Hitler and Occultism

[seang200]

This is in response to something said by Amnouy in a thread where my response was removed for being off topic (? I hope the quote from Amnouy and my response will keep it here ?), I hope this is the right thread for it?

Amnouy said:


As for “anti-Christian out of Nazi commitments” that cannot be the case because Hitler is on record numerous times advocating Christianity as essential for civilization.

My response was to show clearly that many of the symbols and thinking behind the Third Reich. Hitler wanted to change Christianity to a an occultic form with Germanic gods and goddesses as representations of this new belief. So I posted an old debate post from years ago to show how off Amnouy was in his statement, but a good book by a Rabbi David G. Dalin will even further Amnouy’s learning curve: The Myth of Hitler's Pope: Pope Pius XII and His Secret War Against Nazi Germany.


The first Swastika known to show up in Germany:
(Do images work?)

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h208/papa_giorgio/Occult/Nazi-ThuleSociety.jpg

…For example: Nietzsche, also like Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels (more later) was dubbed the “Father of National Socialism,” Nietzsche is probably more deserving of this distinction, being so labeled by Nazi luminaries Dr. Alfred Rosenberg and Dr. Frank. Others have called him the “Father of Fascism.” Rabidly anti-Christian and a homosexual, Nietzsche founded the “God is dead” movement and contributed to the development of existentialist philosophy. Nietzsche’s publisher, Peter Gast, called Nietzsche “one of the fiercest anti-Christians and atheists.”

Nietzsche never married, and had no known female sex partners, but went insane at age 44 from syphilis and eventually died of it. According to Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, Nietzsche had caught the disease at a homosexual brothel in Genoa, Italy. [15]Nazism came from these organizations, or from contemporary homosexual influences. The extended-arm “Seig Heil” salute, for example, was a ritual of the Wandervoegel (“Wandering Birds” or “Rovers”), a male youth society that became the German “equivalent” of the Boy Scouts. The Wandervoegel was started in the late 1800’s by a group of homosexual teenagers. Its first adult leader, Karl Fischer, called himself “der Fuehrer” (“the Leader”) [16]. Hans Blueher, a homosexual Nazi philosopher and important early member of the Wandervoegel, incited a sensation in 1912 with the publication of The German Wandervoegel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon, which told how the movement had become one in which young boys could be introduced into the homosexual lifestyle [17]. The Wandervoegel and other youth organizations were later merged into the Hitler Youth, which itself became known among the populace as the “Homo Youth” because of rampant homosexuality [18].

Many of the Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, the double lightning bolt “SS” symbol, and even the inverted triangle symbol used to identify classes of prisoners in the concentration camps, originated among homosexual occultists in Germany (some, such as the swastika, are actually quite ancient symbols which were merely revived by these homosexual groups). In 1907, Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels (Lanz), a former Cistercian monk whom the church excommunicated because of his homosexual activities [19], flew the swastika flag above his castle in Austria [20]. After his expulsion from the church, Lanz founded the Ordo Novi Templi (“Order of the New Temple”), which merged occultism with violent anti-Semitism. A 1958 study of Lanz called, “Der Mann der Hitler die Ideen gab” – or, “The Man Who Gave Hitler His Ideas” – by Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Daim, called Lanz the true “father” of National Socialism.

List, a close associate of Lanz, formed the Guido Von List Society in Vienna in 1904. The Guido Von List Society was accused of practicing a form of Hindu Tantrism, which featured sexual perversions in its rituals (the swastika is originally from India). A man named Aleister Crowley, who, according to Hitler biographer J. Sydney Jones, enjoyed “playing with black magic and little boys,” popularized this form of sexual perversion in occult circles [21]. List was “accused of being the Aleister Crowley of Vienna” [22]. Like Lanz, List was an occultist; he wrote several books on the magic principles of rune letters (from which he chose the “SS” symbol). In 1908, List “was unmasked as the leader of a blood brotherhood which went in for sexual perversion and substituted the swastika for the cross” [23]. The Nazis borrowed heavily from Lis’s occult theories and research. List also formed an elitist occult priesthood called the Armanen Order, to which Hitler himself may have belonged [24].

