Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EveryZig]

I am arguing that religion is innocent of absolutism and blind faith because blind faith and absolutism exist outside of religion and they can be applied to anything with results that are just as disastrous. Blind faith and absolutism are responsible for the problems they cause, not the ideas they are applied to.

Absolutism and blind faith can indeed exist and cause problems in any idea systems, but that does not mean that all idea systems are equal in terms of how accessible they are to absolutism and blind faith or how serious the resulting problems are likely to be. For example, I would suspect that a system of ideas that explicitly encourages faith would be more susceptible to blind faith than a system of ideas that considers faith a flaw.
The fact that religion is not the only cause of these problems or even the main cause of these problems does not mean that religion cannot be a contributing factor that increases the risk of these problems.

I didn't say prevent, I said cut back. I don't think people would even cut back because it's not like there is any shortage of safe harbors for people with crazy beliefs, and even if there were in the absence of religion people would likely just invent new ones. Look at states that have either eradicated or heavily regulated religion such as the USSR, PRC, and NK. Even disregarding governmental violence, were these countries any more peaceful without religion as a justification for violence? Particularly the PRC is a good candidate to look at, because using a religious justification for a crime would just make the crime worse there, yet China has crime rates about what you'd expect.

You could say that the people still follow their religions, just not openly, but to that I would say there's not other way to speculate about what might happen because we haven't any other data. But I'm not willing to condemn something that's been so historically and culturally significant because a world without it might be less violent.

USSR, PRC, etc were indeed worse after suppressing religion, but it is important not to ignore how religion was suppressed. Specifically, religion in those countries was supplanted by the rise of other ideas such as totalitarian communism which are themselves worse than the problems that might or might not have been caused by the displaced religions.
Those examples establish that there are some idea systems that are worse than religion, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether religion in general is good or bad overall.

[alexandertnt]

I Did not say that.

I never said any of these things, what made you think I implied these things?

Because my quote, which you were responding to, was "Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion." Which is to say, that any harm religion has caused could have been caused by something else. Which is to say that without religion these things would still exist. That was my only point, nothing more, and if you are not arguing against that I have to wonder what you are arguing against.

What I was showing was that religion can lead to the ability for one to do bad things that an absence of religion may prevent. Religion does not have a monopoly on this. I do see what you meant now and of course it is true, religion has done nothing that non-religion could not.

Religion is the name for a set of human beliefs. They are entirly human. Arguing agains't the word "religion" would be silly and serve no purpose. When I say that religion causes bad things to happen, I am not referring to a vague and undefined entity, I am referring to the ideas and concepts that make up religion, and their further effect on the human mind when actively embraced by people. Blind faith and absolutism in particular opens the door for bad things to happen, since by definition it can go agains't all observations and logic. Boorishness and cruelty are inflicted sometimes (since you seem to create implications relating to thing happening/being "solely" or "only" where none exists) because religion gives people an excuse to do these things for some supposed greater and absolute good, without questioning these beliefs.

Religion, almost by definition, is definite belief in "something" regardless of evidence, observation or logic. If it were otherwise it would be Science.

I... I'm not even sure what your point in this is. I am not arguing that the word religion is innocent (of course it is, words are always innocent). I am arguing that religion is innocent of absolutism and blind faith because blind faith and absolutism exist outside of religion and they can be applied to anything with results that are just as disastrous. Blind faith and absolutism are responsible for the problems they cause, not the ideas they are applied to.

I was attempting to show that religion is based on blind fath and absolutism. "Boorishness and cruelty seem to be innate qualities of man, and if religion has done anything to them it is only a matter of degree" Wheras I believe that religion is a term for innate qualities of man, and that is is not at all innocent of these things. I was possibly rambling a bit though.

"getting rid" of religion sounds like an active, rather than passive approach. I don't think anyone really wants to actively get rid of religion. I would like people to think rationally and clearly about the world, so that many bad things could be avoided, since a number of them are built on the absolute of religion.

If religion were to disappear, that would not in any way prevent killings or other horrors from occuring, I don't think anyone would say this (it seems to imply that religion would be the cause for all horrors, which is silly). But it may reduce them by removing an influence, or a style of thought that provides safe harbour for ridiculous excuses to end peoples life.

I didn't say prevent, I said cut back. I don't think people would even cut back because it's not like there is any shortage of safe harbors for people with crazy beliefs, and even if there were in the absence of religion people would likely just invent new ones. Look at states that have either eradicated or heavily regulated religion such as the USSR, PRC, and NK. Even disregarding governmental violence, were these countries any more peaceful without religion as a justification for violence? Particularly the PRC is a good candidate to look at, because using a religious justification for a crime would just make the crime worse there, yet China has crime rates about what you'd expect.

