Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

That's another irony meter reduced to a pile of cogs and springs.

I've already told you you are making a mockery of the science involved here by turning science into a sloganised playground taunt in the time honoured fashion of the witchunter and the dillitante you will help to reduce whatever value this has.

Being social science though it is an advance on your usual pop science though,

You need to stop disrespecting it with your pretensions to being a gifted amateur psychologist......Now......your use of it
IS an example of D-K.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In 1922, after the Bavarian Prime Minister said that his position as both a man and a Christian prevented him from being an anti-Semite, Hitler's response was "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."  He followed that up in 1928 in response to criticism (from the Catholic Church, I believe) that "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian."

And which version, The Bavarian prime minister's, Jesus and the apostles or Hitler's was the closest to actual Christianity or put another way who's view is more or less reflective of the neitszchian ubermann and one's own ideal image of oneself?

Hitler's speech here is very reminiscent of Thatcher's reinterpretation of Christianity that it's all about ''choice''. Jesus here being the archetypal Thatcherite.

[Aruntraveller]

And which version, The Bavarian prime minister's, Jesus and the apostles or Hitler's was the closest to actual Christianity or put another way who's view is more or less reflective of the neitszchian ubermann and one's own ideal image of oneself?

Hitler's speech here is very reminiscent of Thatcher's reinterpretation of Christianity that it's all about ''choice''. Jesus here being the archetypal Thatcherite.

Does it matter? Don't Christians frequently have different ideas about what Christianity is?

I note that you conveniently left out the next para which to give the full meaning of OR's post should in this instance have been included. So here you are:

You might suggest - and others certainly have - that Hitler's own faith was questionable, and that he was using the faith to motivate the German people.  That may be the case, but the subsequent rise of Nazism and the Holocaust that follows it shows that it worked.  Hitler, perhaps his other leaders, may have been less devout than they seemed, may even have not believed at all, but the religion they espoused in part motivated the German people that followed them.

No need for thanks, you are more than welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does it matter? Don't Christians frequently have different ideas about what Christianity is?

Yes it does matter since there is a danger of opting for the worst version which here happens to be the least biblically accurate.

Did I miss out a paragraph? I might come back to that. On the other hand I did a bit of digging around this 'positive Christianity' business touted by Outrider as what looks like a ''clincher''. Theologically it looks as a movement decidedly dodgy.

And of course there are the overwhelming eugenic and nationalistic aspects of Nazism and so the trail goes back to Galton and thus the actual role of Christianity seems highly exaggerated by Outrider.

[Aruntraveller]

biblically accurate.

So who determines which version of Christianity is the most biblically accurate?

How does that determination come about? Do we get a vote? Is it down to Biblical scholars? Is it the followers of the various churches?

[Outrider]

And which version, The Bavarian prime minister's, Jesus and the apostles or Hitler's was the closest to actual Christianity or put another way who's view is more or less reflective of the neitszchian ubermann and one's own ideal image of oneself?

What's this 'actual Christianity'? Christianity is the combined output of Christian, and even then there's debate about who gets to call themselves really a Christian.

Hitler's speech here is very reminiscent of Thatcher's reinterpretation of Christianity that it's all about ''choice''. Jesus here being the archetypal Thatcherite.

I love the naivete of someone who thinks that Christianity is about what Jesus allegedly said... Your interpretation of Christian values and ethics, so far as I can see, is fairly unobjectionable, but it has exactly as much basis as the majority of other takes on the subject, and there is no objective measure against which they can be calibrated until and unless Jesus comes back to host 'Theology Deathmatch' on late night Channel 5.

Yes it does matter since there is a danger of opting for the worst version which here happens to be the least biblically accurate.

In your opinion.  For the Muslims, who worship ostensibly the same God you do, just claiming to be Christian is anywhere between distasteful and heresy worthy of death.

I did a bit of digging around this 'positive Christianity' business touted by Outrider as what looks like a ''clincher''. Theologically it looks as a movement decidedly dodgy.

Everything 'theological' is dodgy, it's based on premise that there's a basis for accepting fairy stories - Catholic Doctrine, the Nicene Creed, Hitler's 'Positive Christianity' and Rumplestiltskin are all equally 'theologically dodgy', but at least Rumplestiltskin inspired a half-decent Disney film.