The Nazi dream of an Aryan super-race was adopted from an occult group called the Thule Society, founded in 1917 by followers of Lanz and List. The occult doctrine of the Thule Society held that the survivors of an ancient and highly developed lost civilization could endow Thule initiates with esoteric powers and wisdom. The initiates would use these powers to create a new race of Aryan supermen who would eliminate all “inferior” races.

Hitler dedicated his book, Mein Kampf, to Dietrich Eckart, one of the Thule Society’s inner circle and a former leading figure in the German Worker’s Party (when they met at the gay bar mentioned earlier) [25].“…And among them I want also to count that man, one of the best, who devoted his life to the awakening of his, our people, in his writings and his thoughts…” [26]After the above dedication, the notes in this edition of Mein Kampf read, “Dietrich Eckart was the spiritual founder of the National Socialist Party” [27]. The various occult groups mentioned above were outgrowths of the Theosophical Society, whose founder, Helen Petrovna Blavatsky, was a lesbian [28], and whose “bishop” was a notorious pederast Charles Leadbeater. Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, was obsessed with Freemasonry [29], which is full of occultic influences and practices [30].

The dreaded SA Brownshirts or Sturmabteilung (“Storm Troopers”, the SA) were largely the creation of another homosexual, Gerhard Rossbach [31].“…the SA, under its leader Ernst Rohm, was administered to a large extent by homosexuals. And elaborate pimping service had been developed to satisfy the appetites of Rohm and his cohort…” [32].Rossbach, who historian Gruber says “was a open homosexual” [33], formed the Rossbachbund (“Rossbach Brotherhood”), a homosexual unit of the Freikorps (“Free Corps”). The Freikorps were independent inactive military reserve units, which became home to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed World War I veterans in Germany. Rossbach also formed a youth organization under the Rossbuchbund, calling it the Schilljugend (“Schill Youth”) [34]. Rossbach’s staff assistant, Lieutenant Edmund Heines, a pederast and murderer, was put in charge of the Schilljugend. The Rossbuchbund later changed its name to Storm Troopers (in honor of Wotan, the ancient German God of storms) [35]. It was Rossbach who seduced Hitler’s mentor, Ernst Roehm, into homosexuality. It was under Roehm’s leadership that the Brownshirts became notorious for brutality.


Footnotes from a larger post from many yearn ago… much of which is from Scott Lively’s work…

[15] Scott Lively, The Poisoned Stream: “Gay” Influence in Human History: volume one, Germany 1890-1945, Founders Publishing Corp.; Keizer: Oregon [1997]

[16] H. W. Koch, The Hitler Youth: Origins and Development 1922-1945, Stein & Day; New York [1976], p. 25f

[17] Frank Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals, Stein & Day; New York [1981], p. 39f

[18] ibid., p. 52

[19] Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, Dorset Press; New York [1989], p. 19

[20] Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and their Influence on Nazi Ideology, New York University Press; New York [1985] p. 109

[21] J. Sydney Jones Hitler in Vienna 1907-1913, Stein & Day; New York [1983], p. 123

[22] ibid., p. 123

[23] Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, Dorset Press; New York [1989], p. 23

[24] Robert G. L. Waite, The Psychopathic God Adolf Hitler, Signet Books; New York [1977], p. 91

[25] Wulf Schwarzwaller, The Unknown Hitler: His Private Life and Fortune, National Press Book; Washington D. C. [1989], p. 67

[26] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim: Houghton Mifflin; New York [1971], p.687

[27] Ibid.