You could say that the people still follow their religions, just not openly, but to that I would say there's not other way to speculate about what might happen because we haven't any other data. But I'm not willing to condemn something that's been so historically and culturally significant because a world without it might be less violent.

I believe that in the actual absence of religion, people would indeed cut back (but of course not eliminate) on their killing, considering that killings have been attributed for religious reasons. If someone were to invent a new religion in the absence of religion then there would no longer be an absence of religion. But I do not think humanity will abandon religion, only reduce it's significance as the world becomes clearer through proven, testable means.

Using those countries as examples is not really useful. These the totalitarian government and poor living conditions. Most countries with actual freedom of religion have high living standards, a functional rule-of-law, and a relatively uncorrupt government. countries tried to force the banning of religion, which is what caused most of the problems (not the lack of religion, which they were not all that successful at). They were not more peaceful because of. Most countries that ban religion are often poor and corrupt and that is what leads to the non-religious violence seen there.

This is why I do not believe in banning religion, it would probably create worse problems, and would imply a power has too much control (often leading to corruption).

Religion has been historically and culturally significant, but not always for the right reasons. If religion has been a negative force on humanity, not condemning it just for its historical and cultural significance seems silly. Of course thats if it has been a negative force on humanity. If you believed that it was not a negative force, then I could understand why you would not want to condemn it.

<only very-loosely-not-really connected with above:>

Religion is inferior at determing what one should do in any given situation. It leads to more wrong decisions, or less effective decisions than reasoning would. In a hypothetical non-religious society versus a religion society with similar freedoms (non-religious/religious due to choice) and living conditions, I believe that the non-religious society would work better. One possible scenario: In a drought, one group might desalinate salt water and use it to water their crops, the other may pray for rain. It is clear which one would be more effective.

I also think that if humanity were to abandon religion, it would also require the abandoning of the emotions/fears that lead to religion, if one goes the other goes. Since most of what causes religion is not a positive trait (fear of the unknown, blind faith etc) then it would seem fairly likely that crimes would reduce since it is these traits that are often responsible for bad things.

[alway]

Albert Einstein was said to be religious and his discoveries are "God's work in action".

I can't remember where I read/heard that though.

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and enoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that Albert Einstein was an agnostic, given that the quote you gave is vauge and incomplete plus sounds alot like it could have been taken out of place.

On this topic, as there is a LOT of bullshit out there (people do love a good argument from authority fallacy, even if they have to invent one themselves; I've even seen him called a Christian for such purposes):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Personal_God_and_the_afterlife

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."[6]

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[7]
In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[8] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt"[9] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

[MaximumZero]

RE: The argument about banning religion:

For intents and purposes of a religion-less world, it may be more useful to look at data from places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Austria. They are countries with very low quantities of religious people, and no laws against religion. It's a way to kind of view the natural decline of religion amongst a normal populace.

[Micro102]

It seems I've been ignored 

O well.


I think a lot more people are atheists then you would think. People who still go to church and play "insert religion here" with their "insert same religion here" family and friends. And then the numbers of people registered as Christians. I don't know if there are similar cases with other religions, but the Vatican had denied requests to remove people from their list of "members". There is also a clergyman project that works to help clergymen who lost their faith get situated financially after spending their entire life preaching.

[MaximumZero]

Don't forget about all the people who were registered into a religion without their consent or knowledge. According to the Mormons, Hitler really fucking hated Mormons.

[fqllve]

Absolutism and blind faith can indeed exist and cause problems in any idea systems, but that does not mean that all idea systems are equal in terms of how accessible they are to absolutism and blind faith or how serious the resulting problems are likely to be. For example, I would suspect that a system of ideas that explicitly encourages faith would be more susceptible to blind faith than a system of ideas that considers faith a flaw.
The fact that religion is not the only cause of these problems or even the main cause of these problems does not mean that religion cannot be a contributing factor that increases the risk of these problems.

Of course, but if we are measuring an idea or belief system's capacity to fall prey to dangerous thinking, then yes religion is particularly susceptible to blind faith, in fact of all systems of thought it is probably the most susceptible to that, but likewise every system of thought has its own vices that can be twisted and expanded to the magnitudes that religion is. Particularly culture has the ability to cause damage in most of the same ways that religion does, even absent religious differences. Rationality, and you won't hear me often speak poorly of this, is particularly prone to the devaluing of human life on the small scale. Every system of thought has its weaknesses that can be exploited to cause great harm.

