Miscellanea Agnostica

Here’s a stunning example of how not to do critical thinking, and why amateurs and idiots should never attempt it on their own. A (believing) woman won the New York lottery recently, as a result of a mock prayer by her (atheist) son, and he’s now a “true believer.” WNBC-TV in New York City reports on this irrationality (WebCite cached article):

A mother and son’s prayers were both answered with one scratch of a lottery ticket.

Gloria Bentivegna of West Babylon won $1 million in the New York Lottery’s Sweet Million game one day after her son had called on God to give his mom the money. …

But Sal Bentivegna, 26, never saw eye to eye with his mom’s beliefs, describing himself as somewhere between an agnostic and an atheist. …

Last month, mother and son’s ongoing debate over religion came to a head as they played the slots in Atlantic City.

Sal Bentivegna challenged God to prove he exists.

“I said, if he wants me to believe, he’ll give you a million dollars.”

The answer came within twenty-four hours. …

A few days later, Sal joined his mom at Ss. Cyril and Methodius church in Deer Park. It was his first church visit in some twenty years.

“I don’t think one can ask for more proof than something like that short of God or Jesus appearing physically in front of you,” said Sal.

Unfortunately — in the eyes of strict logic — this “challenge prayer” is proof of absolutely nothing whatsoever. First, there is no direct, causal link between the “prayer” and the lottery win. It’s possible that the mother would have won the lottery without the prayer being said. There is such a thing as a coincidence, you know … even if religionists conveniently refuse to accept that coincidences happen.

Second, a lottery win is too wild, statistically, for one such event to tell us anything. What would be needed is something bigger and more meticulous; a larger sample size, i.e. many more lottery tickets than just one, and controls, i.e. some of them which are not prayed for. In other words, demonstrating a connection between prayer and lottery winnings would require a large, well-designed, tightly-structured study.

One challenge prayer and one lottery win do not meet this standard.

In fact, given the nature of the supernatural, it’s ultimately impossible to design any such thing, since one can never exclude elements of the supernatural, which — by definition — lie outside the control of anyone operating such a study, as R.T. Carroll of the Skeptic’s Dictionary points out. In other words, even the best-structured study could, conceivably, be mucked around with, if God chooses not to cooperate with it or purposely muddles its results. No study can possibly be set up so as to work around or isolate out the supposed omnipotence of God.

As one would expect, fierce Christians are jumping for joy at this news, e.g. this story from the Christian Post (cached):

Realizing that the odds of his mother winning were so farfetched, Sal has now become a firm believer.

He testified, “I can’t shrug off that Jesus had a hand in it.”

“No pun intended, but it was a Godsend,” he said.

Gloria Bentivegna, reflecting on what had happened, is thankful to God for her winnings, but even more thankful for her son’s conversion. She said: “’God performed two miracles, a true miracle.”

What these jubilant Christians forget is that their religion is not supposed to be based upon challenges to God and real-world events. This is what their scripture explicitly tells them, e.g.:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Converting to Christianity as a result of a financial boon doled out (supposedly) by God, is precisely the kind of “boast” that this epistle condemns. Thus, any Christians rejoicing over this, are actually being anti-scriptural!

Photo credit: Leo Reynolds.

Tags: atheism, critical thinking, critical thinking fail, fail, gloria bentivegna, god, intercessory prayer, lottery, new york, prayer, Religion, religionism, religionist, religionists, sal bentivegna, skepticism, west babylon NY

The subject of Ayn Rand is a bothersome one that, so far, I’ve avoided addressing. I admit to having been initially fascinated by Rand and her Objectivism while in college, but it didn’t take too long before I saw her — and it — as being more or less worthless. Over the past couple of years, she’s been held up as something of a prophetess by the Right, including Religious Rightists like Glenn Beck. While she definitely supported the very kind of plutocracy that the Religious Right seems to love, the glaring reality about Rand — which these people are purposely ignoring — is that she was a vehement atheist, and despised Christianity in particular. I bring this up, now, because I saw Time magazine’s Swampland blog entry pointing out this vast contradiction, which in turn was sparked by Charles Colson condemning the reverence for Ayn Rand that he sees in his fellow Rightists (WebCite cached article):

The conservative evangelical leader Chuck Colson has become so concerned about Rand’s booming popularity in the GOP that he recently recorded a video warning that Rand “peddles a starkly anti-Christian philosophy” [cached]. And the Christian group American Values Network, which presents itself as an alternative to organizations like the Family Research Council, has distributed a memo [cached] to congressional offices highlighting Rand’s criticisms of Christianity and some of her more controversial comments, including praise for a man who raped, murdered, and dismembered a 12-year-old girl. “Ayn Rand’s strong atheism, absolute rejection of Christ’s teachings, and goal of replacing religion with her belief system,” reads the memo, “stands in total opposition to all that which America’s faith community holds most dear.”