[28] James Webb, The Occult Underground, Open Court Pub; LaSalle: Il. [1974], p. 94

[29] G. S. Graber, The History of the SS: A Chilling Look at the Most Terrifying Arm of the Nazi War Machine, David McKay Company; New York [1978], p. 81

[30] see: Andre Nataf, The Wordsworth Dictionary of the Occult, Wordsworth Refernce; France [1994], pp. 58-60; Texe Marrs, New Age Cults & Religions, Living Truth Publishers; Austin: TX [1990], pp. 199-203; Debra Lardie, Concise Dictionary of the Occult and New Age, Kregal Publishers; Grand Rapids: MI [2000], p. 108; D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Signature Books; Salt Lake City: UT [1998], “freemasonry,” index, p. 604

[31] Robert G. Waite, Vangaurd of Nazism: The Free Corps Movement in Postwar Germany 1918-1923, W. W. Norton & Company; New York [1969], p. 209

[32] G. S. Graber, The History of the SS: A Chilling Look at the Most Terrifying Arm of the Nazi War Machine, David McKay Company; New York [1978], p. 47

[33] Ibid, p. 33

[34] Robert G. Waite, Vangaurd of Nazism: The Free Corps Movement in Postwar Germany 1918-1923, W. W. Norton & Company; New York [1969], p. 210

[35] G. S. Graber, The History of the SS: A Chilling Look at the Most Terrifying Arm of the Nazi War Machine, David McKay Company; New York [1978], p. 33

[damienl]

It's always interesting to see that many people use Hitler's public payment of lip-service to a kind of Christianity that was wholly alien to the true Gospel as evidence that `religion poisons everything'.
However, when Christians point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (all of whom were atheists) committed atrocities on par with Hitler's, they immediately dismiss it as a red herring since `their atheism was not what made them commit barbarous acts' (what about the fact that it makes utilitarianism and `might is right' acceptable ethical options, especially when they are compounded with the firm belief that the here and now is all that matters?).
It is of course pure hypocrisy: blaming Christianity for Hitler's actions is like rejecting human rights because some leaders in developing countries publicly extol their virtues but also condone torture and rape.

It's not what you say that counts but what you do and, using that standard, Hitler is definitely not a Christian.

[seang200]

It's always interesting to see that many people use Hitler's public payment of lip-service to a kind of Christianity that was wholly alien to the true Gospel as evidence that `religion poisons everything'.
However, when Christians point out that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (all of whom were atheists) committed atrocities on par with Hitler's, they immediately dismiss it as a red herring since `their atheism was not what made them commit barbarous acts' (what about the fact that it makes utilitarianism and `might is right' acceptable ethical options, especially when they are compounded with the firm belief that the here and now is all that matters?).
It is of course pure hypocrisy: blaming Christianity for Hitler's actions is like rejecting human rights because some leaders in developing countries publicly extol their virtues but also condone torture and rape.

It's not what you say that counts but what you do and, using that standard, Hitler is definitely not a Christian.

That’s right! I love the zinger that D’Souza gave Hitchens when he said (roughly):

Atheists killed more people in three weeks than three-hundred years of inquisitions.

The main difference is is that nothing in naturalism says that what Hitler did was morally wrong. The third article in the Humanist Manifesto begins:

“We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.”

Ethics stems from human need and interest. What are the ends of human needs? This brings to mind a topic from WWII in fact, let me explain further. If one has watched any number of History Channel documentaries or been taught about the beginnings of Nazism in history class, invariably one has read about the book burning that took place in Germany by the National Socialists that even made it to television sets here in the States. Typically this is as deep as the viewer goes into this event. But has anyone ever asked which books were burned?

