Should we eliminate culture, language and religion?

[Dezerte]

Excuse me, the fact you quoted is from a book. Read Albert Speer's memoires on this matter and read up Rosenberg and his influence on Hitler.

I assume when he said 'Go read a book' he meant "Mein Kampf" which was written by Hitler. Here's a few quotes from the book:

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.

[Beat5beat]

Traveling around the world would be pretty boring if we eliminated cultures.

Not really. When people speak of a "unified culture" they are speaking of eliminating all of the bad aspects associated with many cultures.

Architectural differences, and cuisine differences, would all still exist. If anything traveling the world would be much more exciting and fulfilling under a unified culture, language, and lack of religion; as you could more easily communicate your needs and desires. Bigotry would also be greatly reduced as a sameness in core values would be universal.

[Deleted]

I assume when he said 'Go read a book' he meant "Mein Kampf" which was written by Hitler. Here's a few quotes from the book:

I read mein kampf on the toilet, you can even use the pages as toilet paper.

[Deleted]

It's not culture or language (let's not touch religion) that separates nations and races. Different nations look different, have different tempers and features. Sure, everyone can run - but kenians beat all. Sure, all nations can invent things, but many countires have not a single inventions, and, say, japanese or jew have gazillions.

Nations are different and they always will be.

[oland138]

This is the most retarded question ever. You CANNOT eliminate culture without eliminating people. There are cultures within cultures within cultures. People will NEVER all be the same.

[Underverse]

It's not culture or language (let's not touch religion) that separates nations and races. Different nations look different, have different tempers and features. Sure, everyone can run - but kenians beat all. Sure, all nations can invent things, but many countires have not a single inventions, and, say, japanese or jew have gazillions.

Nations are different and they always will be.

Differences in customs are fine as long as they aren't baseless, otherwise they will create social rifts.

Differences in biology are acceptable, because we have things like sexual dimorphism and varying phenotypes, so it's an integral part of human existence

[Ravenblade]

I assume when he said 'Go read a book' he meant "Mein Kampf" which was written by Hitler. Here's a few quotes from the book:

Yes. I am aware of that text even though I did omit to mention it. But there a few things to consider.

First he was a fairly unstable and unbalanced personality. He wasn't really educated in terms of religion to have a much deeper insight than what he learned during his upbringing. He would pursue many religious interests prior his imprisonment which also showed by his shifting stances on this subject, he would one time refer to God, then to Providence, then to "inner conviction" and then reject it all, rinse and repeat but it showed a mix of religious influences. Later on he would reject religion in private (table talks) especially traditional Christianity but would not hesitate to declare himself religious.

Secondly he knew that churches had as much swaying power on opinions as he had and he worked diligently to undermine that. But a lot church men in both divisions still opposed him, either on the grounds how he treated the Jews and/or his promotion of Rosenberg-influenced 'Positive Christianity' to a point of running an underground church to oppose him. Moreover he hoped a pro-Nazi stance of the churches will promote the ideology through the backdoor without having to rely too much on propaganda but this did not work out as much as he had hoped especially later on he wished Germans would just be Muslims or Shinto rather than Christians. Later on especially now fully under Rosenberg's influence and in opposition to Himmler's own weird Aryan mystery cult he turned his resignation on this issue into anger. This shows that he was far from a Christian believer but he was not a staunch atheist either.

In retrospect you could maybe establish what he established occasionally for himself, namely that he was religious but in a very inconsistent manner and too inconsistent to act upon it.

[Eroginous]

In retrospect you could maybe establish what he established occasionally for himself, namely that he was religious but in a very inconsistent manner and too inconsistent to act upon it.

Maybe Hitler was a Schizo. It's not uncommon for powerful people to become unstable/unbalanced the more power they get. Especially when those people are responsible for atrocities.

All that aside, it doesn't change the fact that Hitler behaved in a religious fashion 99% of the time. One can hate established religion, and still be religious. One can reject all established religions, and still believe in god.

The critical part of this discussion on the harms of religion is this: religion is a set of beliefs you put into practice through your daily life. Whether it's something good like eating healthy and exercising, or something unhealthy like joining a suicide cult. The problem isn't the act of being religious. It's the reaction that religious people tend to have towards critical thinking that's harmful.

For instance, using at example of non denominational Christianity as a balance between two extremes, those followers tend to cherry pick the parts of Christianity that are positive and influential within their daily lives. They actively discard the negative aspects of the bible, up to and including the very core tenants (blood sacrifice, eye for an eye, ect), because those are deemed too harmful to be useful in a positive way.