Ayn Rand is, indeed, a particularly troubling figure, in her personal life and in her career. The assumption that she “admired” William Edward Hickman … the rapist/murderer referred to in the AVN’s warning … is, perhaps, a little strong, but it’s not too far from the truth. Hickman turned out to have been the model on which she based her “ideal man.” Ayn Rand cheated on her own husband, for many years, with another married man (Nathaniel Branden). She also fell out with almost everyone with whom she’d associated professionally (this included Branden, who originally had been one of her most loyal disciples).

But these character flaws, no matter how serious they may be, hold little significance to Religious Rightists (notwithstanding the AVN memo). Let’s be honest, Religious Rightists generally don’t give a flying fuck what sort of vile pricks they follow (if they did, they would hardly be supporting the womanizing, twice-divorced Newt Gingrich or the felonious Chuck Colson, among others). What matters to Religious Rightists is that one spews Religious Rightism, not one’s ability to actually live out the values one claims to espouse.

What these Religious Rightists fail to notice is that Rand was actually an outspoken atheist who condemned faith and religious thinking of any kind. She viewed religion as the basis for collectivism, which she despised passionately. The Institute which bears her name and promotes her philosophy, currently opposes the mixture of religion and politics (see e.g. this article on their Web site, cached). Were she still alive and writing today, I have no doubt she’d be lumped in with the so-called “New Atheists.” Her philosophy is also closely tied to that of Friederich Nietzsche, who himself was no fan of Christianity, and he’s not very popular among Christians, either.

But what Rand did support was plutocracy; control of society by the wealthy and powerful, with the masses subservient to them. Arguably that’s how things are now, and likely how they will always be … but what she promoted was something even more extreme, a world in which there was no charity at all (whether governmental, religious, or otherwise) and in which the “haves” secretly conspire to destroy the “have nots,” merely because — well! — they can. As it turns out, this latter goal is the premise on which her famous novel Atlas Shrugged is based. And we all know the Religious Right loves plutocracy, even an extreme one in which the masses are left to starve and die, in vast numbers.

The popularity of the vehement atheist Ayn Rand among Religious Rightists only serves to show how hypocritical they are … cherry-picking their way through life, ignoring any inconvenient inconsistencies in an effort to retain a worldview they find emotionally satisfying. Their heroine would not even want their admiration, were she still alive, and would likely condemn them for this hypocrisy.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey.

Tags: american values network, atheism, atheist, atheists, atlas shrugged, avn, ayn rand, belief, charles colson, christian, christian right, Christianity, christians, chuck colson, collectivism, faith, nathaniel branden, objectivism, plutocracy, plutocrat, plutocrats, rand, Religion, religious, religious right

I blogged a couple of months ago about an Indiana father who lost custody of his children because he’s an agnostic. That decision was reversed, as reported by WXIN-TV in Indianapolis (WebCite cached article):

A Madison County father celebrated a legal victory Wednesday night. He now has joint custody of his three young children after losing it because of his religious views.

That’s great news, but unfortunately, WXIN misstated the facts of this case:

Craig Scarberry claimed a Madison County court violated his parental rights because he’s an atheist.

WXIN was incorrect about this; Scarberry is not an atheist; he’s an agnostic, as he reported, himself, in the comments section:

i am not an atheist! i am an agnostic and there is a difference.

Note, the article itself remains confused on the subject: While the headline refers to Scarberry as an “agnostic,” the text of the article still says he’s an “atheist” (quoted above), and the article’s URL also includes the word “atheist” rather than “agnostic.”

Being a Fox network station in a “red” state, I’m sure the personnel of WXIN just lump all of us freethinkers into the same basket with “atheists.” We’re all just cold, cynical, god-hating heathens, after all … no? They can’t possibly be expected to understand there’s a difference between the various sorts of horrible people who defy societal expectations by daring not to accept the existence of their sky-god!

If anyone at WXIN — or elsewhere — is confused about the nature of “agnosticism” and “agnostics,” and wants to understand the difference between “agnosticism” and “atheism,” please have a look at my Agnosticism FAQ here on this blog, and see my article on the subject on the Apathetic Agnostic Church Web site (cached).