This topic came up in an earlier conversation at another site between “John” and myself:


The well-known book burning that was shown (via newsreel) here in the U.S. that occurred in Nazi Germany was that of the Sex Research Institute. This institute had extensive records on the sexual perversions of numerous Nazi leaders, many of whom had been under treatment there prior to the beginning of the Nazi regime. Treatment at the Sex Research Institute was required by the German courts for persons convicted of sex crimes. Ludwig L. Lenz, who worked at the Institute at the time of the raid, which was May 6, 1933, and it was on May 10th that the Nazi’s burned the books and files from that institution. Lenz managed to escape with his life, and later wrote of the incident:

“Why was it then, since we were completely non-party, that our purely scientific Institute was the first victim which fell to the new regime? The answer to this is simple…. We knew too much. It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their perversions …not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal…. Our knowledge of such intimate secrets regarding members of the Nazi Party and other documentary material – we possessed about forty thousand confessions and biographical letters – was the cause of the complete and utter destruction of the Institute of Sexology.”

To wit, The Times carried the obituary of a man who had worked in turn as secretary to Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee in World War II, a priest and an “unshockable and permissive” sex therapist. The obituary reported him as saying that “A perversion is only what someone perceives to be a perversion.”

So it is situational ethics typically that drive people to simply state for convenience sake that ethics stems from human need and interest. In the words of the Encyclopedia Americana, “Since there is no God, man is the creator of his own values.” The British author John Hick bluntly asserts, “There is no God; therefore no absolute values and no absolute laws.” Joseph Lewis in, The Bible Unmasked, says, “there is in reality no absolute standard by which we can judge… In the final analysis our guide in moral affairs should be what gives to the individual the greatest possible happiness.”

C. S. Lewis talked about this “privatized morality” and showed some of its weaknesses, two of which he identified with his usual clarity:


In the first place, how do ethical standards come into being? In Lewis’s words, “The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new color in the spectrum.”

Secondly, in the absence of absolutes, how can we talk of moral progress? As Lewis puts it, “if things can improve, this means that there must be some absolute standard of good above and outside the cosmic process towards which that process can approximate. There is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’ – it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘ the place you have reached.’”

Allan Bloom, in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, said that, “There is one thing a professor can be certain of. Almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” How did the college student get this way? Let us allow the Father of modern educational philosophy answer that, John Dewey: “There is no God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent moral absolutes.”

In light of all this, I find it funny… hold on, that was the wrong word, how bout’ “perplexing”… when an atheist says that he is so because there is evil in this world (innocent children die, and the such). Again, C. S. Lewis makes my point for me when he was an atheist:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?… Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.”

Lewis hit the nail on the head. In the absence of transcendent values, we are left floundering about as best we can… or, as [b]Heidegger put it, “searching in the darkness for any scraps of meaning that might be found.” Ravi Zacharias rightly concludes, if atheism is true, “Thinking atoms discussing morality is absurd.” All this leads to what Jean-Paul Sartre called a “baseless base of values.” In other words, the person who takes this route finds himself in a world with particulars but no universals, relatives but no absolutes, valuations but no values.

So from Cristina Odone (Melrose Place) saying in the June 97’ [i]Daily Telegraph that, “What’s right is what you feel,” to Ernest Hemingway’s creed: “What is moral is what you feel good after, and what is immoral is what you feel bad after,” all this does as a philosophy of evolutionary naturalism is create people who will try to enforce their “will and way” above others.

This is why the “Hitlers” and “Stalins” will always exist! When the moral imperatives of God are thrown to the wayside, it creates a power vacuum. This is why the atheist has no real way to say what is good or bad for any individual besides himself – objectively. This, I believe, drove Bertrand Russell to a solemn grave, and Nietzsche insane. In fact, it was Nietzsche who said that the consequences of the death of God would penetrate every avenue of life, and that this, in-and-of-itself, would be unbearable. Nietzsche went on to say, because God had died in the nineteenth century, there would be two direct results in the twentieth century. First, he prognosticated that the twentieth century would become the bloodiest century in history; and second, that a universal madness would break out.

