Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Oh but there is lots of evidence. I can't help it if you choose to be biased about the evidence you accept.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Anti-Theism in America
- Thread starter GenSeneca
- Start date
Oh but there is lots of evidence. I can't help it if you choose to be biased about the evidence you accept.
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I would assume that you subscribe to the scientific method. The same method that is based on the idea that all the best theories are put forth and then the weakest are disproven leaving the strongest to survive. The whole reason for the null hypothesis is because science never proves it's theories it just disproves the alternatives. So yes if you are going to accept the theory that there is no supernatural of any kind then you need to disprove the alternative - as long as you subscribe to the scientific method.
On the other hand if you are not going to subscribe to the scientific method then you can rely on an even older system of thought called logic. In logic there is no obligation to prove or disprove something. You are free to make either a positive case for something, a negative case for something, a positive case against something, or a negative case against something.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
A very interesting argument against Christianity and its concept of Morality:
Its very hard on Christianity... so I don't expect my Christian friends who watch this to give it much praise... But the concept of morality that's proposed, and how it contrasts with the presented explanation of Christian Morality, is very interesting. Do any Christians feel the author used a straw man argument, or other logical fallacies, when characterizing Christian Morality as the "Morality of Death"? That is to say, purposefully misrepresenting the viewpoint being explained in order to make it sound ridiculous to any rational being.
Now in everyone's opinion... Was the viewpoint expressed, and the tactic suggested for resolving the conflict,Tolerant or Intolerant toward theism?
I found them Tolerant on both accounts but I'm not a theist, so I'll admit my bias and attempt to justify my verdict:
The Author lays out his viewpoint of Morality in another video; A is A and Existence is Identity:
The Morality of Reason:
The Standard of Morality:
"Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward. Life is the reward of Virtue. Happiness is the goal and the reward of Life."
Interesting stuff....
Its very hard on Christianity... so I don't expect my Christian friends who watch this to give it much praise... But the concept of morality that's proposed, and how it contrasts with the presented explanation of Christian Morality, is very interesting. Do any Christians feel the author used a straw man argument, or other logical fallacies, when characterizing Christian Morality as the "Morality of Death"? That is to say, purposefully misrepresenting the viewpoint being explained in order to make it sound ridiculous to any rational being.
Now in everyone's opinion... Was the viewpoint expressed, and the tactic suggested for resolving the conflict,Tolerant or Intolerant toward theism?
I found them Tolerant on both accounts but I'm not a theist, so I'll admit my bias and attempt to justify my verdict:
- The opening starts by saying "we" will never initiate force against others or submit to force by others.
- The tactic proposed is to withdraw from contracts between the two opposing parties and let each one go about living life without interacting with the other - unless its of value.
The Author lays out his viewpoint of Morality in another video; A is A and Existence is Identity:
The Morality of Reason:
Interesting stuff....
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Dr Who, there is not a shred of cfredible evidence for the existence os god. That is why belief in god is described as faith and faith is defined as the belief in that for which you do not have evidence.
The fact that many religious people bang on about beauty and perfection in the world as evidence of god's existence does bot confer any validity on this spurious argument.
I could just as well say actually nature is very violent and highly imperfect so it is evidnce of gad - a vicious malevolent tyrant who I just made up. Like someone did with god a few years ago.
That would have exactly the same argumentative value and it would be equally ridiculous.
If someone could decode Gensenca's pseudo scientific ramblings I would be be very impressed.
The fact that many religious people bang on about beauty and perfection in the world as evidence of god's existence does bot confer any validity on this spurious argument.
I could just as well say actually nature is very violent and highly imperfect so it is evidnce of gad - a vicious malevolent tyrant who I just made up. Like someone did with god a few years ago.
That would have exactly the same argumentative value and it would be equally ridiculous.
If someone could decode Gensenca's pseudo scientific ramblings I would be be very impressed.
Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
Can you explain how DNA is a code, yet no one to create this code? Code screams coder. In order for a code to exist, there has to be an intelligence to create it.
There are thousands of example that God exists, even being played out at this very moment.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
There are none. And the fact that we call something a code does not imply a coder.
These kind of arguments make me laugh.
Religion thrives on unanswered questions and every year science kills off more and more of them.
Obviously religion leaves no questions unanswered er like where did god come from?
Why, given that he is alegedly eternal, did he at some point in eternity, make a universe that would exist for a fleeting second necessitating the creation and murder of a son and the burning in hell of the poor wretches he created but who didn't think the right way?
Now that really does make sense.
Sorry, have to go, my sides are splitting.
These kind of arguments make me laugh.
Religion thrives on unanswered questions and every year science kills off more and more of them.
Obviously religion leaves no questions unanswered er like where did god come from?