Tags: agnostic, agnosticism, agnostics, atheism, atheist, atheists, child custody, craig scarberry, custody, error correction, factual errors, family, family law, indiana, scarberry, wxin, wxin-tv

The nation’s two ruling ideologies and the mass media which dutifully obey and propagate them are still trying to get a grip on the Tucson shooting a few days ago. That they would be much better served by getting a grip on themselves — rather than the shooting — seems beside the point right now. Everyone and his brother and his second cousin’s best friend’s college roommate has a theory as to why Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed and wounded a lot of other people. It goes without saying that most all of the resulting bullshit has had little, if anything, to do with the shooter or the shooting, and everything to do with propping up one’s own ideological stand.

As one would expect, then, it’s finally come down to folks in the Religious Right blaming the shooting on atheism. You see, it was a lack of God in Loughner’s life that forced him to shoot. This comes from a Rightist radio-guest booking service called Special Guests (WebCite cached article):

Author Ted Shoebat, the son of a former Muslim terrorist says that the biggest motive may be what wasn’t in the life of Jared Loughner — God. Shoebat has made the case repeatedly that moral equivalency is an attempt to make gray things that are black and white. “It’s actually very simple,” Shoebat says, “When God is not in your life, evil will seek to fill the void.”

I guess the millions of atheists in the US are all murderers at heart. One wonders, then, why massacres aren’t far more common than they are?

Honestly, I’d never heard of Ted Batshit Shoebat. Special Guests helps out by offering his CV:

Theodore (Ted) Shoebat is the son of Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist. At age 16, Ted released his first book In Satan’s Footsteps, which has been followed up with, For God or For Tyranny, available now. Ted grew up in the U.S., in Northern California, attending the public school system. Because of his conservative and religious upbringing, he often struggled with his teachers and fellow students. He personally witnessed Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in the schools and his defense of Israel and the Jewish people made him a victim of ridicule and mockery.

At such a young age, Ted was inspired due to challenges and frustrations he faced from public schools he attended. Not only was he bombarded with criticism for his conservative and religious beliefs, but they also attempted to squelch his expression by labeling him with a psychological condition known as Asberger’s [sic] syndrome.

Note that Asperger’s syndrome is not a fictitious malady cooked up in order to wickedly persecute devout fundamentalist Christians, as Special Guests and Ted Batshit Shoebat would have you believe. It’s very real. It would have been much better to have had treatment for that problem, rather than fall into the delusion of the Christian martyr complex … but hey, there’s no accounting for irrationality among ferocious religionists, is there?

This Shoebat guy may not be an influential part of the Religious Right, but the mantra that atheists are all murders-at-heart is not new or even unusual, and many R.R. groups have leveled this accusation at non-believers, e.g. Answers in Genesis, as I blogged almost two years ago.

Oh, and, it’s nice to see this Shoebat fellow isn’t letting the fact that he doesn’t know Loughner at all, dissuade him from declaring what the killer thinks and believes. Never mind that no one in the universe has the slightest clue what’s on Loughner’s mind, either. It’s by no means certain he is truly an atheist, or something else. (It’s likely that not even Loughner understands his own thinking.)

Hat tip: Religion Dispatches.

Photo credit: Chairman Meow.

Tags: 2011 tucson shooting, atheism, atheist, atheists, christian, christianism, christianist, christianists, Christianity, christians, gabrielle giffords, in satan's footsteps, jared lee loughner, jared loughner, non-belief, nonbelief, Religion, religionism, religionist, religionists, special guests, ted shoebat, tucson, tucson AZ, tucson shooting, violence

In his effort to debunk outspoken atheist David Silverman, Fox News headliner and militant Christianist Bill O’Reilly came up with a truly asinine objection to science. In his desperate effort to contradict Silverman, O’Reilly actually said that tides — yes, tides! — were not explainable! The Newser reports on his idiotic ramblings (WebCite cached article):

Apparently, Bill O’Reilly has never heard of the moon. In a debate Tuesday with Dave Silverman, head of the American Atheist group behind this, the Fox host tried to prove the existence of God by citing the unknowable mysteries of the tides. “I’ll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion,” he told Silverman. “Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in.”

That’s right, folks. In Bill O’Reilly’s delusional universe, religion has veracity, because there is no explanation for tides. If you find it hard to believe that, you aren’t the only one:

Silverman looked stunned. “Tide goes in, tide goes out?” he stuttered. O’Reilly pressed on. “The water, the tide—it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out. … You can’t explain that. You can’t explain it.”