He has been right on both counts. More people have been killed because of ideological differences, and destroyed on the battlefields of geo-political maneuvering in the name of naturalism in this century than the previous nineteen centuries of religious killing before it. Yes, non-God movements/governments have killed more people in one century than religion did in the first nineteen. Unfortunately we see this madness seeping into other areas of our society as well:

Newspapers in 1996-1997 reported two particularly shocking cases of infanticide. In one, a pair of eighteen-year-old college sweethearts delivered their baby in a hotel room, killed him, and left the body in a dumpster. In the other, an eighteen-year-old briefly left her high school prom to deliver her baby in a bathroom stall, left the infant dead in a garbage can and returned to the dance floor. Both events led to convictions for homicide.

Although these crimes were attributed to either a moral failure (personal or social) or to some form of mental pathology, Steven Pinker had a different explanation. Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at the Massachusetts Institute of Psychology and a leading popularizer of evolutionary psychology, says it is (the above murders of infant) a genetic imperative. Writing in the New York Times, Pinker argued that what he termed neonaticide (The killing of a baby on the day of its birth) is not attributable to mental illness because “it has been practiced and acceptable in most cultures throughout history.” Rather, he went on to say, a capacity for neonaticide is hard-wired into the maternal genes by our evolutionary history.

AHHhh! Naturalistic morals (relativism) have struck again! And the only individual to strike at the core of these horrors that materialists have inflicted on the twentieth century is the theist (the Jew and Christian). This is why the non-theist will always have the “Hitlers,” “Stalins,” and “Maos” in their worldview as acceptable to their moral theorizing. They cannot assert objectively – beyond themselves – that those persons are wrong, it would only be their personal preference speaking. Sorta’ like chocolate or vanilla ice cream, or, brownies with or without nuts, Hitler… or Mother Teresa. They (the relativist) are neutered in the political and moral spectrum, or, if they do choose to take a value-laden stance, they are doing so in direct violation of their own doctrines and dogmas, thus, self-refuting their own claims.

I will end with a poem to drive the above points home:


If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear… State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites Go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!…It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

[Nicholas]

Actually, the Swastika is found around the world as a religious symbol, in many cases representing the sun. And the SS symbol was a Norse sig rune. The origins of these had nothing to do with homosexuality.

The rest of your thread seems to consist mainly of a diatribe against the evils of atheism and moral relativism.

[seang200]

The swastika as used by the Third Reich was adopted from the Thule Society who was into Tantric Hinduism (a form thereof) as well as the Germanic gods who represented many things that surely were not Christian -- the point of the post. While forms of the Swastika both reversed and not have surely been used or displayed throughout history, as the Third Reich used it is connected strongly to the atheistic occultism found in Madam Blavatsky's writings as well as the non-god philosophy of nuts like Nietzsche. This is why the rant against atheistic relativism. Nothing in the Aryan cults is different than any other non-religious "religion."

[Nicholas]

The swastika as used by the Third Reich was adopted from the Thule Society who was into Tantric Hinduism (a form thereof) as well as the Germanic gods who represented many things that surely were not Christian -- the point of the post. While forms of the Swastika both reversed and not have surely been used or displayed throughout history, as the Third Reich used it is connected strongly to the atheistic occultism found in Madam Blavatsky's writings as well as the non-god philosophy of nuts like Nietzsche. This is why the rant against atheistic relativism. Nothing in the Aryan cults is different than any other non-religious "religion."

Atheistic occultism? Occultism has a supernatural aspect to it, while atheism does not.

[seang200]

Buddhism is atheistic. Some forms of Hinduism are atheistic. There is even a for of Christianity that is atheistic (Liberation Theology). Secular Humanism is atheism and it is considered a religious view, there are even tax exempt humanist "churches" and "counselors" in the military for secular humanists. Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, just to name a few more. Do you think a Satanist admits to believing in a deity? I have talked to many and they reject such a notion. In fact, evolution could account for the many "gods" in Mormonism... there is ultimately no difference between it and dialectical materialism... this philosophy of Marxism says that atoms (or smaller elements) are eternal but continually change, just like their thesis/anti-thesis idea. The Mormon god is made up of atoms (quarks, DNA) just like you or me... and matter is eternal in Mormon theology/philosophy, just like Leninist-Marxist philosophy. So I could argue that Mormonism is atheistic as well.

