Here’s the exact statement I responded to. Is there a subtle difference ‘twixt his statement and yours?
Here’s my entire response.

And you again try to equivocate. You claimed that B78 stated it was the Nazi motto. That is patently false.

You are now back pedaling to try to CYA after it has been shown that your argument is based upon you evident misstatement of what was stated.

That’s why I much prefer to pursue objective statements and I make sure to stay on solid ground.

So is that why you have put forth your opinion?

He made a one word substition that is false.

No, he stated fact. You argued against a claim that was not made and now seek to engage in a bit of CYA.

I called him on it just to amuse myself and see what kind of man he was.

No, you jumped based upon your misinterpretation of what he stated. Again, you claimed he stated that it was the Nazi motto. He did not.

If he had conceded the point, or even amended his statement and made a logical counterpoint , he might be the rare atheist who is pleasant to engage in discourse from opposite viewpoints.

Irrelevant blather. The fact stands.

I rather enjoy that when it happens. All it would take is a one word correction (Nazi to German) and I would have explained that the inscription probably carried little gravitas as it was traditional and left it at that if his response was surly. At that point it’s subjective, therefore of little interest to me.

So little interest that you took time out to post a counter argument. Odd thing that.

Answer the question Gene. Were the Nazis involved in WWI

And where did I ever state that Nazis were involved in WWI? As far as irrational tangents go, this ranks in the top five.

You’re losing it Gene :)

And again you have to resort to a personal insult and comment. You have lost the argument due to this and are no better than R4L.

But again, the fact remains that you jumped into this conversation on your erroneous claim that B78 claimed that the motto was a Nazi one.

And after this has been cited and you have been exposed as a condescending reactionary, you now seek to CYA and post excuses and back peddle.

You also put forth your opinion as historical fact all the while failing to mention how historians are divided on many of the topics you claim are fact.

Now of you could actually act in a rational manner rather than post insults, you could be of interest. But, unfortunately, you have resorted to personal insults and have simply lost the debate due to such irrational and emotional behavior.

even the Nazi’s belt had “God is with us” inscribed on the buckle
bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM

The inscription of the Waffen Schutzstaffel was
Meine Ehre heißt Treue ‘My honour is loyalty’. The Waffen-SS were Nazis.

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM

You’re losing it Gene :)

Are you serious about this question?
Are. you. Really. Serious. about. this. question.?

So instead of addressing it you post more condescending replies.

Answer the question Gene. Were the Nazis involved in WWI:)

So you appear to have a problem with what was posted. Bentman78 did not state that Gott Mit Uns was the Nazi motto. He stated it was used by Hitler and was on their belt buckles.

In any case, you are arguing against something that wasn’t stated.

Hitler among many used quoted and used christian ideology a lot. even the Nazi’s belt had “God is with us” inscribed on the buckle
bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Here’s the exact statement I responded to. Is there a subtle difference ‘twixt his statement and yours?
Here’s my entire response.

Your statement is demonstrably false.

The inscription “Gott Mit Uns” dates from 1861 as an official inscription and pre 1700 as unofficial. This inscription was borne by the Wermacht Heer, otherwise known as the German Regular Army. The Wermacht was not an institution of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), known in English as the Nazi Party.

The inscription of the Waffen Schutzstaffel was
Meine Ehre heißt Treue ‘My honour is loyalty’. The Waffen-SS were Nazis.

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM

That’s why I much prefer to pursue objective statements and I make sure to stay on solid ground. He made a one word substition that is false. I called him on it just to amuse myself and see what kind of man he was. If he had conceded the point, or even amended his statement and made a logical counterpoint , he might be the rare atheist who is pleasant to engage in discourse from opposite viewpoints. I rather enjoy that when it happens. All it would take is a one word correction (Nazi to German) and I would have explained that the inscription probably carried little gravitas as it was traditional and left it at that if his response was surly. At that point it’s subjective, therefore of little interest to me.

Are you serious about this question?
Are. you. Really. Serious. about. this. question.?

So instead of addressing it you post more condescending replies.

I’ll be honest with you, sport.

And we have condescending nicknames. You already lost the debate when you resorted to insults, much like R4L did.

I can’t even follow the logic in that statement, especially in re: unless you are claiming their uniform were exactly the same from WWI into WWII.