Of course, that’s not quite true. In the real world — i.e. outside of Bill O’Reilly’s delusional hyperreligious universe — tides turn out to be readily explicable:

Of course, Raw Story points out [cached], people who passed high school science might tell you that tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits the earth.

In short, tides are caused by the moon’s revolution of the earth, combined with the oceans’ elasticity. Contrary to what O’Reilly, says, there is nothing mysterious or inexplicable about the tides. They have been measured, and compared with the moon’s motion, and the correlation between them is very well-known.

This is just the sort of childish, contrarian bullshit that militant religionists are forced to resort to when faced with the fact that so much about the world is as well-understood as it is. Religion is the purview of the mysterious and the uncertain; the more we learn, the less of our lives it can control. Fierce religionists like O’Reilly dislike this, so what they do, in order to expand their religion’s sphere of influence, is to deny that certain things are known.

What a fucking joke.

If you’re like me, you need proof O’Reilly said something as astoundingly stupid as this; if so, you can see it for yourself, right here:

Denying the science of tides … I mean, really. Seriously. How much more fucking childish can anyone get?

Update: While I’m not really a fan of Keith Olbermann — he can, after all, be a real asshat sometimes — he reacts in precious fashion while replaying this same video and declaring Bill O’Reilly his “worst person” (video courtesy of YouTube):

Hat tip: Mark at Skeptics & Heretics Forum on Delphi Forums. Hat tip for update: Unreasonable Faith.

Photo credit: Drive-By Times blog.

Tags: american atheists, atheism, atheist, atheists, bill o'reilly, christian, christianism, christianist, christianists, Christianity, christians, david silverman, fox news, gravity, hyperreligious, moon, mystery, o'reilly, physics, Religion, religionism, religionist, religionists, science, tide goes in, tide goes out, tides

It’s definitely the time of year for religious ads … as well as non-religious ads. Atheist bus ads are nothing new, but as the New York Times reports, Christians down in Ft Worth, Texas have added a new wrinkle to them (WebCite cached article):

Stand on a corner in this city and you might get a case of theological whiplash.

A public bus rolls by with an atheist message on its side: “Millions of people are good without God.” Seconds later, a van follows bearing a riposte: “I still love you. — God,” with another line that says, “2.1 billion Christians are good with God.”

A clash of beliefs has rattled this city ever since atheists bought ad space on four city buses to reach out to nonbelievers who might feel isolated during the Christmas season.

The problem, of course, is those damned uppity atheists, who don’t know their place in Texas — the Buckle of the Bible Belt — and who won’t stay silent and invisible:

“We want to tell people they are not alone,” said Terry McDonald, the chairman of Metroplex Atheists, part of the Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason, which paid for the atheist ads. …

But the reaction from believers has been harsher than anyone in the nonbeliever’s club expected. Some ministers organized a boycott of the buses, with limited success. Other clergy members are pressing the Fort Worth Transportation Authority to ban all religious advertising on public buses. And a group of local businessmen paid for the van with the Christian message to follow the atheist-messaged buses around town.

These militant Christians have all kinds of excuses for why they’re so incensed about the atheist ads. First, the “it’s the holiday season” objection:

“It’s a season to share good will toward all men,” [Rev. Kyev Tatum Sr., president of the local Southern Christian Leadership Conference] said. “To have this at this time come out with a blatant disrespect of our faith, we think is unconscionable.”

Well, golly gee, Pastor … I had absolutely no idea that those vicious atheists were supposed to consult their calendars and mark off entire months in which never to advertise!

Next, it’s the “public property” objection:

“I’m not against them getting their message out,” said the Rev. Julius L. Jackson, pastor at Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church. “I just don’t think it should be on public transportation.”

That said, religious groups can advertise on Ft Worth buses, as the Times points out:

Dick Ruddell, the president of the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, said churches were free to advertise. … “There is nothing in the policy about religious content,” he said.

So those atheists are supposed to refrain from doing something that’s otherwise permissible, because … uh … er … um … what was that reason, again?

Hat tip: The Friendly Atheist blog.

Photo credit: Chairman Meow.