[Nicholas]

Buddhism is atheistic. Some forms of Hinduism are atheistic. There is even a for of Christianity that is atheistic (Liberation Theology). Secular Humanism is atheism and it is considered a religious view, there are even tax exempt humanist "churches" and "counselors" in the military for secular humanists. Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, just to name a few more. Do you think a Satanist admits to believing in a deity? I have talked to many and they reject such a notion. In fact, evolution could account for the many "gods" in Mormonism... there is ultimately no difference between it and dialectical materialism... this philosophy of Marxism says that atoms (or smaller elements) are eternal but continually change, just like their thesis/anti-thesis idea. The Mormon god is made up of atoms (quarks, DNA) just like you or me... and matter is eternal in Mormon theology/philosophy, just like Leninist-Marxist philosophy. So I could argue that Mormonism is atheistic as well.

Firstly, Evolution can say nothing about "gods", evolution deals with, and only with, the change over time in populations of living organisms.

As to religions, it might be helpful if I knew what youw ere using as a defintion of Atheism, because Hinduism is not atheistic, although some offshoots like Jainism are. The problem with this is, though, is that these beliefs, even if they worship no deity, they do have a spiritual aspect to them.

[seang200]

Firstly, Evolution can say nothing about "gods", evolution deals with, and only with, the change over time in populations of living organisms.

As to religions, it might be helpful if I knew what youw ere using as a defintion of Atheism, because Hinduism is not atheistic, although some offshoots like Jainism are. The problem with this is, though, is that these beliefs, even if they worship no deity, they do have a spiritual aspect to them.

Atheism has "spiritual" aspects to it as well. In fact, it makes grand metaphysical claims - often, just like any other worldview. Secular Humanists are religious, even having "pastors" in the military as well as having tax-free buildings meant for meeting. The Supreme Court considers Secular Humanists a religion.

As for evolution, saying that "evolution" is merely "change" is almost not the smartest choice, i will illustrate with this old debate:

Matt W, you are throwing around terms with a meaning that I am sure no creationist would agree with. You are asking me to agree with a straw-man, even if you don’t realize it or mean to do it. A mock conversation [from the jr. high level book What’s Darwin Got to Do With It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution:

Creationist: Before we get started, we’ve got to clear up some terms. Words can be used a lot of different ways.

Evolutionist: That’s what we have dictionaries for.

Creationist: This is a little trickier than that. Like, how would you define the word “adult?”

Evolutionist: Mature. Responsible. Grown up. Why?

Creationist: So, when you (as a mature, responsible grown-up) want something to read, do you shop at an adult bookstore?… I don’t think so. We have the same problem here. Evolution” and “creationism” are both wagon words.“

Evolutionist: Wagon words?

Creationist: Yeah, you know, loaded with other stuff that comes along when you pull the handle [of a wagon].

Evolutionist: How do you mean?

Creationist: Well, take “evolution.” Some people talk as though all it means is “change over time.” If that were all it meant, I’d buy it.

Evolutionist: You mean I win already?

Creationist: No, of course not. All I’m saying is that nobody in their right mind questions that some animals have changed some through the course of their existence on earth. What I find, though, is that when I grab the [wagon] handle, all sorts of other things come along with it. Things like a belief that an unguided, purposeless process can cause the accumulation of minor changes and cascade them into major complex innovations.

Evolutionist: What about “creationism?”

Creationist: Well, I prefer to be called a design theorist. My major point is that some things in the natural world are so complex that it seems more likely that they were designed rather than arose by chance. Unfortunately, when I pull this handle… you find that you’re also stuck with defending a geologically young earth… and the idea that everything we see on earth was created in six calendar days.

