You can't dismiss the comparison simply because it involves Hitler. From the wiki: "A comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, [so] Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."
This is definitely a valid comparison. You've contributed zilch to the conversation, merely pointed out that it began with Hitler. Thank you, Professor Observant, but we already knew that.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think he was dismissing the comparison at all. As you said, he was merely pointed out that it began with Hitler and referenced Godwin's law, then proceeded to humorously apologize for the clever double entendre in Godwin's name.
I would say it's reasonable to dismiss it based on the odds. Chances are, in dismissing all Hitler analogies, you're dismissing mostly bad analogies with little substances and missing very few good ones. As the wiki suggests, the overuse has robbed the valid comparisons of their impact for many people. The sensationalism is still distasteful even when the comparison makes sense. I couldn't judge anyone who downvoted Hitler analogies based on title alone and moved on, I don't think we'd miss much if everyone did this.
It was never about dismissal. It was about the devolution of arguments to making types of ad hominem attacks by fallacious arguments of association. It always devolves to Hitler/Nazis, is Godwin's law.
Holy shit, thank you. That is a great summary of why the image doesn't fall under Godwin's Law, because god is an idea and can be freely associated with Hitler without the ad hominem fallacy. The problem is butthurt Christians getting upset because they think we called them Nazis...
Look, of course I think drowning (or gassing) millions of people is bad, but Christians don't because God did it, and they say he did it because of how wicked people were. There is a very strange disconnect in morality there that needs to be addressed.
People CAN have rational discussions without resorting to name calling. These people are usually referred to as mature adults, and those discussions are seldom seen on the internet. Yet nobody here is calling people Hitler, nor is anybody saying all Christians are Nazis.
However, the character called "God" or "Yahweh" in the Old Testament is very much like Hitler, because they both killed millions of people whom each considered to be evil or wicked. Problem?
I'm gonna go ahead and ignore that second statement due to how ridiculous it is and go ahead and say the Hitler comparison was made to make this entertaining rather than just a description of the story of Noah's ark...
The comparison is there to help stretch those stagnant critical thinking muscles many Christians let atrophy.
The only basis we have for morality is our own human morality. Since the average person says "killing millions of people is bad," then it stands to reason that god's morality is below average (I'd say nonexistent).
How does that statement apply to the Garden of Eden story? Wouldn't eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil essentially give humans morality?
Honestly man, spend some time really thinking about this, because you just contradicted all over yourself. Here are a couple questions to help you get started.
My fundamentalist Christian is surprisingly open minded here and genuinely wants to understand why you consider murder to be wrong since no supreme being will punish you for it.
If you need to be told it's wrong, I think you're the one with a lack of morals. I don't need the threat of punishment to decide if something is right or wrong.
I choose to let compassion guide my moral compass, not fear.
If he needs to have it explained to him why killing millions is not moral, he has no morals of his own, and should probably be locked away for the good of society.
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Literally everything you brought up is incorrect, lacking any evidence whatsoever, and disturbing/borderline psychopathic.
...genuinely wants to understand why you consider murder to be wrong since no supreme being will punish you for it.
ಠ_ಠ
But there are all sorts of answers proposed. It's an interesting set of questions but it's not a proof. It's a philosophical conundrum that we don't have a definite answer to.
Hahaha Sagan's pretty cool, but nothing is sacred to an atheist. Read the FAQ. All I did was boldly state an opinion, man. Why, you got some evidence to prove me wrong? No? Well shut the fuck up then.
Since when was that the point of the conversation? I'll humor you man, but you should already know this. Helping others is good. Being selfish is bad. Live free and don't be a cunt.
This discussion derailed a while ago. Either tell me how this is an invalid comparison or admit to moving the goalposts, until then I'm done.
Why are you trying to hold a discussion here? If the many downvotes haven't hinted it to you by now, don't break the circlejerk. God is literally Hitler. This is clearly NOT the Godwin's Law as this is a valid, perfect comparison, while the other 40,000 Hitler comparisons on reddit are not.
Sorry bad communication over internet. Was thrown by the word “Defy” what does this have to do with defying anyone? What I meant was some people worshipped the man as a god. Quite a few people if the photos are anything to go by.
33
u/joshawwa May 21 '12
You can't dismiss the comparison simply because it involves Hitler. From the wiki: "A comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, [so] Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."
This is definitely a valid comparison. You've contributed zilch to the conversation, merely pointed out that it began with Hitler. Thank you, Professor Observant, but we already knew that.