Lol! Sorry friend, staying off the sift more and more these days so only have time for a quickie or two.

I just want to point out to @dystopianfuturetoday, before I get to my point, that the common defense of those defending a position, "words mean different things to different people;" is, IMO, a weak argument. Those attacking tend to use words definitively, ironically (Conservatives say Obama "hates" America, some say he "loves" America... And both are probably right in a fashion.)

I say that if a word is so broad as to be utterly, entirely, completely useless, then why even have those words? The sun is "hot", oh yeah? To who, or what? And what are the comparisons? Is the sun really hot or is that subjective?

While technically it is correct to say the sun may not be hot, it is a silly argument to make and really makes the word "hot" so subjective that it's pointless to note anything hot. And certainties? OMG, there can never be any certainties with this line of open-ended wording (Except, oddly enough, the certainty that itself is the only certainty...)

I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.

Sarcasm >>>>> (Freedom must be good. It is choice. But, as noted by a great philosopher, in a world of a million choices, you tend to make less choices because the choices enslave you to an extent...so it's not about choice, that is the rhetorical, American-ized version of freedom...) Urm, how about Sarcasm>>>> (Freedom is great, good and promotes prosperity.) How so? That is subjective as hell and cannot be quantified in any way shape or form.... Or >>>>> (Freedom is found in a democracy...) When a million people have a say, your say is very unimportant...

Just weed through the words and find their core if you can (Some don't have one.) And of course, the words change with society too, so the answer never stays stagnant forever.

Otherwise, if we cannot say this is correct, then I will just start typing anything about anyone and say, Sarcasm>>>>>>>"Hey, words mean different things to different people. dystopianfuturetoday is like Hitler means something completely different to me than you--it is not an insult at all but a compliment!"

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!
What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)
If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?
Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)
Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?
WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!

What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)

If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?

Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)

Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?

WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

But massive particles would still be prohibited from traveling faster than the speed of light. It's only the particles with imaginary mass that could travel faster, and they would still fit into the framework of special and general relativity.

Unless we at the same time can show that the neutrinos have non-complex mass. Then it could get really hairy. But I wouldn't bet my house on it.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
An exaggeration, yes, but not a terribly big one. Most of the standard theory today is based on the bricks of special and general relativity. For us to have to rethink the laws restricting mass from traveling over the speed of light, we really would need to rethink physics from there all the way back up, which really leaves no physical theories safe all the way back to Newtonian physics. In short, I cant wait to see how this pans out.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh, it would definitely be groundbreaking. One of the biggest discoveries in physics to date. But to say that we would have to restart physics is an exaggeration.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html
for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

An exaggeration, yes, but not a terribly big one. Most of the standard theory today is based on the bricks of special and general relativity. For us to have to rethink the laws restricting mass from traveling over the speed of light, we really would need to rethink physics from there all the way back up, which really leaves no physical theories safe all the way back to Newtonian physics. In short, I cant wait to see how this pans out.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh, it would definitely be groundbreaking. One of the biggest discoveries in physics to date. But to say that we would have to restart physics is an exaggeration.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

Oh, it would definitely be groundbreaking. One of the biggest discoveries in physics to date. But to say that we would have to restart physics is an exaggeration.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

>> ^Ornthoron:

The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.
>> ^juliovega914:
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)



I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dannym3141:
@GeeSussFreeK i don't like it either, but it's one of those things you have to accept is true - just like quantum mechanics Your mind's desire to slot it into a jigsaw puzzle will have to go unsatiated.

You can't really talk about something unless you have an idea of it, just like you can't talk about circular squares or some other such construct that doesn't point to a real idea. I am still considering what @Ornthoron was saying and wondering if we are talking about the same thing or not. Get back to this later, have to ponder, I think this is a problem of ontology vs abstraction. @Mikus_Aurelius I am very familiar with the idea of a limit, taken many years of calculus and dif. EQ back in the day. My argument isn't that you can "use" things, but if those things represent actual things in and of themselves. I do think that there is an inherit realness to numbers outside of complete abstraction. The idea of a single object relating to itself is always true, regardless of a formal number system to represent it. The relation of 2 objects against 1 object is also still a real distinction that exists outside of a formal numbering system. The realness of elements of counting are, seemingly (and I need to think more on this) tautological true; an analytically true statement in other words.
I need to ponder on this more though, perhaps I am mistaken. Or perhaps I was talking about a different aspect of it than everyone else. Time to grease down the mind with beer!


But you DO have an "idea" of it. You know how it behaves. You may not understand why it does that but you can prove to yourself that it does. You might find that it crops up more often in nature than you like - as i said, quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive which unfortunately only goes to tell us that our intuition is wrong.

My lecturer's example was always to take electric charge - we have a name for it, we have a set of characteristic rules for electric charge and interaction between charges but when it gets right down to it 'electric charge' is just a name. We have simply defined and described a set of rules for a phenomenon that we have observed. And the same goes for quarks - we have up, down, top, bottom, strange and charmed. Those are just words too, we're just more familiar with electric charge as a term so we think we understand it.

I don't necessarily think you do need an idea of something to talk about it; anything more in-depth than "it exists, and here is how it behaves" comes after you analyse it, and presumably talk about it if only to yourself conceptually.

I upvoted this because I believe this is part of the future of science. It is easy to dismiss these concepts as new age touchy-feely stuff and poo-poo it out of hand.

But it is similar to something discussed in this vid http://videosift.com/video/Dark-Energy

70% of the universe is unexplained and for "placeholder" purposes, it is now called Dark Energy, until scientists can figure it out. This wasn't even a question 50 years ago, now our brightest minds are looking into it.

"Gaia consciousness" could well be the Dark Energy of the future.

Until then, whether it exists or not, it is fact that we are seriously screwing with the ecosystems of this planet. So whether there is "collective intelligence" or not, we had better get on to seriously changing our behavior.

>> ^criticalthud:

They're still engaged in a primitive debate.
Conceptually, we can't even get passed the notion that god is a singular "being" like us, rather than a vast intellectual complexity - that only becomes more complex as evolution continues. and we are all part of that process. recycled energy in an infinite process.
we're just so fucking self-centered that we miss the the intelligence that is all around us, and just how interdependent we are on the biodiversity we are mindlessly destroying.
we miss the fact that there is a collective intelligence of this planet, without which, we would be nothing. and instead of nurturing it, we're jerking off.

They're still engaged in a primitive debate.
Conceptually, we can't even get passed the notion that god is a singular "being" like us, rather than a vast intellectual complexity - that only becomes more complex as evolution continues. and we are all part of that process. recycled energy in an infinite process.

we're just so fucking self-centered that we miss the the intelligence that is all around us, and just how interdependent we are on the biodiversity we are mindlessly destroying.

we miss the fact that there is a collective intelligence of this planet, without which, we would be nothing. and instead of nurturing it, we're jerking off.

The key thing Cleverbot lacks is a logic awareness of the context of the current conversation.

Which conceptually is a matter of each session capturing meta data about each statement and response to further guide responses.

e.g. was the last statement a question? add tags for recognised topics. don't use any answer with any reply that doesn't include those topics does the next 1-3 statements include any matching tags? are we still on the same topic?

So you are saying Hitler contradicts himself constantly in his own book (if that's where your quotes came from, since most of them only site page numbers and not the source) much like the Bible? Sorry not buying it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler on propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)


>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded 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. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)


21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)





>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded 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. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.

Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded 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. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)

"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)

“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

I can post more if you're still not convinced.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, we can't explain that.

The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.