I believe that in the actual absence of religion, people would indeed cut back (but of course not eliminate) on their killing, considering that killings have been attributed for religious reasons. If someone were to invent a new religion in the absence of religion then there would no longer be an absence of religion. But I do not think humanity will abandon religion, only reduce it's significance as the world becomes clearer through proven, testable means.

Using those countries as examples is not really useful. These the totalitarian government and poor living conditions. Most countries with actual freedom of religion have high living standards, a functional rule-of-law, and a relatively uncorrupt government. countries tried to force the banning of religion, which is what caused most of the problems (not the lack of religion, which they were not all that successful at). They were not more peaceful because of. Most countries that ban religion are often poor and corrupt and that is what leads to the non-religious violence seen there.

I should have been more clear, but I was only referring to citizen crime rates. The PRC in particular has a relatively high standard of living (in the cities) but crime there seems to be going on undisturbed. It's not the best data source, but it's the closet we have to "people are no longer allowed to use religion to justify their crimes, are there fewer crimes?"

I wouldn't even say it's the lack of religion that caused problems, but rather any regime that attempts to suppress thought is likely going to be bad news.

Remember though, that the causes of human behavior are complex. In many of the cases where religion is used to justify a crime I don't think taking religion from the mix would do much, because you usually have an unstable set of circumstances already. There are some almost purely religiously motivated crimes, though, like anti-abortion terrorism, however in the majority of cases I think religion is just one factor and maybe not even a necessary one.

Religion has been historically and culturally significant, but not always for the right reasons. If religion has been a negative force on humanity, not condemning it just for its historical and cultural significance seems silly. Of course thats if it has been a negative force on humanity. If you believed that it was not a negative force, then I could understand why you would not want to condemn it.

I don't believe it's a negative force. I believe it, like most things, is a neutral force. I believe it is a system of thought, and like all systems of thought it is a tool, and like all tools it can be a force for good or bad. It is not a particularly useful tool for describing the physical universe, and it isn't a tool that I've ever found need for, but that alone doesn't put me in any position to say whether a person should use it or not.

RE: The argument about banning religion:

For intents and purposes of a religion-less world, it may be more useful to look at data from places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Austria. They are countries with very low quantities of religious people, and no laws against religion. It's a way to kind of view the natural decline of religion amongst a normal populace.

That's a good point, however I'll point out that those are flawed too, because they're countries with low population densities and social programs (particularly Norway) that encourage lower crime rates. Still better than what I suggested, though.

It seems I've been ignored 

Not by me at least.

[kaijyuu]

Don't forget about all the people who were registered into a religion without their consent or knowledge. According to the Mormons, Hitler really fucking hated Mormons.

Notably: They're SUPPOSED to get permission from surviving descendants before doing that.

[Micro102]

OK, people can kill and hurt for similar reasons, but not the same reasons. You have people killing others to spare them from the end of the world. Half for non religious reasons, half for religious ones. Why keep one half? Because the other half is there? Also please tell me where yo got that hitler wasn't religious. He used religious propaganda and speeches all the time. And even if he wasn't religious, the soldier that carried out the Holocaust and the people who supported it were. Religion was the justification.

Because I doubt that just because we get rid of the religious reasons people are going to cut back on their killing. It'll just happen under nonreligious terms. Actually, I doubt it's possible to get rid of religion at all because people seem to love supernatural thinking, but that's another topic.

I'm not aware of anything that suggests that Hitler was particularly religious, but if you've got any citations I'd be interested in them. However, in all the propaganda I've seen religious-themed stuff has been the minority. Now that might be a trick of historical revisionism, but the stuff I've seen was mostly apologetics for anti-semitism in light of the fact that Jesus was Jewish. In those cases it's questionable whether or not religion was even being used as a justification. Of course there are more direct examples, but they don't seem like the foundation of the Nazi propaganda movement. And remember further that the Holocaust was based heavily on ideas of eugenics, yet no one (except crazy people) blames the theory of natural selection for it.

Saying that the amount of (lets use the term evil for all the bad stuff we were talking about) evil would stay the same if religion would disappear, would mean that you're saying that the amount of people who do not use medicine, who believe the world is going to end and thus kill their children (without the benefit of heaven), who become pedophiles, who are willing to give their lives for suicide bombing (without the promise of heaven), ect., would all increase without religion. I find that ridiculous.

Also, (many) Hitler quotes from his written work, Mein Kampf

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm took me 1 google search to find.

