Pan Islamism is. It is a united Muslim nation, ruled by 1 authoritarian government. Basically take all Muslim nations and put them into one nation. I linked the debate in my previous comment, so just go there and you can read about what Pan Islamism is.
tajshar2k says2015-08-25T18:24:07.8930266Z
Exactly, when all of them join together and become powerful they definitely will declare war on the West. Which is why we need to keep the Middle East destabilized. If all of them are united, they are direct control over the oil industry, and would likely nationalize it, which would hurt the American economy.
58539672 says2015-08-25T18:24:47.4868418Z
@reece "Secular nations/states are and have been more welcoming of outsiders." Im not talking about secular states. Im talking about all states. It does not matter what type they are, they, by their very nature, bring together large portions of the population and pit them against other groups. They ALL unite and divide, just like religion. And the fact that their are xenophobic tendencies in any nation kind of negates your point.
TBR says2015-08-25T18:25:58.8118706Z
@bballcrook21 - No, I wouldn't call the idea that. I would call it more of a EU or UN sort of arrangement.
58539672 says2015-08-25T18:26:53.5848750Z
@reece "That's just one of many reasons why they thrive more." You seem to have this notion that secular states are better off than religious ones, despite enough evidence to the contrary. The greatest civilizations in human history had strong religions. Even modern day ones.
dmussi12 says2015-08-25T18:27:48.2222565Z
@listofnumbers Then make a separate poll about whether or not the formation of nation-states hurt humanity. This one is about religion, so your point really doesn't matter. Did religion divide people? If you say yes, then argue why the good its done outweighs that.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T18:27:56.3655087Z
Just read my debate.
58539672 says2015-08-25T18:32:32.5652792Z
@dmussi12 I gave my thoughts on the topic at hand. Reece made a comment regarding that and I responded to his post. I will not leave and if you don't like it, deal with it.
tajshar2k says2015-08-25T18:33:09.9289246Z
Ya I read it.
tajshar2k says2015-08-25T18:33:36.1999982Z
Now what?
reece says2015-08-25T19:06:06.4996046Z
@58539672 WTF? Religion and states through out most of history have been connected. I thought you would of took that into consideration when you said "The establishment of religion has no more divided people than the establishment of the nation state." I was just replying that states on the secular side of the spectrum do better.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:09:09.6170998Z
Nations that create secular laws are better than theocratic nations. It is acceptable to create some laws based on morality, but people argue that morality is a religious creation, and is not part of human nature. If you look at theocratic nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. vs secular nations, such as France or Germany, you can see a clear difference between them. Secular nations tend to have more liberty and freedoms, less government interference in your life, etc. On the other hand, some very autocratic regimes such as the Soviet Union, China, or Nazi Germany have banned religion completely, or at least denounce it to a high extent. I do have to agree with reece though. Uther, will you ever accept my debate request?
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T19:09:24.0786706Z
Inb4 flame war
reece says2015-08-25T19:10:13.4227358Z
@58539672 "Great"religious civilizations are only "great" because the invade and concur.
reece says2015-08-25T19:10:41.5970582Z
They*
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T19:11:17.2453809Z
@bballcrook21 Religion was allowed in Nazi Germany considering that Hitler was a Christian. People in China are also free to practice religion, it was just banned in the USSR.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:13:34.6834962Z
There was no religion in Nazi Germany. Hitler was no Christian. You are free to refer to him as such, but you will never find a single piece of writing in the Bible that justifies the atrocities that he committed. That man was a hateful and horrible excuse for a human being.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:14:02.5146098Z
I wanted to form some sort of ddo skype group where we just discuss topics instead of writing about it. Any of you up for it?
UtherPenguin says2015-08-25T19:15:11.0596797Z
@bballcrook21 http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/52865/
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T19:15:11.9831910Z
@bballcrook21 Wow, so you're going to insist that Hitler was an atheist because you want to insist how completely innocent Christians are, and that no Christian extremists exist? I could easily say "Hitler wasn't irreligious because Irreligion is very positive, and religion is for the barbaric and close minded, thus making Hitler a Christian." Essentially, it's the same logic you use to insist Hitler wasn't a Christian.
TBR says2015-08-25T19:15:45.9415033Z
@bballcrook21 - Well that is revisionist. Better than half the nation was protestant, and over 40% catholic.
