Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).
This is a statement from a speech given by the Pope in Great Britain recently.
I find this pretty infuriating... the fact that a world leader can get away with making a statement that is not only irrelevant, but also blatantly unhistorical is ridiculous to me. Especially when there are recorded quotes from Hitler that directly prove it false, such as:
We are convinced that the people need and require faith. We have therefore undertaken to fight against the atheistic movement.
Reductio ad Hitlerium arguments are annoying enough, but when the premise upon which you're making your argument is completely false in the first place, it's just inexcusable.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Hitler's entire movement definitely did not oppose the Pope, in fact the Catholic leader ended up being an ally of the Nazis (too lazy to get source but there is evidence of the Pope helping out Mussolini and the Nazis).
Damn you, religious leaders. Keep religion pure and un-corrupted :[
yes because my atheist scientist parents work for pharmaceutical companies to resurrect the devil and not fight AIDs in 3rd world countries. Although the pills they are giving them do cause a burning sensation...
On September 19 2010 15:47 YoureFired wrote: Hitler's entire movement definitely did not oppose the Pope, in fact the Catholic leader ended up being an ally of the Nazis (too lazy to get source but there is evidence of the Pope helping out Mussolini and the Nazis).
Damn you, religious leaders. Keep religion pure and un-corrupted :[
I don't believe organized religion can be pure. They have the same problems that many organizations have: corruption, greed, lack of transparency, bureaucracy, etc.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Interesting point given the fact that the Church, I'm sure, could make an enormous difference in say building/digging wells, schools, and teaching safe sex in Africa.
Atheist terrorists here we come again to conquer the World!
Or not...
Funny how in most the cases which are relevant there has always been something to replace God, Stalin-Communism, Hitler, Mao...
SOOO! What can we do in the name of our almighty God science? I say nuke the Vatican!! That is the power of a real god, I wish you all the luck with your prayer for survival =)
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Interesting point given the fact that the Church, I'm sure, could make an enormous difference in say building/digging wells, schools, and teaching safe sex in Africa.
you're right, non-religious folk clearly don't know how to use condoms or shovels.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Interesting point given the fact that the Church, I'm sure, could make an enormous difference in say building/digging wells, schools, and teaching safe sex in Africa.
you're right, non-religious folk clearly don't know how to use condoms or shovels.
It's funny how public personas can get away with statements that would get you banned on any respectable message board. Not for inflamatory language, just plain old trolling;
On September 19 2010 16:03 The_Pacifist wrote: Meh. Plenty of world leaders have said stupider and more embrassing things. Why is this any different?
It might be not that much different, but given the million followers of christianity, there are surely enough that will take these words just as truth.
Also, for me personally, it's embarrassing that a German pope, who should know better about the history, decides to put something like that into the world.
On September 19 2010 16:10 stormtemplar wrote: No worries guys, my family used to be catholic. No one listens to the pope. Really this pope is kinda a useless creepy old guy.
Not just "useless" and "creepy", also safe-haven for pedophilic priests, of the particularly harmful kind. He's just generally a horrible, evil human being. I miss the only slightly misinformed days of John Paul II.
If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Interesting point given the fact that the Church, I'm sure, could make an enormous difference in say building/digging wells, schools, and teaching safe sex in Africa.
They do teach safe sex and those other things. Abstinence until marriage is safe sex and its free.
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Speak for yourself.
Humanism, the school of though predominantly responsible for the cultural notion of the intrinsic value of human life, was founded by Atheist and Deist scholars during the enlightenment, and the rebirth of secular thought in the west. Before that, when religion itself dictated human morale, we had the Dark Ages.
Though if you need religion to justify being kind towards other human beings, by my guest. Continue to believe in what you do.
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster.
This has so much fail in it I barely have words.
The pope is the fucking vicor of christ, in contrast to political rhetoric. He should be arrested and locked up for the thousands of continued deaths he has caused in Africa.
A religious leader says that the world would be better if people followed his religion and that mankind would be less without it. I would kind of expect him to believe this...I don't really see what is wrong with it.
He is arguing that without God and belief and whatever, it can lead to, in extreme cases, things such as the Nazi movement. I guess I just don't see what the problem is. He thinks that a world without Christianity would be a bad world, which isn't surprising considering he is the Pope.
Do I agree with him? No but I'm not outraged or anything.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
I find this pretty infuriating... the fact that a world leader can get away with making a statement that is not only irrelevant, but also blatantly unhistorical is ridiculous to me. Especially when there are recorded quotes from Hitler that directly prove it false, such as:
Uhh wait, what? Since when is the pope a world leader? Does anyone see something wrong with this idea?
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Speak for yourself.
Humanism, the school of though predominantly responsible for the cultural notion of the intrinsic value of human life, was founded by Atheist and Deist scholars during the enlightenment, and the rebirth of secular thought in the west. Before that, when religion itself dictated human morale, we had the Dark Ages.