That's an exercise in critical thinking regarding something that is wholly embraced by most other christian denominations in some form or another. However, even the more liberal sects of religion shut off their critical thinking skills. It just happens a lot sooner the more extreme a religion is. There is a segment of the population that is willing to exercise critical thinking no matter what, in all areas of their lives. These are the people who tend to be atheists. These are the people who tend to embrace science.

And that's where my contribution to this discussion is oriented. Religion has a negative effect on critical thinking skills, and those skills are necessary in order to progress society in a positive direction. I said before that religion is a necessary evil, and it's true. Without it, society would not have gotten this far, critical thinking skills never would have been developed by people who later on contributed some of the biggest advancements to science and medicine, and those advancements would have never been made.

People would still be dying from regularly the common cold, child birth, infection, paper cuts, and their teeth. Critical thinking has given us modern technology, and it's invaluable when compared to religion. My only concession is that it's necessary to be religious before you can really develop critical thinking skills.

[Åmbulance]

No

No

Yes

[anyaka21]

The critical part of this discussion on the harms of religion is this: religion is a set of beliefs you put into practice through your daily life. Whether it's something good like eating healthy and exercising, or something unhealthy like joining a suicide cult. The problem isn't the act of being religious. It's the reaction that religious people tend to have towards critical thinking that's harmful.

For instance, using at example of non denominational Christianity as a balance between two extremes, those followers tend to cherry pick the parts of Christianity that are positive and influential within their daily lives. They actively discard the negative aspects of the bible, up to and including the very core tenants (blood sacrifice, eye for an eye, ect), because those are deemed too harmful to be useful in a positive way.

That's an exercise in critical thinking regarding something that is wholly embraced by most other christian denominations in some form or another. However, even the more liberal sects of religion shut off their critical thinking skills. It just happens a lot sooner the more extreme a religion is. There is a segment of the population that is willing to exercise critical thinking no matter what, in all areas of their lives. These are the people who tend to be atheists. These are the people who tend to embrace science.

And that's where my contribution to this discussion is oriented. Religion has a negative effect on critical thinking skills, and those skills are necessary in order to progress society in a positive direction. I said before that religion is a necessary evil, and it's true. Without it, society would not have gotten this far, critical thinking skills never would have been developed by people who later on contributed some of the biggest advancements to science and medicine, and those advancements would have never been made.

All of this is complete and pure speculation without a shred of evidence. Still painting religion as a negative without any of the positive. Feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, not only in their backyards but around the world.

I could just as easily say that purely critical thinking would probably say that we should let those people die because they aren't contributing to society. They are just taking up food and resources that are better spent on people that will. For the record, I don't agree with this, but taken to an extreme, this is where critical thinking will take you.

Again, and again again, religion is not the problem, it's a human problem. We need all to create a balanced society. Go too far towards the scientific where people just become numbers, then anything is okay, even mass genocide, for the sake of society.

Granted, it's pure speculation on my part, but then, that is exactly what you are doing.

[Åmbulance]

All of this is complete and pure speculation without a shred of evidence. Still painting religion as a negative without any of the positive. Feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, not only in their backyards but around the world.

I see statements like this and laugh, when the archdiocese here just spent $35 MILLION on 2 new churches.

[Sunseeker]

I see statements like this and laugh, when the archdiocese here just spent $35 MILLION on 2 new churches.

About 30 million of that was completely unnecessary to the construction of 2 new churches. Beyond that, technically speaking you don't need a church to pray to God.

[Dezerte]

Yes. I am aware of that text even though I did omit to mention it. But there a few things to consider.

First he was a fairly unstable and unbalanced personality. He wasn't really educated in terms of religion to have a much deeper insight than what he learned during his upbringing. He would pursue many religious interests prior his imprisonment which also showed by his shifting stances on this subject, he would one time refer to God, then to Providence, then to "inner conviction" and then reject it all, rinse and repeat but it showed a mix of religious influences. Later on he would reject religion in private (table talks) especially traditional Christianity but would not hesitate to declare himself religious.

Secondly he knew that churches had as much swaying power on opinions as he had and he worked diligently to undermine that. But a lot church men in both divisions still opposed him, either on the grounds how he treated the Jews and/or his promotion of Rosenberg-influenced 'Positive Christianity' to a point of running an underground church to oppose him. Moreover he hoped a pro-Nazi stance of the churches will promote the ideology through the backdoor without having to rely too much on propaganda but this did not work out as much as he had hoped especially later on he wished Germans would just be Muslims or Shinto rather than Christians. Later on especially now fully under Rosenberg's influence and in opposition to Himmler's own weird Aryan mystery cult he turned his resignation on this issue into anger. This shows that he was far from a Christian believer but he was not a staunch atheist either.