Evolutionist: So you’re saying that the terms are too broad?

Creationist: Yeah. I’ve seen people use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes in bird beaks. I’ve also seen people use the term to mean the spontaneous appearance of life… its unguided creation of major innovations (like the birds themselves)… and its purposeless progression into incredible complexity (like the human brain).

Evolutionist: And I’ve seen people use the term “creationism” for everything from a strict literal reading of Genesis… all the way to the idea that God started the ball rolling and then let nature take its course. Yeah, I guess you’re right – the terms are too broad.

Creationist: May I suggest that we use these terms so that we don’t end up pulling more than we want?This Term… will mean this.

Creation or Creation-science: The belief that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that all biological life forms were created in six calendar days and have remained relatively stable throughout their existence.

Intelligent Design or Design Theory: The belief that the earth and biological life owe their existence to a purposeful, intelligent creation.

Darwinism: The belief that undirected mechanistic processes (primarily random mutation and natural selection) can account for all the diverse and complex living organisms that exist. Insists that there is no long range plan or purpose in the history of life (i.e., that changes happen without intent).

Micro-evolution: Refers to minor variations that occur in populations over time. Examples include variation in moth population and finch beaks, and the emergence of different breeds of dogs.

Macro-evolution: Refers to the emergence of major innovations or the unguided development of new structures (like wings), new organs (like lungs), and body plans (like the origin of insects and birds). Includes changes above the species level, especially new phyla or classes.

Common Descent: The theory that all currently living organisms are descended from a common [or a few common] ancestor[s].Take note Matt W that in Christian private schools, where both theories are taught and discussed… with one side of the classroom defends evolution while critiquing creation theories and the other side of the classroom doing likewise with creation theories, when these kids graduate from high school and go to college, they do better on their SATs and have a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the controversy. In other words, they know evolution better than a graduate from a public school who is just gravy-fed a box to think in.

Other religions that I know of for the most part accept evolution:
The religions of the world that say we evolved over a very long period by a slow evolutionary process are the following:Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judaism, Liberal-Islam, Liberal-Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity, Humanism.Of course there are differences in the subtleties of these religious belief systems, for example: in Hinduism the earth is balanced on the back of a turtle, who himself is on the back of another – larger – turtle. What we end up with is an infinite progression to an even larger turtle. Nevertheless, the point is, the Hindu believes that all life originally came from the simplest forms, and through millions of years of evolutionary change, we now have arrived at the current phoenix of evolution, man. The only religions that accept the literal, Biblical interpretation of origins are the following:Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Islam, and Orthodox Christianity.Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium fit well within the larger list of religious traditions from around the world.

That the end of the old discussion, the most popular use of Atheism is metaphysical atheism.

[Nicholas]

Atheism has "spiritual" aspects to it as well. In fact, it makes grand metaphysical claims - often, just like any other worldview. Secular Humanists are religious, even having "pastors" in the military as well as having tax-free buildings meant for meeting. The Supreme Court considers Secular Humanists a religion.

As for evolution, saying that "evolution" is merely "change" is almost not the smartest choice, i will illustrate with this old debate:

Matt W, you are throwing around terms with a meaning that I am sure no creationist would agree with. You are asking me to agree with a straw-man, even if you don’t realize it or mean to do it. A mock conversation [from the jr. high level book What’s Darwin Got to Do With It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution:Take note Matt W that in Christian private schools, where both theories are taught and discussed… with one side of the classroom defends evolution while critiquing creation theories and the other side of the classroom doing likewise with creation theories, when these kids graduate from high school and go to college, they do better on their SATs and have a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the controversy. In other words, they know evolution better than a graduate from a public school who is just gravy-fed a box to think in.

Other religions that I know of for the most part accept evolution:Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium fit well within the larger list of religious traditions from around the world.