Again, even if he wasn't religious, and this was some big fraud, a type of religious scapegoat, the holocaust was carried out due to the fact that religion...God...was backing it.

[10ebbor10]

Saying that the amount of (lets use the term evil for all the bad stuff we were talking about) evil would stay the same if religion would disappear, would mean that your saying that the amount of people who do not use medicine, who believe the world is going to end and thus kill their children (without the benefit of heaven), who become pedophiles, who are willing to give their lives for suicide bombing (without the promise of heaven), ect., would all increase without religion. I find that ridiculous.

No, I'm saying that it would more or less remain the same. Because religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used. We already gave examples of all the things that could be held responsible, but you seem willing to ignore them for the sake of your own argument.

Again, even if he wasn't religious, and this was some big fraud, a type of religious scapegoat, the holocaust was carried out due to the fact that religion...God...was backing it.

Where do you get that from?

Also, I'm not trying to prove that Hitler wasn't religious, I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions. All in all, antisemitism was a thing that lived very strongly in certain European countries from the 15the century, due to the fact that their main profession was banking (Which is not a popular thing) as wel as some other reasons. Religion is a thing that is shaped by a society. The Jews were not mainly targetted because they had a different religion (otherwise Hitler would have targetted Catholics as wel), but because they were isolated in society, and made an easy scapegoat(It didn't help that the envoy who signed the german surrender in WOI was a Jew). It's unlikely that whitout scapegoating the Jews, he would have gotten away.

Hence we see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.

[Micro102]

Saying that the amount of (lets use the term evil for all the bad stuff we were talking about) evil would stay the same if religion would disappear, would mean that your saying that the amount of people who do not use medicine, who believe the world is going to end and thus kill their children (without the benefit of heaven), who become pedophiles, who are willing to give their lives for suicide bombing (without the promise of heaven), ect., would all increase without religion. I find that ridiculous.

No, I'm saying that it would more or less remain the same. Because religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used. We already gave examples of all the things that could be held responsible, but you seem willing to ignore them for the sake of your own argument.

Again, even if he wasn't religious, and this was some big fraud, a type of religious scapegoat, the holocaust was carried out due to the fact that religion...God...was backing it.

Where do you get that from?

Also, I'm not trying to prove that Hitler wasn't religious, I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions. All in all, antisemitism was a thing that lived very strongly in certain European countries from the 15the century, due to the fact that their main profession was banking (Which is not a popular thing) as wel as some other reasons. Religion is a thing that is shaped by a society. The Jews were not mainly targetted because they had a different religion (otherwise Hitler would have targetted Catholics as wel), but because they were isolated in society, and made an easy scapegoat(It didn't help that the envoy who signed the german surrender in WOI was a Jew). It's unlikely that whitout scapegoating the Jews, he would have gotten away.

Hence we see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.

Odd, I don't remember ever having part of the conversation with you  Whatever.

How the hell can you say that religion is just an excuse used and not a cause? Do you really think that all these people have ulterior motives and just use religion as an excuse? That they don't actually believe? What type of conspiracy world are you living in?

As for Hitler...

1) Yes, religion was the justification. I don't care whether he was religious or not, the soldiers and common people believed what they were doing was right because of religion.

2) Why the hell would he also target Catholics?

3) How the hell does fundamentalism increase because of atheism vs religion?

I am starting to get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.

[10ebbor10]

How the hell can you say that religion is just an excuse used and not a cause? Do you really think that all these people have ulterior motives and just use religion as an excuse? That they don't actually believe? What type of conspiracy world are you living in? I've stated a whole lot of sensible motives. Religion is often molded by the society it's founded in, so you need to look for the problems there, not with the religion. What kind of conspiracy world are you living in that you believe that there's a giant organised system causing evil on large scales, while being supported by large parts of the population and justifying it's actions by stating it's doing just the reverse of what you're accusing it of.

As for Hitler...

1) Yes, religion was the justification. I don't care whether he was religious or not, the soldiers and common people believed what they were doing was right because of religion.Not anymore than that they believed they were the master race, and that the Jews were bad(And not because their religion said so.).

2) Why the hell would he also target Catholics?Because he was a Lutheran Christian. They have radically different visions on certain parts, but there was no real animousity at that point in time. He did target mormons for example, as well as several other minorities. Not because the religion said him to do so, but because they were easy targets.

3) How the hell does fundamentalism increase because of atheism vs religion? Do you really need to ask that question? If people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.

I am starting to get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.Trust me, I have that feeling a lot around here.

[alexandertnt]

we see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.