In retrospect you could maybe establish what he established occasionally for himself, namely that he was religious but in a very inconsistent manner and too inconsistent to act upon it.

Have you read Mein Kampf? There are literally tens of quotes that have religious connections in that book alone. And you seem to hung-up on Christianity, there are plenty of other religious beliefs out there, and none are more right or wrong than Christianity, so let's not downplay Hitler's beliefs as anything but religious or not up to your standards.

[YoungRussian]

Eliminating language, culture, religion would destroy the underpinnings of what makes humans humans. Also, it is totally impossible due to the human nature, which never changes. All the experiments to expedite the coming of the bright new future have led only to the worst atrocities this world has seen.

[Dhrizzle]

I think it's safe to say Hitler was more mental than anything else. I'd say his misunderstanding of Darwin did more harm than his misunderstanding of Jesus.

[Deleted]

This seems to be a popular opinion on the internet.

Yup, stupid Cultural Marxist kids talking nonsense. Hopefully they'll wake up to the real world and grow out of it.

The view that culture has no place in society anymore and that all such cultural manifestations should be exterminated and replaced with a single homogenous group. Rather than derailing the other thread, I have posted a new one for this discussion. Do you agree with such individuals?

No. It will never work. Culture, language, religion are part of human nature. Any government policy will have to take that into account rather than try to suppress it.

Not to mention it's already been tried. They called it Marxism. They too wanted to destroy culture, religion etc. It failed and lead to many atrocities.

Now on to some details.

The view that culture has no place in society anymore and that all such cultural manifestations should be exterminated and replaced with a single homogenous group.

This isn't even true. Whether by ignorance or malice, cultural Marxists only seem to attack their own cultural model (typically, the western model that apparently is a bit too "enlightened" and "tolerant" for its own good). They want westerners and only westerners to lose their identity. How many of these guys would tell Israel "No, you are not allowed to define yourself as a Jewish state"? How many of them would tell Palestine "No, you have no right to claim any Palestinian identity, you must immediately forsake your identity and religion"? How many of them go to African or Asian countries to tell them they need more diversity or whatever?

Well, go ahead and do that, destroy your own identity while all other nations keep theirs.

It won't bring the Earthly utopia people dream of, it will just make you weaker.

Maybe take lesson from Yugoslavia. That fool Tito thought he could just ignore the different cultures and religions within it and force them to be one.

Didn't work. Sorry.

People are just tribal like that. We'll never have a United Earth Directorate or whatever with only one human identity. And even if that were achieved, it wouldn't be achieved without genocide and a totalitarian state to suppress all nationalist movements, which is a big bad. Live with it.

[Ravenblade]

Have you read Mein Kampf? There are literally tens of quotes that have religious connections in that book alone. And you seem to hung-up on Christianity, there are plenty of other religious beliefs out there, and none are more right or wrong than Christianity, so let's not downplay Hitler's beliefs as anything but religious or not up to your standards.

I was indirectly answering to the previous post. Sorry for the lack of quotes. You are right it's not the only religion out there and I never claimed otherwise. It was a matter of context here. The only thing I am downplaying is religious connection to Christianity as this is seen as baseline in this context. I am saying this because there's usually the argument going on that he did what he did because he was atheist or because he was Christian. My standards dictate that both are inaccurate. I would say the same if it were any other religion. But it's funny because it's what I usually do while getting the impression that others are too hung-up on it.

[Dezerte]

I was indirectly answering to the previous post. Sorry for the lack of quotes. You are right it's not the only religion out there and I never claimed otherwise. It was a matter of context here. The only thing I am downplaying is religious connection to Christianity as this is seen as baseline in this context. I am saying this because there's usually the argument going on that he did what he did because he was atheist or because he was Christian. My standards dictate that both are inaccurate. I would say the same if it were any other religion. But it's funny because it's what I usually do while getting the impression that others are too hung-up on it.

I don't think anyone claimed he was a Christian, just that he was religious.

[Fernii]

Just religion would be my preference.

[Ravenblade]

I don't think anyone claimed he was a Christian, just that he was religious.

My bad. I was assuming that belief in God and Jesus would be the basic formal characteristic of being Christian.