You claim that the motto was traditional and predate Hitler therefore he couldn’t possibly have used it or it cannot be claimed that have been used by him or the Nazi party.
Unless the uniforms were exactly the same as WWI, then the Nazi party altered them and did so to their own means, your claim is erronious. In support of that I have posted a link to the picture of a Nazi buckle with the motto intact.

Follow me closely here, Gene. I’m gonna type slowly…

More condescension. What a shock. After the insults, you have already shown your inability to debate in a rational manner. The rest is simply gravy.

I don’t pursue arguments of opinion.

You have here so that claim is fallacious.

I don’t return to a comment and insist on my viewpoint or whine or go back and forth like 5th graders.

But you have by calling comments you disagree with insipid and casting personal insults about another poster. If you were just debating or positing opinion, then such would not be needed by you. Then we have the “talking down to” attitude of a self-professed elitist. Nice rounding off.

It’s pointless because of the very nature of opinion.

Yet that is all you have posted; your opinion of the general army and the Nazis.

Here’s the way I handle it. I state my viewpoint. I state the basis for my viewpoint. That’s it. That’s all. If it gets shouted down, Meh, oh well. I leave it alone

.
Really? Then why the insults and condescension? Your action do not back up your claims.

Occasionally those with a different viewpoint will request a clarification. I’ll answer those if I see it.

Yet you are forgetting you posted under the erroneous claim that B78 stated that god is with us was the Nazi motto, which he did not.

Why do I relate that? Stay with me, Gene, be strong…

More insults and condescention.

I’m not part of the discussion as to the atheistic or Xian inclinations of Hitler.

Yet you interjected your opinion into that very topic trying to claim that the Nazis or Hitler never used such a motto. Again, your actions do not support your claims or excuses at this point.

Really, son.

More condescension.

Go back and look. In no instance have I tipped my hand.

Tipped how? You mean by arguing against something that was not stated to begin with?

At no point prior do you have a basis for assuming my belief.

I never said I did. I have all the proof of what you believe by what you have posted.

That discussion has devolved into opinion, thus I have no further interest.

LOL. Translation: you butted in on this conversation with an objection that B78 never made. Once that is pointed out, and the fact that you post based upon your opinion of the topic, you now seek to back pedal or explain your way out of the corner you put yourself in.

Matter of fact what I read bored me until I saw Bentmans error.

Yet you still posted under a fallacious basis and still have yet to prove what he claimed is in error.

As for me, I’ve long known that Hitler had a perverse Deity belief so insisting on atheism is a slippery proposition. Likewise I’ve long known he despised Christianity as well as Christians and other religious adherents.

Yet had no problem proclaiming himself acting in accordance with the xian faith and doing god’s work.

You’re convinced he was Xian, and you’re gonna go to your grave insisting he was Xian as far as I can tell.

You judge a person on what the profess as their beliefs. The facts of history are that, by his own claims and words, he was a xian. He believed he was doing god’s work.

I don’t care. Not in the least.

Obviously, so much that you had to argue against something that wasn’t even stated here.

Call him Xian. You haven’t seen me argue the point. Why? It’s opinion.

No, it is fact. Other xians may denounce him, but again, by his own claims, he was doing god’s work.

You are erroneously trying to claim that this is opinion when it is historical fact. That is intellectual dishonesty.

It’s why I don’t use him (Hitler) as an example when I’m amusing myself by carving up atheist trolls on other boards. I use other examples. There’s plenty enough of them.

Right. I’m sure you think so, but in this case, by his own words and proclamations, Hitler was a xian doing god’s work.

But agian, you pounced onto this discussion and rallied agianst a statement that was never made. B78 never claimed that it was the Nazi motto.

But again, you pounced onto this discussion and rallied against a statement that was never made. B78 never claimed that it was the Nazi motto.

Perhaps rather than jump so easily next time due your vested emotional interest in the topic and posting insults and condescending claims, you can try to argue about what was actually posted.

That way, you don’t have to back pedal and perform a bit of CYA in retreat.

Only in a right4life manner.
You are trying to argue that the buckle was simply a hold over for a previous time. That might be supported if it were not for all of the other cases of Hitler using the xian faith in speeches as was quoted before.
Taken as a whole, it still can be said that Hitler used the faith to that end including the belt buckles.
Only in a right4life manner.
You are trying to argue that the buckle was simply a hold over for a previous time. That might be supported if it were not for all of the other cases of Hitler using the xian faith in speeches as was quoted before.
Taken as a whole, it still can be said that Hitler used the faith to that end including the belt buckles.