That the end of the old discussion, the most popular use of Atheism is metaphysical atheism.

It sounds as if you are arguing against this Matt W individual rather than myself. I would prefer it if points were addressed to me, rather than use points detached from the flow of the current discussion.

I would also suggest that based on the current tangent of this conversation, it might be better if it was moved to a more suitable forum before we continue.

[Gideon Brown]

Liberation theology is atheistic?

[FreezBee]

For example: Nietzsche, also like Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels (more later) was dubbed the “Father of National Socialism,” Nietzsche is probably more deserving of this distinction, being so labeled by Nazi luminaries Dr. Alfred Rosenberg and Dr. Frank. Others have called him the “Father of Fascism.” Rabidly anti-Christian and a homosexual, Nietzsche founded the “God is dead” movement and contributed to the development of existentialist philosophy. Nietzsche’s publisher, Peter Gast, called Nietzsche “one of the fiercest anti-Christians and atheists.”

While indeed Nietzsche was an atheist, he can hardly be called "Father of National Socialism". Nietzsche was a fierce critic of the nation state, so elready there he would be ruled out as any kind of NS.

Nietzsche was a very polemic author, and much of what re wrote was mocking the emerging National Socialism. That later National Socialists saw him as their predecessor was because they didn't realize that he was making fun of their ideas, not the originator of those ideas.


- FreezBee

[JCourage]

While indeed Nietzsche was an atheist, he can hardly be called "Father of National Socialism". Nietzsche was a fierce critic of the nation state, so elready there he would be ruled out as any kind of NS.

Nietzsche was a very polemic author, and much of what re wrote was mocking the emerging National Socialism. That later National Socialists saw him as their predecessor was because they didn't realize that he was making fun of their ideas, not the originator of those ideas.


- FreezBee

Nietzsche died in 1900, well before the Nazis, but Hitler adored his books and even sent one as a gift to Stalin!

[Cyrus Johnson]

Nietzsche was an icon in Germany, so it's not at all unreasonable to conclude Hitler once had a book of his and presented it as a gift from Germany. Whether or not he read it or understood it if he did is another matter. Hitler's own book was also an icon, routinely given as a wedding present. But again, whether the recipients actually read it is another matter[

[PolarBeer]

Buddhism is atheistic. Some forms of Hinduism are atheistic. There is even a for of Christianity that is atheistic (Liberation Theology). Secular Humanism is atheism and it is considered a religious view, there are even tax exempt humanist "churches" and "counselors" in the military for secular humanists. Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, just to name a few more.
This list is problematic, to say the least.

First, we can drop Taoism, which has plenty of gods - have a Google for the Jade Emperor.

Next, Confucianism - I don't know of any aspects of Confucianism which specifically say there is no God. Instead, there is little said about the matter, leading many to suggest that Confucianism isn't quite a religion. It is certainly known that Confucianism can sometimes be practiced by people alongside a religion which has god(s), so I'd suggest it is agnostic.

Buddhism has a real range of things to consider. I'd suggest some of Buddhism is agnostic, such as the Zen / Chan strains, and one can find practitioners of these strains who are also followers of a theistic religion, such as Christianity. In contrast, one could well say that Pure Land Buddhism is theistic, though I appreciate there would be some debate on the matter.

Jainism, I know almost nothing about, though I've heard the term transtheistic applied to it - I think. I'll have to Google that myself.

At any rate, I think the original point that prompted you to generate this list was that the writings of Madame Blavatsky may or may not have been atheistic. I have to ask - do her writings actually have any explicit statements either way? I've not read any of her works, but if the webpage of the Theosophical Society are to be believed, they have members who are also members of more conventional religions which have Gods. This doesn't seem too unlikely, as most new age material is so incredibly vague that it can easily be molded to fit any random worldview. As such, I'd contend that again, it is not atheistic, despite the fact that it doesn't define specific gods.

Any thoughts?