Though if you need religion to justify being kind towards other human beings, by my guest. Continue to believe in what you do.
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
I also have heard the Dark Ages were full of advances and they are thinknig of changing the name from teh Dark Age to something else. Again I don't have sources for any of this but I do know the Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler were atheists and did horrible acts and that abortion has killed more than all the people in all the wars of all time.
Today it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages[6]. However, most modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[7][8]
I find this pretty infuriating... the fact that a world leader can get away with making a statement that is not only irrelevant, but also blatantly unhistorical is ridiculous to me. Especially when there are recorded quotes from Hitler that directly prove it false, such as:
Uhh wait, what? Since when is the pope a world leader? Does anyone see something wrong with this idea?
You do know 1/3 of the population Catholic right? In fact in America, they believe The Church and religion were so powerful they made law against any denomination taking over. Nothing was supposed to control the government. (Might need to extended to corporations/atheism soon).
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative.
Oh snap. You are so right. If only people could be as smart as you. Starting any argument with insults is the best strategy.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
It's just sad that you feel that way. If I as an atheist didn't believe in our species capabilities and in good human nature it would all seem rather pointless I guess.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that.
In case you hadn't noticed our entire world basically condemned those actions and you don't have to thank religion for that. I think you should come visit sweden sometime because what in your mind is a largely secularized nation must be very far from reality.
And we both know religion has been used to carry out atrocities in the past so can we please stop making stupid assumptions that being atheist/jewish/muslim/christian/budhist in itself leads to various crimes against human rights etc.
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Speak for yourself.
Humanism, the school of though predominantly responsible for the cultural notion of the intrinsic value of human life, was founded by Atheist and Deist scholars during the enlightenment, and the rebirth of secular thought in the west. Before that, when religion itself dictated human morale, we had the Dark Ages.
Though if you need religion to justify being kind towards other human beings, by my guest. Continue to believe in what you do.
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
I also have heard the Dark Ages were full of advances and they are thinknig of changing the name from teh Dark Age to something else. Again I don't have sources for any of this but I do know the Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler were atheists and did horrible acts and that abortion has killed more than all the people in all the wars of all time.
Today it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages[6]. However, most modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[7][8]
How the hell can you say something like that, I do value life animals' humans also. I'm very much atheist and I would not without thought just do whatever the hell I want just cause there is no code which say to me not to. So I should be evidence enough against your argument if anything. Just because I'm atheist doesn't mean I have no feelings, all humans do to a more or lesser extent and I'll be damned if there are not billions of religious people with less respect for other people than me. Just because there is no God which dictates the value of life to you doesn't mean you can value life by yourself.
If so why are there animal flocks and Elephants, Dolphins that have saved humans when they were about to die? It's not religion that's for sure, if they were egoists they would just go about their way and spare whatever energy they could have saved doing something else.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I heard Einstein was pretty smart. Newton? A lot of people actually. In fact some monk found out how cells and basic genetics work. Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?). In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is. In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
I'm truly sorry you need religion to justify the value of human life. I really don't know what to say. I'm glad you have a God to believe in then...
I however, as an Atheist, do not feel that way :/. Atheism in general leans away from that direction.
Today it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages[6]. However, most modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[7][8]
This has absolutely no relevance to the discussion on hand. Ok. The "Early-Middle Ages", and through in the Migration Era and pretty much everything since the fall of Rome (A secular nation).
As far as the west is concerned, that 1000 block chunk of time was a time of almost zero social, scientific, or cultural progress.
There are of course, a few small exceptions. Not surprisingly, all these exceptions occurred in areas outside of the influence of the Papacy.
Uh, the Nazis were attempting to "ethnically" cleanse society. Nothing about Hitler or his regime was "Christian" in the slightest. It doesn't matter if he claimed himself as a Christian or attempted to move against the atheist movement, it's all about what the agenda is/was. Whether Hitler said it or not that humanity requires "faith", it's not as if any of his actions showed he was putting faith in God or any other form of moralistic fiber in the world.
The "exclusion" of religion and virtue makes no sense to me seeing as he almost wiped out a race of humanity. The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Either way, it's not a huge deal because our society is in an individualism age where people think "Man can overcome." it's nothing history has not seen before. Shortly after it'll go straight into a reformation age where society is completely reliant on religion and/or God. Sorry but uh, if Leonardo DaVinci can come to the end of his life and figure there must be some form of Creator than not too many other pseudo "intellectuals" are above his train of thought either.
The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Actually it had several.
I heard Einstein was pretty smart. Newton? A lot of people actually. In fact some monk found out how cells and basic genetics work. Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?). In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is. In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
All of those people were either Deist or Agnostic. All of them would have disagree with all of your viewpoints, and indeed, according to your religion, would burn.