Follow me closely here, Gene. I’m gonna type slowly…

I don’t pursue arguments of opinion. I don’t return to a comment and insist on my viewpoint or whine or go back and forth like 5th graders.
Why?
It’s pointless because of the very nature of opinion.
Here’s the way I handle it. I state my viewpoint. I state the basis for my viewpoint. That’s it. That’s all. If it gets shouted down, Meh, oh well. I leave it alone. Occasionally those with a different viewpoint will request a clarification. I’ll answer those if I see it.

Why do I relate that? Stay with me, Gene, be strong…

I’m not part of the discussion as to the atheistic or Xian inclinations of Hitler. Really, son. Go back and look. In no instance have I tipped my hand. At no point prior do you have a basis for assuming my belief. That discussion has devolved into opinion, thus I have no further interest. Matter of fact what I read bored me until I saw Bentmans error. As for me, I’ve long known that Hitler had a perverse Deity belief so insisting on atheism is a slippery proposition. Likewise I’ve long known he despised Christianity as well as Christians and other religious adherents.
You’re convinced he was Xian, and you’re gonna go to your grave insisting he was Xian as far as I can tell.
I don’t care. Not in the least. Call him Xian. You haven’t seen me argue the point. Why? It’s opinion.

It’s why I don’t use him (Hitler) as an example when I’m amusing myself by carving up atheist trolls on other boards. I use other examples. There’s plenty enough of them.

And that still doesn’t change the fact that it remained after Hitler took power. He kept the phrase on the buckles unless you are claiming their uniform were exactly the same from WWI into WWII.

I’ll be honest with you, sport. I can’t even follow the logic in that statement, especially in re: unless you are claiming their uniform were exactly the same from WWI into WWII.

The *Nazi Army* was not part of WWI.
wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Really. According to?

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Are you serious about this question?

Are. you. Really. Serious. about. this. question.?

The *Nazi Army* was not part of WWI.

Really. According to?

The Schutzstaffel germinated in 1933, the Waffen Schutzstaffel some time later. German Regulars did indeed have the inscription in WW1, actually long before.

And that still doesn’t change the fact that it remained after Hitler took power. He kept the phrase on the buckles unless you are claiming their uniform were exactly the same from WWI into WWII.

Methinks you are confusing the Wermacht with the Nazi Political Party, of which the Waffen was the military arm.

Not at all. The fact remains it was not removed and was used in the German army during WWII. Your trying to claim that the regulars were not Nazis is a reach at best.

The two are different and the Wermacht were NOT the Nazis. The Wermacht (German Regular Armed Forces)detested Hitler and tried to kill him, to the point that Hitler would not meet face to face with its’ Generals until they had been searched from socks to eyebrows.

Again according to? Odd how the bulk of the German army would hate their leader and try to kill him over and over. Granted, their were assassination attempts, but not to such a high frequency that one could claim that the entire regular army hated Hitler.

Once again, the Nazi inscription, ‘My honour is loyalty’.

And once again remains the fact that Hitler used xian terminology including the “German regular” army buckles or whatever other dodge you wish to post.

Bentmans point has indeed been proven false.

Only in a right4life manner.
You are trying to argue that the buckle was simply a hold over for a previous time. That might be supported if it were not for all of the other cases of Hitler using the xian faith in speeches as was quoted before.
Taken as a whole, it still can be said that Hitler used the faith to that end including the belt buckles.

Your assertion has weakened considerably from Bentmans more robust braying.

Again, only in a R4L manner of viewing the argument. Hitler used the buckle and the motto.

You are now stating that had he been opposed he would have changed ~200 + years of German martial tradition. As he did not do so, he must now own up to his Xian affections.The statement is insipid in this context.

Again, according to you but odd how now you claim that this was a 200+ year tradition when the adoption of such a motto by the military was not official until relatively recently.
And agian, take into account all of Hitler’s use of the xian religion. The buckles are not an isolated hold-over and you would seem to be arguing.,

What reason would he have to change it?

Any if he saw fit to do so. He adopted mystical items and mysticism. He could have easily pushed aside any of the trappings of previous generations, tradition or not.

Presumably he’s got bigger things to worry about than infuriating the German Regulars who hate him and know they are being used as machine gun fodder while Hitlers SS are safe behind the front lines.That’s just one of my guesses.

Yes, so much so that he never worried about such symbolism. Yes, that was sarcasm.