Tags: ads, advertisements, atheism, atheist, atheist ads, atheist advertising, atheist bus ads, atheists, christian, Christianity, christians, christofascism, christofascist, christofascists, ft worth, ft worth TX, good without god, metroplex atheists, religionism, religionist, religionists

By now you’ve probably heard about the atheist billboard along the highway leading to the Lincoln Tunnel heading into New York, which has become the latest battle in the 2010 edition of the Religious Right’s annual “war on Christmas.” The R.R. — particularly Bill Donohue of the Catholic League (cached) — is incensed at this sign which says that the Jesus-nativity legend is precisely what it is … a myth (cached article).

The following Newsy video is an excellent encapsulation of this whole topic:

Supposedly, this sign is incendiary and “in your face,” and it represents “atheists pushing their belief on people.”

It may well be true that this billboard is an effort by some atheists to “push” themselves on people … however, for centuries, religious people have “pushed” their beliefs on others — and without apology. Consider how commonplace religious signage is, even now. Over a year ago I blogged about how religious advertising isn’t new — even though lots of Christofascists claim it’s never existed. Well, here is a great example of some good old-fashioned “in your face” religionism for your consideration:

Is that “in your face” enough!? I’m not sure anyone was incensed about this sign … in spite of its obvious hostile, if not downright threatening, nature. Maybe it’s time for the religionists who are angered by the “you know Christmas is a myth” sign, to grow the hell up, for the first time in their sniveling little lives, and realize that — maybe! — this is exactly what they’ve been doing to the rest of the world for almost two millennia … and then stop whining about it. Boo fucking hoo hoo.

Top photo credit: The Atlantic Wire blog. Middle photo credit: Chairman Meow.

Tags: american atheists, atheism, atheist billboard, atheist billboards, atheists, billboard, billboards, christian, Christianity, christians, christmas, christmas myth, ef briggs, in your face, lincoln tunnel, nativity, new jersey, new york, new york city, religionism, religionist, religionists, religious ads, religious advertising, rev ef briggs, war on christmas, war on christmas 2010, you know it's a myth

In a move that will, now doubt, enrage lots of theists — especially religionists of the “there-can-be-no-morality-without-God” variety, Queen Elizabeth II commented recently that atheists aren’t entirely bad. The (UK) Guardian reports on these comments to an Anglican Church synod (WebCite cached article):

People of faith do not have a monopoly on virtue as British society was now “more diverse and secular”, the Queen told the Church of England today in an address to its governing body.

Speaking at Church House, central London, she told members of General Synod that believers and atheists were equally able to contribute to the prosperity and wellbeing of the country.

The Queen, who is supreme governor of the Church of England, said: “In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none.”

The irony here is that Queen Elizabeth — as the Guardian story mentions — is technically the head of the Church of England, as all English/UK monarchs have been, ever since Henry VIII cut off the church within his realm from the Holy See in Rome. Expect the furious retorts to the Queen to begin … not so much in her own realm or even the Commonwealth, but within the US, among the vocal militant Christianists.

Photo credit: Wpa Pool/Getty Images via The Guardian.

Tags: anglican church, atheism, atheist, atheists, christianism, christianist, christianists, church of england, elizabeth ii, general syond, morality, queen elizabeth ii, rowan williams

Were you aware that atheism is a parasitic infection in humanity? No? I guess you’re just not up on the latest developments in religionism. There’s even a blog devoted to exposing this malady, called A Field Guide to Atheist Parasites, whose first entry explains this staggering revelation, a diagnosis delivered by Rabbi Daniel Lapin on the Glenn Beck show (WebCite cached article):

Here is a transcript of Rabbi Lapin’s words of divine wisdom:

“I do believe that atheists are parasites in the sense that they are benefiting from everything that religious culture has built in America, but they’re doing nothing to add energy into the system.”

Here’s the Youtube video of Lapin jabbering on like a crazed, hyperreligious, sanctimonious moron:

How the Rabbi can claim that there are “benefits” to “the religious culture” is beyond me. “Religious culture” has given us a legacy of intolerance and hatred. Are these “benefits” for which atheists must express their thanks, by converting en masse?

Moreover, he claims atheists don’t “add energy to the system” … is he suggesting that atheists never donate to charity? Or volunteer in their communities? Or serve in potentially-dangerous capacities such as police, firefighters, soldiers or sailors? Really? He may subscribe to the notion that there are no atheists in foxholes, but in fact, there are plenty of them, and he’d know it if only he bothered to look for them.

I’m a little astounded that the Rabbi would dare talk about how horrible atheists are, given his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal. You see, in order to help ingratiate Abramoff among the Religious Right in Washington, Lapin and his group, Toward Tradition, gave Abramoff a phony award (cached). In return, Abramoff convinced some of his clients to swing a contract in excess of $1 million to a company Lapin ran (cached).