And of course there are the overwhelming eugenic and nationalistic aspects of Nazism and so the trail goes back to Galton and thus the actual role of Christianity seems highly exaggerated by Outrider

So the social policies 'goes back' to Galton's work on biology, but the anti-Semitism 'co-opts' centuries of Christian oppression of the Jews in a way that misrepresents the express Christian sentiments of the movement amongst the expressly Christian populace?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So who determines which version of Christianity is the most biblically accurate?

How does that determination come about? Do we get a vote? Is it down to Biblical scholars? Is it the followers of the various churches?

Well God obviously........but I don't think that answer is somehow going to wash with you.

If then we start with which version of say Einstein is the most Einsteinally accurate then something that is way off the mark is not going to be as Einsteinally accurate and I think we can apply that principle to the New Testament. Hitler's version s then the one that is way off.

Your approach seems to one of rather than studying the bible you look around and think these ''old christians are always a squabblin' and a hobblin'' and you are taking your cue from that.

There is a great book by Microbiologist and Christian Marty Hewitt about why christians should believe in Evolution and why they don't in his native america. He states that biblical scholarship is lacking in the US because of the frontier nature of american history with it's lack of church structure and the individualistic nature of American society that grew from it. He states that Americans tend to view the bible as what he calls unmediated by others or proper scholarship.

My wife taught languages in North Carolina and they were thinking of introducing Spanish to their curriculum so the parents were invited. One woman stood up and objected by saying ''If english was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for my boy''. Devout? Yes Potentially dangerously dense? highly likely, i'm afraid. Lacking in biblical mediation and scholarship......... definitely.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

I've already told you you are making a mockery of the science involved here by turning science into a sloganised playground taunt in the time honoured fashion of the witchunter and the dillitante you will help to reduce whatever value this has.

Being social science though it is an advance on your usual pop science though,

You need to stop disrespecting it with your pretensions to being a gifted amateur psychologist......Now......your use of it
IS an example of D-K.

This car crash of a reply bears no relation to anything that's been said to you. Again:

1. The D-K effect is a cognitive bias

2. People who suffer from it exhibit certain behaviours

3. You exhibit those behaviours

QED

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

This car crash of a reply bears no relation to anything that's been said to you. Again:

1. The D-K effect is a cognitive bias

2. People who suffer from it exhibit certain behaviours

3. You exhibit those behaviours

QED

You think you are a psychologist. Classic sign of D-K.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

You think you are a psychologist. Classic sign of D-K.

You don't need to be a psychologist to describe behaviours that are indicative of a cognitive bias.

Again:

1. The D-K effect is a cognitive bias

2. People who suffer from it exhibit certain behaviours

3. You exhibit those behaviours

QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the social policies 'goes back' to Galton's work on biology,

And where does his work go back to?

[Outrider]

Your approach seems to one of rather than studying the bible you look around and think these ''old christians are always a squabblin' and a hobblin'' and you are taking your cue from that.

I don't personally care what any of the holy books say for their own sake, but what religious people say, believe and do has a profound impact on the world I live in.

There is a great book by Microbiologist and Christian Marty Hewitt about why christians should believe in Evolution and why they don't in his native america. He states that biblical scholarship is lacking in the US because of the frontier nature of american history with it's lack of church structure and the individualistic nature of American society that grew from it. He states that Americans tend to view the bible as what he calls unmediated by others or proper scholarship.

And are they Christians influencing the world in which I live?  Do you believe that their particular brand of Christianity is solely down to their lack of sufficiently rigorous theology?

My wife taught languages in North Carolina and they were thinking of introducing Spanish to their curriculum so the parents were invited. One woman stood up and objected by saying ''If english was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for my boy''. Devout? Yes Potentially dangerously dense? highly likely, i'm afraid. Lacking in biblical mediation and scholarship......... definitely.   

Devout - so, Christian, then.  And their influence in the world, based on their devotion, is the effects of Christianity on the world I live in.  This is why Christianity is dangerous.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't personally care what any of the holy books say for their own sake, but what religious people say, believe and do has a profound impact on the world I live in.

And are they Christians influencing the world in which I live?  Do you believe that their particular brand of Christianity is solely down to their lack of sufficiently rigorous theology?

Devout - so, Christian, then.  And their influence in the world, based on their devotion, is the effects of Christianity on the world I live in.  This is why Christianity is dangerous.

There are still very large  atheist regimes with Nuclear weapons and who contributed greatly to Global warming. I'm trying to think of a Christian theocracy that has them. No, I can't think of one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

There are still very large  atheist regimes...

I suppose if you're gong to tell a lie you may as well make it a whopping one.

Classic D-K.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

I suppose if you're gong to tell a lie you may as well make it a whopping one.