Another would be that while we can amuse ourselves wondering why he didn’t do a certain action, we can objectively see what he did do when given the opportunity to choose a motto. He chose Meine Ehre heißt Treue for his personal army, not Gott Mit Uns. Now which statementwould presumably be more dear to him, the former or the latter?

You are making an assumption based upon your own personal bias. Of course, why would any leader want his personal guard to have an oath of loyalty?
As far as what was dear to him, only Hitler could fully speak to. But the fact remains, he used the xian faith, be it honestly or dishonestly, for his own ends.

In any wise, the point I debunked is that the Nazi motto was Gott Mit Uns.

Again, only in a R4L fashion. The fact remains he used is and the related faith.

So you appear to have a problem with what was posted. Bentman78 did not state that Gott Mit Uns was the Nazi motto. He stated it was used by Hitler and was on their belt buckles. That is still a fact.

Perhaps you misread the comments and jumped. In any case, you are arguing against something that wasn’t stated.

So if the buckles were simply a hold over form previous uniforms, as it appears you are arguing, then why would a new uniform complete with a Nazi symbol ever have been created?

http://nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

The motto was included because it served a purpose for Hitler and the Nazis.

First of all, historical source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_Mit_Uns
photo WWI Belt Buckle, German Army.

Prussian Legend

Army Belt Buckle Gott Mit Uns

Secondly, the claim made by bentman78 would only be demonstrably false if the entire uniform worn by the NAZI army during WWII was the same as the one worn prior.

The *Nazi Army* was not part of WWI. The Schutzstaffel germinated in 1933, the Waffen Schutzstaffel some time later. German Regulars did indeed have the inscription in WW1, actually long before.

Methinks you are confusing the Wermacht with the Nazi Political Party, of which the Waffen was the military arm.
The two are different and the Wermacht were NOT the Nazis. The Wermacht (German Regular Armed Forces)detested Hitler and tried to kill him, to the point that Hitler would not meet face to face with its’ Generals until they had been searched from socks to eyebrows.

Once again, the Nazi inscription, ‘My honour is loyalty’.

Bentmans point has indeed been proven false.

Hitler did have a say as to what the army uniform was after the Nazis took power, yes?

Then the claim is not demonstrable false. Even if your claim of the origin of the phrase is correct Hitler kept it in place. If he wasn’t using the xian ideology and terminology, he would have removed it.

Your assertion has weakened considerably from Bentmans more robust braying. You are now stating that had he been opposed he would have changed ~200 + years of German martial tradition. As he did not do so, he must now own up to his Xian affections.The statement is insipid in this context. What reason would he have to change it? Presumably he’s got bigger things to worry about than infuriating the German Regulars who hate him and know they are being used as machine gun fodder while Hitlers SS are safe behind the front lines.That’s just one of my guesses.

Another would be that while we can amuse ourselves wondering why he didn’t do a certain action, we can objectively see what he did do when given the opportunity to choose a motto. He chose Meine Ehre heißt Treue for his personal army, not Gott Mit Uns. Now which statementwould presumably be more dear to him, the former or the latter?

In any wise, the point I debunked is that the Nazi motto was Gott Mit Uns.

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Your statement is demonstrably false.
The inscription “Gott Mit Uns” dates from 1861 as an official inscription and pre 1700 as unofficial. This inscription was borne by the Wermacht Heer, otherwise known as the German Regular Army. The Wermacht was not an institution of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), known in English as the Nazi Party.
The inscription of the Waffen Schutzstaffel was
Meine Ehre heißt Treue ‘My honour is loyalty’. The Waffen-SS were Nazis.

First of all, historical source?

Secondly, the claim made by bentman78 would only be demonstrably false if the entire uniform worn by the NAZI army during WWII was the same as the one worn prior.

Hitler did have a say as to what the army uniform was after the Nazis took power, yes?

Then the claim is not demonstrable false. Even if your claim of the origin of the phrase is correct Hitler kept it in place. If he wasn’t using the xian ideology and terminology, he would have removed it.

In many instances such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of the Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify the actions,

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM

The notion that exploration and conquest of the Central Americas by the Spanish Empire was motivated by altruistic motive, religious or otherwise, is drivel.
The motivation was the acquisition of wealth, resource and the expansion of empire. The Empire did not finance these excursions to convert.

Hitler among many used quoted and used christian ideology a lot. even the Nazi’s belt had “God is with us” inscribed on the buckle
bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Your statement is demonstrably false.