Cinnamon153 says2015-08-25T19:16:06.9590006Z
@triangle.128K Hitler was most certainly not a Christian. He was atheist and openly encouraged the criticism of churches and faiths. In fact, the fact that Hitler was an atheist is one of the things that Christian apologetics often throw around to 'prove' that atheists are evil....Many historians believe that one of Hitler's goals was to eradicate Christianity in Germany (although many others state that there just isn't enough evidence to prove that he was actively trying to do this...). So, no, Hitler was NOT a Christian (which is too bad, I would've liked to blame his insanity on religion, but alas I cannot).
UtherPenguin says2015-08-25T19:16:21.1665291Z
Hitler, alongside most of the Nazis, were protestants. Why else is there a cross on the nazi flag
TBR says2015-08-25T19:17:03.4584002Z
Yea, this is what I was looking for. "Protestant Reich Church" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reich_Church
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T19:17:07.9409642Z
@Cinnamon Have you ever read Mein Kampf? He's made constant references to Christianity, and claimed to be a man of god.
UtherPenguin says2015-08-25T19:17:16.1100813Z
Cross on flag could be seen here: https://www.atthefront.com/g_images/insig/battle_flag.jpg
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:17:19.2980554Z
There is no cross on the Nazi flag. It is a Swastika.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:17:51.9184918Z
http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/52865/ Im going on the google hangouts thingy right now.
UtherPenguin says2015-08-25T19:17:55.3287327Z
When Hitler was a child he wanted to become a priest.
Midnight1131 says2015-08-25T19:18:10.7884318Z
LOL cinnamon, Hitler was a Christian, read his autobiography.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:19:47.5558521Z
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gqutdaqsongs7hwsogexo4mcxea
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T19:19:50.6843370Z
"Mao and Stalin weren't irreligious, irreligion promotes the very good idea that mankind is good enough to rely on themselves instead of a spiritual dictator! Mao and Stalin were obviously Christian!"
komododragon8 says2015-08-25T19:20:07.6331808Z
Ballcrook21: The waffen SS were all required to believe in god.
Cinnamon153 says2015-08-25T19:20:28.8117146Z
@UtherPenguin That's not a cross. That's a swastika. The swastika outdated the cross symbol by thousands of years. The original swastika symbol was a symbol of luck and good fortune. The Nazi's took the symbol and transformed it into what we know today. The swastika symbol can still be found on Hindu temples and the Hindu's sure as hell aren't declaring Jesus or Aryan pride!
TBR says2015-08-25T19:22:26.5052710Z
@bballcrook21 - Balk all you like, Hitler said himself he was a Christian and believed in God. As triangle.128k just said, talk about Stalin or Mao, but not Hitler.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:23:23.1492341Z
The religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of interest and debate. Hitler was raised by an increasingly anti-clerical father and devout Catholic mother. Baptized as an infant and confirmed at the age of fifteen, he ceased attending Mass and participating in the sacraments in later life. In adulthood Hitler became disdainful of Christianity, but in the pursuit and maintenance of power was prepared to delay clashes with the churches out of political considerations.[4] Hitler's architect Albert Speer believed he had "no real attachment" to Catholicism, but that he had never formally left the Church. Unlike his comrade Joseph Goebbels, Hitler was not excommunicated[5] prior to his suicide. The biographer John Toland noted Hitler's anticlericalism but considered him still in "good standing" with the Church by 1941, while historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian - a view evidenced by sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann contained within Hitler's Table Talk. Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity." Many historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler's long-term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany, while others maintain that there is insufficient evidence for such a plan. Hitler's public relationship to religion has been characterized as one of opportunistic pragmatism.[10] His regime did not publicly advocate for state atheism, but it did seek to reduce the influence of Christianity on society. Hitler himself was reluctant to make public attacks on the Church for political reasons, despite the urgings of Nazis like Bormann. Although he was skeptical of religion, he did not present himself to the public as an atheist, and spoke of belief in an "almighty creator". In private, he could be ambiguous. Evans wrote that Hitler repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science, which in the long run could not "co-exist with religion". In his semi-autobiographical Mein Kampf (1925/6) Hitler declared himself neutral in sectarian matters and supportive of separation between church and state, and he criticized political Catholicism. The book presents a nihilistic, Social Darwinist vision, in which the universe is ordered around principles of struggle between weak and strong, rather than on conventional Christian notions. In Mein Kampf, Hitler