Classic D-K.

A Christian theocracy never had nukes, Soviet Russia, China and North Korea have done.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside

I'm quite prepared to take a Dunning-Kruger test under proper conditions from bona fide people. Are you? Given your reluctance at leaving a trial.......rather like the cat who crept into the crypt, made a statement and crept out again.

[Outrider]

There are still very large  atheist regimes with Nuclear weapons and who contributed greatly to Global warming.

And will their atheism motivate them to launch those nuclear weapons?

I'm trying to think of a Christian theocracy that has them. No, I can't think of one.

Russia appears to be moving in that direction.  The UK is legally a Christian nation, although I think we'd both agree that's thankfully only a notional allegiance.  The US is pretty much there, the only saving grace of Trump's impeachment wash-out was that we didn't get Pence in the hot-seat.  Is American Christianity likely to motivate Americans to launch their nucular arsenal...?

I know which I think is more likely.

O.

[jeremyp]

I've already told you you are making a mockery of the science involved here by turning science into a sloganised playground taunt in the time honoured fashion of the witchunter and the dillitante you will help to reduce whatever value this has.

Being social science though it is an advance on your usual pop science though,

You need to stop disrespecting it with your pretensions to being a gifted amateur psychologist......Now......your use of it
IS an example of D-K.

I'm no psychologist, but D-K is not a psychological disorder: it's something we can all fall prey to in fields about which we know a little. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm no psychologist, but D-K is not a psychological disorder: it's something we can all fall prey to in fields about which we know a little. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I don't doubt it, that's why I'm sneakingly interested in testing my D-K.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

A Christian theocracy never had nukes, Soviet Russia, China and North Korea have done.

So now all you have to do is to find some path from atheism to having nukes. Most dictators seemed to have moustaches for some reason - why aren't you vexed about moustachioed regimes?

A you keep crashing and burning I'll number your behaviours here so for speed all I'll have to do is to reply with the relevant numbers each time you have another car crash. Call it a public service if you like.

1. No known coherent beliefs. Very occasional forays into what you do believe are incomprehensible, inconsistent and aligned to no known formalised faith tradition

2. No cogent arguments to justify whatever it is you do believe in

3. Consistent reliance on fallacious thinking when occasional arguments are attempted, and the mis-identification of fallacies in the arguments of others

4. Near pathological refusal ever to engage with the problem when your fallacies are explained clearly and rationally to you. Standard operating procedure is to ignore the explanation or to lie about it (straw man)

5. Once the straw man is expressed just repeat it over and over again no matter how many times and ways it's falsified (Courtier’s reply etc)

6. References by name to various writers, but no indication of having read (let alone understood) any of them

7. Fondness for (usually scatological) ad homs and abuse so as to avoid addressing the problems you give yourself

8. Demonisation of people whose writing disagrees with you, often accompanied with guilt by association (“X has done a bad thing. X is an atheist. Therefore atheism a bad thing”)   

9. Poor literacy and inability to frame cogent thoughts, aligned with emotional juvenilia ("No, you are...")

10. Never attempting to defend your lies when they’re identified (with citations) – just move on to the next diversion or lie in the hope that people bite

Your last effort was a 2 and a 5.

You’re welcome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

I'm quite prepared to take a Dunning-Kruger test under proper conditions from bona fide people. Are you? Given your reluctance at leaving a trial.......rather like the cat who crept into the crypt, made a statement and crept out again.

Again, it’s not a clinical diagnosis – it’s behaviours that indicate a cognitive bias. I listed those behaviours. Those are your behaviours. You haven’t even tried to deny that those are your behaviours (and it would be idle to try given your history here). That’s enough to justify the presence of the effect.

Once more:

1. The D-K effect is a cognitive bias

2. People who suffer from it exhibit certain behaviours

3. You exhibit those behaviours

QED
     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

So now all you have to do is to find some path from atheism to having nukes. Most dictators seemed to have moustaches for some reason - why aren't you vexed about moustachioed regimes?

You mean why am I vexed about nukes and not moustaches?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

You mean why am I vexed about nukes and not moustaches?

Item 4.

[Outrider]

Perce,

Item 4.

You probably need to copyright that list concept before Channel 5 turns this into a bargain basement Bingo-based game show...

"Typical flaw... number 4."

"Usual tricks, number 6."

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Had to laugh, Apparently Dunning Kruger first tried out there test on undergraduate psychology students.

Wannabee psychologists take note.......Hillside.