Wow. What a bastion of sound ethical behavior! Why, that only proves that religion makes people behave morally. Doesn’t it?

What, it doesn’t? … Woops!

Anyway, before Lapin goes around accusing atheists of being “parasites,” he’d best start owning up to his own parasitic ways (e.g. using his personal connection to the crooked Jack Abramoff to get business). What a fucking joke this guy is.

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.

Photo credit: aacool.

Tags: abramoff scandal, atheism, atheist, atheists, daniel lapin, fox news, glenn beck, glenn beck show, jack abramoff, jew, jewish, judaism, parasite, parasites, parasitism, rabbi, rabbi daniel lapin, Religion, religionism, religionist, religionists, toward tradition

The tactic of using a reductio ad Hitlerum — or an appeal to Hitler or the Nazis — to condemn one’s opponents and ostensibly “prove” they’re bad or wrong, is decades old. It’s not logical, of course, since comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis are rarely based on facts. I’ve caught people at this particular fallacious game before. I assumed back then, that I would again.

And I did.

This time the perpetrator was none other than Pope Benedict XVI, on a state visit in the UK. As the BBC reports, he attempted to link atheism and secularism with Nazism (WebCite cached article):

A speech in which the Pope appeared to associate atheism with the Nazis has prompted criticism from humanist organizations.

However, the Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew “rather well what the Nazi ideology is about”. …

In his address, the Pope spoke of “a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society”.

He went on to urge the UK to guard against “aggressive forms of secularism”. …

He said: “Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.

“As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.”

First, let’s get this right out of the way, up front: The Nazis were not atheists; their movement was not an atheist one; and they did nothing whatever to abolish religion. The religion of members of the Nazi party was, as far as can be told, similar to, if not the same as, that of the population of Germany as a whole; the majority of them were Christians (with Lutherans and other Protestant churches dominating, and a large minority of Catholics). Whatever the individual religious beliefs of Hitler and Goebbels and Göring and Himmler and the rest of that crew may have been, the majority of the Germans who (initially at least) obeyed and supported them, were Christians.

Far from trying to eradicate religion from the lives of Germans, the Nazis actually got themselves involved in Christianity at its most basic level. They welded Germany’s Protestant churches into a federated entity under their own control, the Reichskirche. Hitler’s party also negotiated a formal accord with the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. the Reichskonkordat). There is no logical way that either of these acts could possibly be viewed as the product of an inherently anti-religious or anti-theistic regime.

Next, the Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, grew up in Germany during the Third Reich. He knows what Nazism was, and who the Nazis were, at least as well as anyone on the planet. Thus, he knows full well what I just said — that the Nazi regime was not an atheistic one — and therefore has zero excuse for having made this comparison.

Third, as I pointed out in my earlier post on this matter, details matter. You can’t call people Nazis — or imply somehow that they’re Nazis — unless you can point to some details of their actions or policies that match those of the Nazis. I’m not aware of any atheist militias (similar to the Sturmabteilung or “brownshirts”); I’m not aware that atheists are locking people away in concentration camps (emulating the Nazis’ policy of rounding up “enemies” and keeping them out of the way). I’m not aware that atheists have outlawed labor unions or rival political parties (both of which the Nazis did). I’m not aware that atheists have ever done anything even remotely close to what the Nazis did.

Fourth, in addition to being honest about the Nazis’ religious motivations, we also need to be honest about the anti-Semitism that drove them: If not for centuries of Christian hatred for and vilification of Jews, the Nazis would never even have dreamed up the Holocaust, much less carried it out. While Christianity may view Judaism as a “rival contender” religion, and the mere existence of Jews as an insult to its teaching that Jesus was the “Messiah,” atheism has no particular motive to despise Jews so especially. None.

I get that the Pope dislikes atheists. It’s OK, this is a free world and he’s entitled to hate anyone he wants, for any reason he wants. He is not, however, entitled to lie about those he hates … especially when he, personally, knows his claims about them to be untrue.

Photo credit: Wikipedia.

Tags: appeal to hitler, atheism, atheist, atheists, benedict xvi, catholic church, fallacious, fallacy, germany, hitler, holy see, humanism, humanist, humanists, illogic, logic, nazi, nazi germany, nazis, nazism, pope, pope benedict, pope benedict xvi, reductio ad hitlerum, roman catholic, roman catholic church, secular, secularism, third reich, uk, vatican, vatican city