Why, given that he is alegedly eternal, did he at some point in eternity, make a universe that would exist for a fleeting second necessitating the creation and murder of a son and the burning in hell of the poor wretches he created but who didn't think the right way?
Now that really does make sense.
Sorry, have to go, my sides are splitting.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
How long are the videos?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
To reasonable people you don't have to add the word 'credible' but you do with Christians because they cite stuff as evidence that has no logical or demonstrable causal connection with god as evidence of his existence.
I only put 'credible' in to show you that I am on to this fallacy
I only put 'credible' in to show you that I am on to this fallacy
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
That is one possibility. Or it is an escape clause that allows you to make circular arguments that whatever evidence you don't like is incredible.
That guy over there claims that he has experienced God. He must be crazy. How do you know he is crazy? Because he says he experienced God. Meanwhile that guy over there claims that he saw a comet that comes around so infrequently that none of the rest of us have seen it. There must be a comet.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Comets are verifiable.
God isn't.
I could see a comet if I wanted too.
I can't see god.
Largely because he doesn't exist.
God isn't.
I could see a comet if I wanted too.
I can't see god.
Largely because he doesn't exist.
You already blew your whole theory my friend.
And I'm even going with your own completely ridiculous "the earth is only 55,000 years old" and not millions pretext. Even just 55,000 years blows your whole Biblical theory and it's time-line by some 45,000 - 49,000 years. And we're not even getting into the dinosaur time-line that Creationist just out of the blue stuck into being on earth interacting with men in Jesus time.
IT'S FICTION! I'm sorry for you but it is. It's the totally made up, total scientifically proven wrong... The Flintstones town of Bedrock.
I gave you my answer very clearly in fact. Things obviously can be perceived as right that are really wrong but human beings have the capacity to learn from these mistakes by simple rational understand over time and evolve into a better society. None of this needs religion to happen in anyway whatsoever.
I could go even further by stating that the guise of religion including Christianity has been used for some just absolutely terrible events in history. Burning women at the stake a "witches" comes to mind.
We should be much more worried about what some weird radical religious sect might do to humanity than what you see as the problem of people just wanting to live their own lives and not be harassed by someone else's personal religious beliefs.
It's too large. I will post it next... once.
You do not have to be "born again" to be a Christian. You do not have to be an Evangelist. And the country would be much worse off if one did. I could easily find things in the Bible... in both & especially the Old Testament (which as you would know Jesus also completely endorsed) that are not considered reasonable by today's standards. Just off the top of my head Polygamy comes to mind but I know I've posted several others in the past.
Hitler's Religion
by Anne Nicol Gaylor
The first legislative hearing I ever attended was in the mid-1960's at the Wisconsin capital, and the subject was the modernization of Wisconsin's birth control law. Wisconsin, the last state in the country to legalize contraceptives for unmarried persons, had a law until 1974 that was hostile to birth control for anyone and denied it to the unmarried, no matter what the circumstances. A fifty-year-old widower, for example, could not legally buy a condom.
Toward the end of the hearing, which had featured calm and reasonable presentations by professional people who supported liberalization of the law and emotional outbursts about morals from clergy and Catholic matrons opposed to change, a frail, elderly man took the podium. He explained that he was an atheist concerned with separation of state and church, and that he regarded the birth control issue as one where the Catholic Church was imposing its doctrine on the state, an observation that resulted in immediate uneasiness among the legislators hearing testimony, especially the Catholic chairperson. The atheist then began a brief summary of the historic problems of state-church entanglement, citing the bloodshed and wars in European history that were religion related. When he referred to religion's role in World War II and Adolf Hitler's Catholicism, the chairman of the committee became enraged, and, in a red-faced frenzy struck his gavel repeatedly until the elderly man tremblingly left the podium.
For some reason, Catholics are not eager to claim Hitler.
Even today, when I refer to Hitler's Catholicism in conversation or a speech, it immediately becomes apparent that I have said something "not quite nice," and I am often challenged. Nontheists, I then explain, know that many modern tyrants, whether petty tyrants such as Richard Nixon, or more successful tyrants such as Hitler, have regarded themselves as exemplary Christians, an estimate their followers had no trouble accepting. Hitler's religiosity -- he was a Catholic until his death -- is often glossed over, but it is critical in understanding his motivation.
I have often reflected, wistfully, on how much happier modern history might have been had Hitler been brought up as an atheist, an agnostic, or, at least, a Unitarian. Born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."
You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."
Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."
In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.
There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.
When Hitler narrowly escaped assassination in Munich in November, 1939, he gave the credit to providence. "Now I am completely content," he exclaimed. "The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence's intention to let me reach my goal." Catholic newspapers throughout the Reich echoed this, declaring that it was a miraculous working of providence that had protected their Fuhrer. One cardinal, Michael Faulhaber, sent a telegram instructing that a Te Deum be sung in the cathedral of Munich, "to thank Divine Providence in the name of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape." The Pope also sent his special personal congratulations!
Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture." Several German bishops openly supported Hitler's invasion of Russia, calling it a "European crusade." One bishop exhorted all Catholics to fight for "a victory that will allow Europe to breathe freely again and will promise all nations a new future."
Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty. Himmler was pleased to murder with mercy. He ordered technical experts to devise gas chambers which would eliminate masses of Jews efficiently and 'humanely,' then crowded the victims into boxcars and sent them east to stay in ghettos until the killing centers in Poland were completed."
Jews, of course, were not the only "holy" victims. In Yugoslavia, Hitler installed a Croatian, Ante Pavelic, as his puppet, and Pavelic, a Catholic like Hitler, began extermination of the Serbs, who were Greek Orthodox. One of my relatives by marriage is a Yugoslavian, a Serb, who survived World War II by going "underground" with the advent of Nazism in his country. Out of his immediate family of 17 (this includes his parents, siblings, aunts, uncles and first cousins), only three survived. His mother and sister just disappeared, his mother shortly after being given the opportunity to convert to Catholicism, an offer she refused. The Vatican was not unaware of the massacres conducted in Yugoslavia in the name of Catholicism, but Pope Pius remained diplomatically quiet. In fact, one of his actions was to receive Ante Pavelic in private audience, thereby giving his blessing to this regime.
War's causes, of course, are complex, but it would be difficult to overestimate the disastrous role religion played in World War II. Distrust, fear and hatred of Jews was a lesson Hitler learned early in life. It was taught by his church and reinforced by his culture. It became his obsession, his version of "the Lord's work." That Hitler, that supreme villain of the 20th century, could see himself, and be seen by others, as "providentially" guided, protected and inspired should certainly serve as an ominous clue to the dangers of religious belief. Just as the Vatican umbrella could be maneuvered to shield the massacres of Serbs by Catholics in Yugoslavia, so can religion validate any behavior, any atrocity, any war.
by Anne Nicol Gaylor
The first legislative hearing I ever attended was in the mid-1960's at the Wisconsin capital, and the subject was the modernization of Wisconsin's birth control law. Wisconsin, the last state in the country to legalize contraceptives for unmarried persons, had a law until 1974 that was hostile to birth control for anyone and denied it to the unmarried, no matter what the circumstances. A fifty-year-old widower, for example, could not legally buy a condom.
Toward the end of the hearing, which had featured calm and reasonable presentations by professional people who supported liberalization of the law and emotional outbursts about morals from clergy and Catholic matrons opposed to change, a frail, elderly man took the podium. He explained that he was an atheist concerned with separation of state and church, and that he regarded the birth control issue as one where the Catholic Church was imposing its doctrine on the state, an observation that resulted in immediate uneasiness among the legislators hearing testimony, especially the Catholic chairperson. The atheist then began a brief summary of the historic problems of state-church entanglement, citing the bloodshed and wars in European history that were religion related. When he referred to religion's role in World War II and Adolf Hitler's Catholicism, the chairman of the committee became enraged, and, in a red-faced frenzy struck his gavel repeatedly until the elderly man tremblingly left the podium.
For some reason, Catholics are not eager to claim Hitler.
Even today, when I refer to Hitler's Catholicism in conversation or a speech, it immediately becomes apparent that I have said something "not quite nice," and I am often challenged. Nontheists, I then explain, know that many modern tyrants, whether petty tyrants such as Richard Nixon, or more successful tyrants such as Hitler, have regarded themselves as exemplary Christians, an estimate their followers had no trouble accepting. Hitler's religiosity -- he was a Catholic until his death -- is often glossed over, but it is critical in understanding his motivation.
I have often reflected, wistfully, on how much happier modern history might have been had Hitler been brought up as an atheist, an agnostic, or, at least, a Unitarian. Born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."
You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."
Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."
In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.
There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.
When Hitler narrowly escaped assassination in Munich in November, 1939, he gave the credit to providence. "Now I am completely content," he exclaimed. "The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence's intention to let me reach my goal." Catholic newspapers throughout the Reich echoed this, declaring that it was a miraculous working of providence that had protected their Fuhrer. One cardinal, Michael Faulhaber, sent a telegram instructing that a Te Deum be sung in the cathedral of Munich, "to thank Divine Providence in the name of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape." The Pope also sent his special personal congratulations!
Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture." Several German bishops openly supported Hitler's invasion of Russia, calling it a "European crusade." One bishop exhorted all Catholics to fight for "a victory that will allow Europe to breathe freely again and will promise all nations a new future."
Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty. Himmler was pleased to murder with mercy. He ordered technical experts to devise gas chambers which would eliminate masses of Jews efficiently and 'humanely,' then crowded the victims into boxcars and sent them east to stay in ghettos until the killing centers in Poland were completed."
Jews, of course, were not the only "holy" victims. In Yugoslavia, Hitler installed a Croatian, Ante Pavelic, as his puppet, and Pavelic, a Catholic like Hitler, began extermination of the Serbs, who were Greek Orthodox. One of my relatives by marriage is a Yugoslavian, a Serb, who survived World War II by going "underground" with the advent of Nazism in his country. Out of his immediate family of 17 (this includes his parents, siblings, aunts, uncles and first cousins), only three survived. His mother and sister just disappeared, his mother shortly after being given the opportunity to convert to Catholicism, an offer she refused. The Vatican was not unaware of the massacres conducted in Yugoslavia in the name of Catholicism, but Pope Pius remained diplomatically quiet. In fact, one of his actions was to receive Ante Pavelic in private audience, thereby giving his blessing to this regime.
War's causes, of course, are complex, but it would be difficult to overestimate the disastrous role religion played in World War II. Distrust, fear and hatred of Jews was a lesson Hitler learned early in life. It was taught by his church and reinforced by his culture. It became his obsession, his version of "the Lord's work." That Hitler, that supreme villain of the 20th century, could see himself, and be seen by others, as "providentially" guided, protected and inspired should certainly serve as an ominous clue to the dangers of religious belief. Just as the Vatican umbrella could be maneuvered to shield the massacres of Serbs by Catholics in Yugoslavia, so can religion validate any behavior, any atrocity, any war.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
And not forgetting that god made the world in the full knowledge of how it would play out.
That means that all the wars and torturing and everything else he foresaw and could have stopped is his fault.
Or it would be if he existed
That means that all the wars and torturing and everything else he foresaw and could have stopped is his fault.
Or it would be if he existed
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
To bad you FAIL to see other figures of modern time as "providentially" guided and inspired by their religion.... Do you know Obama's version?
Hitler was about as Catholic as the rest of you anti-theists... Hitler needed power and the largest voting block in Germany was the Catholics. Just as Obama panders to the 4/5th of the population, lower and middle classes, so it was with Hitler in Germany... Tell them what they want to hear, make them believe you are one of them and when they give you power - Do as you please.
Heil Obama
Rather than pointing the finger toward religious leaders and accusing the flock of being sheep, Hitler sought to buddy up with the religious leaders in order to usurp their power over the flock. That's exactly what he did and once they served his purpose, he had them tossed into concentration camps or executed as enemies to the Reich.
The only religious leaders to survive the purge were ones that agreed to follow Hitlers edicts and philosophy... It was the same for all industries and professions in the 3rd Reich. Hitlers "Catholicism" was a means to an end and not an end in itself. Hitlers real source of evil, was his SOCIALISM, everything he did was said to be for THE GREATER GOOD of his people.
Excerpt from the diary of Joseph Goebbles:
"What does Christianity mean today? National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius, capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack Traditions and Rituals. One day soon, National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My party is my church and I believe I serve the lord best if I do his will and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my Gospel."
Hitler was that religious genius and his religion was National Socialism. He created his very own Nazi traditions and rituals. While they were complete fabrications from the mind of Hitler, Nazi's claimed they were ancient in origin but had been suppressed by the Churches throughout history.
Nazification of the Churches was simple.... Comply or Die and have your Church closed forever. Stubborn religious leaders, who spoke out against this attack on their religion, were enemies of the state and dealt with accordingly. And with the Fascist Dictatorship of Mussolini firmly in power in Italy, the spiritual homeland of Catholicism, the Pope and the Vatican were not in a position to survive an attempt at dissension... much less provide any level of support for Catholics in Germany.
Who did Hitler (The Socialist) choose as a victim for scapegoating the problems faced by the German People? The Jews, their leaders were the made to be the faces of evil. They were responsible for war, for the bad economy, for all the unemployment, for all the ills faced by the rest of the population.
Who does the Left (The Socialist) choose as a victim for scapegoating the problems faced by America? The Republicans, via their demonization of George Bush as pure evil. He is responsible for the war, for the bad economy, for all the unemployment, for all the ills faced by the American population.
Republicans are not made out to be fellow Americans but ghoulish fiends bent on destroying Ameirca. Indeed the Left is even willing to cannibalize their own as Traitors for not following the party line 100% of the time, agreeing with the Right just 1% of the time is totally unacceptable to the party loyalists.
All the while... The LEFT claims its the RIGHT who are Nazi's... and that Hitler was a Catholic.
Similar threads