What? One only has to look at the least religious countries, and the most religous countries to see that the most "fundamentalist" stuff takes part in these very religious countries. Also why not between specific religions (That is, is the increase due to the change in ratio between atheists and religious people, or just the change in various religious distribution)? Religion A knows that both Religion B and Atheists are equally wrong, likewise for Religion B.

If people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.

And if you leave a hypothetical country in the state of near 100% religion, they start creating fundamentalist laws unopposed because they just know they are correct. The shrinking group may become more fundamentalist, but since they are shrinking they are also becomming more irrelevant to society.

Plus that is if these people are feeling threatened or repressed. In the case that the secularization of society is completely voluntary and freedom of religion genuinely remains, any of these feelings are irrational and are possibly the result of the religion itself. Since by definition they wouldn't be reached through rational thought.

Because religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used.

Religion is not always the cause, but it can be more than an excuse. What non-religeous reason would anyone have to do a suicide bombing, for example? There is no possible real-world benefit to this I can think of.

I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.

[10ebbor10]

we see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.

What? One only has to look at the least religious countries, and the most religous countries to see that the most "fundamentalist" stuff takes part in these very religious countries. Also why not between specific religions (That is, is the increase due to the change in ratio between atheists and religious people, or just the change in various religious distribution)? Religion A knows that both Religion B and Atheists are equally wrong, likewise for Religion B.

Not always so certain of that. Often you find an underlying reason for these. However, if we look at the Islamitic Republic of Iran, we find that fundamentalism there is not as strong as it seems. Stem cell research is encouraged, abortus is permitted as well as the cloning of animals. The society is far from perfect, with lots of antiwestern feelings, and repression of certain minorities, but this is easily explained if you look at recent history(First the west sponsored a dictator, and when the revolution came, they sponsored Saddam Husein in his attack against the Iranian state). But over the last few years we've seen general improvements in religious freedom, as well as other things. (Despite being third on the list of countries persecuting Christians, the Christian minority is quite well of, provided they don't try to voice their beliefs.)

There are many other countries for which the same thing  can be said.

And yeah, problems between religions can cause fundamentalism. Got a wording issue there.

If people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.

And if you leave a hypothetical country in the state of near 100% religion, they start creating fundamentalist laws unopposed because they just know they are correct. The shrinking group may become more fundamentalist, but since they are shrinking they are also becoming more irrelevant to society.

Plus that is if these people are feeling threatened or repressed. In the case that the secularization of society is completely voluntary and freedom of religion genuinely remains, any of these feelings are irrational and are possibly the result of the religion itself. Since by definition they wouldn't be reached through rational thought.*

See the above example. There are also many examples of countries during history where you got near 100% religion of one sort and where that sort of things didn't happen.

It's quite easy to feel threatened or repressed if you get people saying your beliefs are irrational, false and should be forbidden. While these form only a minority, it's often enough to give a hostile impression.

*Then were does religion come from? It seems unlikely that something that doesn't make any sense could become so widespread. Also, what definition says that religion is not rational.

Because religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used.

Religion is not always the cause, but it can be more than an excuse. What non-religeous reason would anyone have to do a suicide bombing, for example? There is no possible real-world benefit to this I can think of.

Bleh, are you unimaginative. There are more than enough reasons for suicide bombins. Nationalism is a strong one, for example. Several people are willing to give up their life for their ideals, for freedom. See the entire Israel-Palestinian problem. The Palestinians don't want to bomb the Jews(and by extension their supporters in other, western countries) because of their religion, but because they took their land.

I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.

((The last argument is a Hitler ate sugar argument))

Yes. The main reason was the growing nationalism, and the fact that Germany was completely screwded over by the other nations after WWI. Hitler also used eugenestics and social darwinism as justifications, but you don't here me saying that the Evolution theory is bad because of that.

[alway]

I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.

((The last argument is a Hitler ate sugar argument))

Very much this. Stop with the pointless Argument From Authority and the converse Guilt By Associate fallacies. A bunch of people in this thread are doing it, and it just serves to derail any actual discussion by quibbling about whether Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Einstein, Newton, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, wore striped pajamas or polka-dot pajamas. There are four lights, regardless of how many either Hitler or Einstein say there are. Hitler saying there are 4 lights does not mean there are 5 lights; Einstein saying there are 5 lights does not mean there are 5 lights. The opinions of men, regardless of whether you hold them in ill favor or good, have no sway over that which is true. Arguing that there cannot possibly be 4 lights because Hitler says there are 4 lights is no less absurd than that which is being done.