The inscription “Gott Mit Uns” dates from 1861 as an official inscription and pre 1700 as unofficial. This inscription was borne by the Wermacht Heer, otherwise known as the German Regular Army. The Wermacht was not an institution of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), known in English as the Nazi Party.

The inscription of the Waffen Schutzstaffel was
Meine Ehre heißt Treue ‘My honour is loyalty’. The Waffen-SS were Nazis.

Anything to break control of the religious dogma is a threat to their authority.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM

And what of poor Bruno? Burned alive for daring to support the heliocentric model of the solar system rather than the
church-backed geocentric.

Exactly.

Take for example the peer review process. Peer review is something they have come to denounce as some form of censorship or part of some grand conspiracy.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM

It can’t pass a peer review panel because the science isn’t there. Well there wasn’t any science to begin with…but you know that.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM

It was funny how the religious took that approach in the past with people like Galileo and Copernicus in the past.

Anything to break control of the religious dogma is a threat to their authority.

Oh yeah..and the constant posting from the DI like they’re a credible source. They have no science and spend they’re time trying to disprove evolution while providing no science to back up their claims.
bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Exactly.

Take for example the peer review process. Peer review is something they have come to denounce as some form of censorship or part of some grand conspiracy.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Yes, but the tactic is unfortunately typical.

Demonizing Darwin is the only way people like R4L have to deal with the topic so they can simplistically dismiss it.

Once that is accomplished, they lump any challenger to their questionable and hollow claims into the same group.

One step further is to lump all science they disagree with or find threatening together for simplistic and summary dismiss.

The simple fact that theories can and do stand alone, with a few crossing into common areas of topic or research, seems beyond some.

One theory can be proven or strengthened over time while other are proven wrong.

First of all, I have an interest in this debate and subject beyond the entertainment value of your desperate and intellectually dishonest attempts to support your claims.

Secondly, I’m not gay so stop calling me honey, sweaty and the like. I don’t care if you are gay or you like to pretend on some forums that you are a woman, but I really don’t want to be part of your gender identity crisis or sexual fetishes.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Oh yeah..and the constant posting from the DI like they’re a credible source. They have no science and spend they’re time trying to disprove evolution while providing no science to back up their claims.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Not even like the claims he posts are based on science. Trying to tie Hitler to Darwin is laughable, and it still doesn’t hurt the science. Plus he disdains things like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111102.htm
and goes back to making baseless claims.

He’s a riot to read…

here you are, right on Q…what a surprise….

Not as such. If I was “right on queue” I would have posted right after you made that comment.

you’re just desperate for my attention honey!!

Wow. Your ego is so controlling of you.

First of all, I have an interest in this debate and subject beyond the entertainment value of your desperate and intellectually dishonest attempts to support your claims.

Secondly, I’m not gay so stop calling me honey, sweaty and the like. I don’t care if you are gay or you like to pretend on some forums that you are a woman, but I really don’t want to be part of your gender identity crisis or sexual fetishes.

yeah thats why he set up a plan to persecute the christian churches and set up his own church to replace it…

your knowledge of history, truth, logic, etc. is laughable

EPIC FAIL.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Hitler did well in monastery school. He sang in the choir, found High Mass and other ceremonies intoxicating, and idolized priests. Impressed by their power, he at one time considered entering the priesthood.

He viewed the traditional Christian faiths as weak and wanted to establish his own church. Just 1.5 percent of Germans identified themselves as unbelievers in a 1939 census, which means either that very few Nazis and National Socialist German Worker’s Party supporters were atheists, or that atheists feared to identify themselves to the pro-theistic regime. Htiler used this to spread his ideology of him doing the lords work to eradicate the Jews – as he stated in his book.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM

here you are, right on Q…what a surprise….

you’re just desperate for my attention honey!!

you mean like you have been stalking me all these years gene splicer?

So now I have been stalking you for years?

Again, how can that be if those other accounts I listed are not yours?

And you are still trying to claim that bentman78 and myself are the same person? You really need to stop parroting what others do, especially when you do so in a juvenile and reactionary copy-cat manner.

Again, no need for you to go unhinged simply because you have posted the exact same claims under so many different names on forums I also belong to.

I noticed you have yet to address your conflicting claims of being stalked.

you sick twisted dog.

Coming from a person who keeps making contradictory claims, this means a lot.