The Atheist Movement, Guilt by Association, and Personal Attacks

 
 Christians? Or Atheists marching?


There is a whole thread on CARM right now that exhibits exactly what I'm talking about:

Guilt by association is a fallacy and a lie. It's what people use to prove their *******. Eampels of guilt by association that we all dispose include "one black I know is lazy (so I think) thus all black people are lazy."

Yet most atheists will seem to argue for the proportion that if one Christian is a Nazi then Christianity must turn people into Nazis.

 Originally Posted by The Pixie

The vast majority of Nazis were Christians.

What's the point of saying it if he's not trying to imply something? the OP is implying that they are dehumanizing Christians by implying that Christianity is full of Naizis. So to counter this the guy says most Nazis were Christians. how is that a counter? How does that not imply that being a Christian makes you Nazi? If he is trying to deny it he's doing a stupid job becuase he comes back with even more indication that Christians are Nazis:

Originally Posted by The Pixie

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article....uleId=10005206
The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebit...spolicy2.shtml
One-third of Germans were Catholics and two-thirds were Protestants.

While the leaders had some strange ideas, the rank-and-file, the people working in the concentration camps were Christians.

Then HRG Steps in with a "common use argument" to again argue that these Hitler supporters were "true Christians" since that means nothing more than superficial membership in an organization:

Originally Posted by HRG

According to the common use of that term, many were Christians (baptized, paying church tax, going to mass etc.). You may set up your special definition by which someone who commits an atrocity is automatically removed from Christianity, but its self-serving character is obvious.

Just like there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, good Hindus and bad Hindus, good atheists and bad atheists, there are good Christians and bad Christians.

Although he does throw off the association by stipulating that there are good one's and bad one's. That goes to the deeper argument behind the guilt by association argument, that being Christian doesn't change your lfie or make you a better person. That argument can be answered efficiently by the studies on religious experience, the fact that he makes it is encouraging becuase he's not using it as a hate slogan to tar all Christians.

When I keep pointing out that he has to be saying this for the obvious reason, they finally just say stuff that implies "if shoe fits wear it."

Originally Posted by madmax2976

If I were to guess, it would be to try to get under the skin of Christians. I just haven't seen many do this in any significant numbers.

none of them will ever admit that they really think this (Christianity causes Nazism). they will back away and say stuff like "I'm not opposing the idea that true Christians can't be Nazis." That is equally deniable as a Christian belief.


Sreve Chase admitts to using the argument facetiously to force the other guys to think it through.


Originally Posted by stevechase

I have written such things. I do it in response to Christians claiming that evolution produced Hitler and the like:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...ist&highlight=

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...KKK&highlight=

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...her&highlight=

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...ans&highlight=

and many more.

I do it to parody the "logic" of many evangelical types.

I agree with you that their logic is equally odious. I did the same thing by arguing that atheism = communism. Atheists murdered 100 million in the 20th century and so on.

these are just games either way. we should stop playing them because we are not producing anything. It's not having the desired effect. It doesn't make people think it just helps justify their BS. 

Those types actually seem to think that their absurd declarations are true. So I mock their stupidity.

I agree with you that their logic is equally odious. I did the same thing by arguing that atheism = communism. Atheists murdered 100 million in the 20th century and so on.

these are just games either way. we should stop playing them because we are not producing anything. It's not having the desired effect. It doesn't make people think it just helps justify their BS.

When are we going to stop playing this stupid game?

If there were "true" Christians supporting Hitler that does not prove Christianity produces Nazis. that's just as much a guilt by association argument as saying that Stalin's atheism proves that being an atheist turns you into a torturing murdering commie.

If the stats suggest that the vast majority of Hitler supporters were Christians it does not prove that being a Christian makes you support Hitler.

* Most opposition to Hitler in Germany were Christians.

* The vast majority of people who kicked the Nazi's asses in the war were Christians.

* Hitler was an occultist who hated Christianity and he engaged the SS to find the holy grail not becuase he bleieve in it as a Christian (no one does) but he believed in it as an occultist.

*He also dispatched searchers to Tibet to find occult secrets hat help them in the war. Although that might be hard to prove. The ostensible reason may have been to compare Asians to Ayrians. They had an extensive study of sociologically based "racial science."

*The issue of what makes one a "true Christian" has to come into it. Atheist trying to deny that there is any deeper thing required than just superficial membership in organization. Yet Christian belief itself asserts that there are deeper requirements and surface level organization in membership does not fit the bill of Jesus' teachings concerning what it means to follow him.

The problem there is the term "Christian" since Jesus never used it. Jesus never said anything about being a Christian, he talked about being born again.

* The overall issue is nothing more than guilt by association. It's a cheap poly that atheists wont let go of because they have nothing very deep to say about the nature of christian teaching.

that's typical of the whole atheist movement and they way they argue on this board. all they ever do argue about is people, what people do, what's wrong with the way Chrsitians think what's what's wrong with the way Christians argue, how Christians are dishonest and can't think ect ect. that's all they know how to discuss most of the time.