makes a number of religious allusions, claiming to be "acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator" and to have been chosen by providence. In a 1922 speech he said,"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter [...] who [...] recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them..." In a 1928 speech, he said: "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... In fact our movement is Christian." Given his hostility to Christianity, Laurence Rees wrote that "The most persuasive explanation of these statements is that Hitler, as a politician, simply recognised the practical reality of the world he inhabited... Had Hitler distanced himself or his movement too much from Christianity, it is all but impossible to see how he could ever have been successful in a free election". Alan Bullock wrote that even though Hitler frequently employed the language of "divine providence" in defence of his own myth, he ultimately shared with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin a materialistic outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity". According to Geoffrey Blainey, when the Nazis became the main opponent of Communism in Germany, Hitler saw Christianity as a temporary ally. He made various public comments against "bolshevistic" atheist movements, and in favor of so-called "positive Christianity" (a movement which sought to nazify Christianity by purging it of its Jewish elements, the Old Testament and key doctrines like the Apostles' Creed).[18] While campaigning for office in the early 1930s, Hitler offered moderate public statements on Christianity, promising not to interfere with the churches if given power, and calling Christianity the foundation of German morality. Kershaw considers that use of such rhetoric served to placate potential criticism from the Church. According to Max Domarus, Hitler had fully discarded belief in the Judeo-Christian conception of God by 1937, but continued to use the word "God" in speeches. In office, the Hitler regime connived at a Kirchenkampf (lit. Church struggle). While wary of open conflict with the churches, Hitler generally permitted or encouraged anti-church radicals such as Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann to perpetrate their persecutions of the churches. According to Evans, by 1939, 95% of Germans still called themselves Protestant or Catholic, with 3.5% 'Deist' (gottgläubig) and 1.5% atheist - most in these latter categories being "convinced Nazis who had left their Church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid-1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society". Gottgläubig" (lit. "believers in God"), had a non-denominational, nazified outlook on divine beliefs, often described as predominantly based on creationist and deistic views. Despite all the promotion for positive Christianity and the gottgläubig movement, the majority of the three million Nazi Party members continued to pay their church taxes and register as either Roman Catholic or mainline Protestant Christians. Hitler angered the churches by appointing the neo-pagan Alfred Rosenberg as official Nazi ideologist. He launched an effort toward coordination of German Protestants under a unified Protestant Reich Church under the Deutsche Christen movement, but the attempt failed - resisted by the Confessing Church. The Deutsche Christens differed from traditional Christians by rejecting the Hebrew origins of Christianity, preaching of an Aryan Jesus and saying that Saint Paul, as a Jew, had falsified Jesus' message - a theme Hitler repeated in private conversations, including, according to Susannah Heschel, in October 1941, when he made the decision to murder the Jews. From around 1934, Hitler had lost interest in supporting the Deutsche Christen. He moved early to eliminate political Catholicism, while agreeing to a Reich concordat with Rome which promised autonomy for the Catholic Church in Germany. His regime routinely violated the treaty, closed all Catholic organisations that weren't strictly religious, and perpetrated a persecution of the Catholic Church. Smaller religious minorities faced far harsher repression, with the Jews of Germany expelled for extermination on the grounds of racist ideology and Jehovah's Witnesses ruthlessly persecuted for refusing both military service and any allegiance to Hitlerism.
TBR says2015-08-25T19:23:55.8470437Z
@Cinnamon153 - He is, rightful, referring to the iron cross
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:24:58.3398254Z
Come join our google hangouts https://plus.Google.Com/hangouts/_/gqutdaqsongs7hwsogexo4mcxea?Hl=en
58539672 says2015-08-25T19:25:17.8099691Z
@reece Secular States invade and conquer just as much, if not more than religious ones. Religion is not a major cause of war. Land, resources, and power have far more influence in that regard.
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:25:41.8649414Z
Come join our google hangouts https://plus.Google.Com/hangouts/_/gqutdaqsongs7hwsogexo4mcxea?Hl=en
TBR says2015-08-25T19:28:32.4553154Z
@58539672 - Religion is often a tool in motivating those that are needed to fight. Look back just over our recent past, and we see that in our own country. Religion is in the mix - like it or not.
triangle.128k says2015-08-25T19:29:57.9097646Z
Bballcrook21 is resorting to posting walls of text quoted from some random site.
