The anti-christian propaganda: Christianity, Hitler and Nietzsche

The most power tool in Hitler’s arsenal, for some, was the propaganda techniques he applied to keep his audience in complete awe and totally unaware of what was really going on the war-front. It was perhaps the effective use of this that he managed to keep Germany silent and going even after defeat looked imminent to the military brass.

Propaganda is indeed a very powerful technique, when a figure, usually a figure of authority rises up and tells people what they expect, you can score many points with them. Most of the time the audience swallows it hook, line and sinker. Mostly because they lack trust or are made to distrust other sources of information.

In the world of internet, propaganda is happening everywhere, from the brainwashed teenagers at westbro baptists to the hard core atheists – figures like Dawkins…you can very well implicate any group. The most astonishing is the constant barrage of senseless accusations, I keep getting from the “New Atheist” movement.

Contrary to popular belief  a lot of atheist are not militant,  a lot of atheists are disgusted by the new Atheist movement. I know a lot, who respect other people and their right to believe what they may. But there are many, who have found the internet as a venting ground and from what I assume to get attention and to rap about their new found philosophy, they place charges which are bizarre; myths that have no real grounds to stand on. And yet I keep hearing them again and again. A part of this is that the new Atheist propaganda technique which reiterates the main points over and over.

On the internet you need not a conspiracy, you only need repetitions  and what you get is a constant circle of bogus charges placed on faith, with no context and sometime little to no research. Frankly there are only handful of atheists who I have found to be realistic enough to handle the topic with wisdom. Most often lunge on emotional appeals, straw man, hatred and disdain towards faith, pain or traumatic experience. There is mostly a personal side to the obvious dislike. There is most of the times  a factor of “I was dealt a bad hand”  by life, fate, society etc. So who is to blame…God. Seems like the obvious choice because he is the ultimate- invisible scapegoat.

A question about Nietzsche and his argument

Greg from Poeticalcynic asked this question, here is my take on it Greg.

from wikipedia

Friedrich Nietzsche said:

“A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention—could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? . . . Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? Must he not then . . . be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?”

Plenty of problems there:

1. “A god …who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention”

I would question the validity of this statement, I would ask how is this alone tested and proved, Empiricism? That carries its own problems. What about his creatures who do understand?

2. “Could be a God of goodness”

That is a platonic view of God, God is not made up of goodness or badness. A more Thomistic approach would seriously challenge this notion. Anyway, its also wrong because it assumes God is good according to what we feel good. Can we not be wrong? How do we decide what is good? by vote?

What about people who do not have this complain against God? God doesn’t have goodness in him, he is goodness. Just like he doesn’t have lovely feelings for us, he is Love.