Cinnamon153 says2015-08-25T19:30:40.7476392Z
@bballcrook21 - thank you for that looooong post :) That is exactly what I mean. Just because he stated that he believed in God didn't make him a Christian. He stated himself that he was neutral.
TBR says2015-08-25T19:30:52.6349154Z
@Triangle.128k - Yeah, its this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
TBR says2015-08-25T19:32:25.3931100Z
@Cinnamon153 - You both are cheery picking. He also said he believed in a God. He pushed for a state Prostration church, and regardless he used religion as a tool.
Cinnamon153 says2015-08-25T19:34:13.1742009Z
@TBK - I don't see how quoting Hitler as saying he is neutral is cherry picking. I believe in a God. Am I a Christian?
TBR says2015-08-25T19:34:40.0375731Z
Just to hit on this point again, the "Cross" WAS on the flag, and uniforms. The "Iron Cross" dates back to the Crusades. It is a religious cross, as it has been for some 800 years!
bballcrook21 says2015-08-25T19:36:03.8684898Z
The very difference is that Christianity does not allow murder. You can claim yourself to be a Christian, but you will not be a true Christian if you are a killer. Https://plus.Google.Com/hangouts/_/gqutdaqsongs7hwsogexo4mcxea?Hl=en If you have a mic, join.
TBR says2015-08-25T19:36:06.7233630Z
@Cinnamon153 - OK. These are some quotes from Hitler. "“Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples.” - Adolf Hitler "“We were convinced that the people need and require 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” - Adolf Hitler
Cinnamon153 says2015-08-25T19:38:01.6064652Z
@TBR - I am not disputing he believed in God. I AM disputing that those comments make him a CHRISTIAN!
TBR says2015-08-25T19:38:08.2833080Z
@bballcrook21 - Well, that would leave a lot of Christians out. As a matter of fact, I don't think that is true at all. Murders can be saved just as any other sinner, right?
TBR says2015-08-25T19:41:16.2021126Z
@Cinnamon153 - Got it. The special "I am a Christian - those guys are the fake ones." OK. Who can possibly disagree with that.
58539672 says2015-08-25T19:41:34.7506315Z
@TBR Religion is implicated in wars, but it is rarely the cause of them. A study called the Encyclopedia of War, published in 2008, recorded 1763 major conflicts in human history and found that only 123, or about 7% were caused by religion. In more recent history, the Institute for Economics and Peace did a study on all the wars in 2013, for which 35 were examined, and found that only 5 of the conflicts (14%) had religion as a major cause. 14 of the conflicts (40%) had no religious connection what so ever.
TBR says2015-08-25T19:44:06.7736060Z
@58539672 - And I don't disagree. I think that 123 purely for religious purposes is shameful high, and that it is a component of MOST to be even more shameful.
TBR says2015-08-25T19:47:14.3648085Z
I guess what I am saying with that is, if my argument is that this institution - the institution of religion is beneficial to peace, ignoring the ~10% of the devastating wars started directly from it, and its minor roll in most all others as a motivator to fight and die over other interests, aside from that its super peaceful. That is not very convincing.
58539672 says2015-08-25T19:51:39.4868794Z
@TBR Is it shamefully high? Its one of the least likely reasons for a conflict and has been responsible for only about 2% of all the deaths caused by war. Land, resources, power, and political dynasties are far higher on the list at both causing wars and killing more people than religion.
58539672 says2015-08-25T20:05:32.7354442Z
@TBR Plus many look immediately to wars when they bring up religion, ignoring everything that religion does to benefit society, and base their views off of that alone. Some of the benefits that effect every day life are; http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/12/22/religion-is-good-for-all-of-us-even-those-who-dont-follow-one/
TBR says2015-08-25T20:05:44.2396048Z
If the purpose of religion is peace, then this percentage is too high. Again, it also simply ignores the roll religion plays as a motivator in almost ALL wars. If the purpose of a gun is to shoot ammo out of one end of the barrier, and it fires it out of the opposite side ~10% of the time, that would be a cause for alarm.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.