If we're going to play the "atheism is dangerous because X, Y, and Z were atheists and killed a lot of people" game, the theists are going to lose bigtime.
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Speak for yourself.
Humanism, the school of though predominantly responsible for the cultural notion of the intrinsic value of human life, was founded by Atheist and Deist scholars during the enlightenment, and the rebirth of secular thought in the west. Before that, when religion itself dictated human morale, we had the Dark Ages.
Though if you need religion to justify being kind towards other human beings, by my guest. Continue to believe in what you do.
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
I also have heard the Dark Ages were full of advances and they are thinknig of changing the name from teh Dark Age to something else. Again I don't have sources for any of this but I do know the Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler were atheists and did horrible acts and that abortion has killed more than all the people in all the wars of all time.
Today it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages[6]. However, most modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[7][8]
How the hell can you say something like that, I do value life animals' humans also. I'm very much atheist and I would not without thought just do whatever the hell I want just cause there is no code which say to me not to. So I should be evidence enough against your argument if anything. Just because I'm atheist doesn't mean I have no feelings, all humans do to a more or lesser extent and I'll be damned if there are not billions of religious people with less respect for other people than me. Just because there is no God which dictates the value of life to you doesn't mean you can value life by yourself.
If so why are there animal flocks and Elephants, Dolphins that have saved humans when they were about to die? It's not religion that's for sure, if they were egoists they would just go about their way and spare whatever energy they could have saved doing something else.
Maybe God did it and its a miracle. Are you happy now? Why would evolution have those animals help humans seems to be the harder question. Don't humans kill and eat most animals? I can think of an answer for your evolution side but lets see if the smart atheist can. Here don't click the spoiler until you have the reason. Its on the honor system so you can lie if you want and I'll never know.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
On September 19 2010 17:11 Half wrote: Show nested quote +
The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Actually it had several.
Ethnic cleansing? No, no it didn't.
Num 7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
Num 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
I'm really not trying to be vindictive against Christians here. Normally in threads where people go around uniformly yelling "ALL RELIGION IS TERRIBAD", I defend the merits of religion. (For instance, thanks to religion, Blitzreig is able to comprehend the value of human life :/)
I'm not even asking you refrain from criticizing Atheism. Criticism can only strengthen any system of belief. But if you want to, please don't do so from a base of ignorance kthx.
I heard Einstein was pretty smart. Newton? A lot of people actually. In fact some monk found out how cells and basic genetics work. Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?). In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is. In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
All of those people were either Deist or Agnostic. All of them would have disagree with all of your viewpoints, and indeed, according to your religion, would burn.
i suggest you read a bit more about Darwin, because you're immensely far off. Darwin was in fact a Christian, as well as Einstein as well as Leonardo DaVinci. All of them referred to God as Creator at some duration of their life.
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
I find these comments wildly entertaining. They actually made me chuckle.
On September 19 2010 17:11 kammeyer wrote: Uh, the Nazis were attempting to "ethnically" cleanse society. Nothing about Hitler or his regime was "Christian" in the slightest. It doesn't matter if he claimed himself as a Christian or attempted to move against the atheist movement, it's all about what the agenda is/was. Whether Hitler said it or not that humanity requires "faith", it's not as if any of his actions showed he was putting faith in God or any other form of moralistic fiber in the world.
The "exclusion" of religion and virtue makes no sense to me seeing as he almost wiped out a race of humanity. The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Either way, it's not a huge deal because our society is in an individualism age where people think "Man can overcome." it's nothing history has not seen before. Shortly after it'll go straight into a reformation age where society is completely reliant on religion and/or God. Sorry but uh, if Leonardo DaVinci can come to the end of his life and figure there must be some form of Creator than not too many other pseudo "intellectuals" are above his train of thought either.
See, clearly you must see how ridiculous it is when religious people claim that atheism influenced hitlers beliefs in any way, because you seem to be a hugely reasonable human being whether or not you believe in a god (which I believe you do). So, we can hopefully find some common ground in the complete unacceptence in blitzkrieger's post on the previous page, which I found to be horribly offensive and uninformed. If I were a mod I would temp ban him to give him a few days to think about the inaccuracies and the generalizations of the things he said.
However in response to your post, Leonardo DaVinci was a highly intellectual, thoughful individual for his time. Unfortunately for him, however, his entire worth of knowledge is easily surpassed by the average college graduate of the modern era. And, considering the fact that 93% of his modern-day in-field colleagues are atheist, I find it hard to doubt that he would also be an athiest if he were alive today and had the same mindset that made him that great scientist of his day.
The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Actually it had several.
I heard Einstein was pretty smart. Newton? A lot of people actually. In fact some monk found out how cells and basic genetics work. Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?). In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is. In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
All of those people were either Deist or Agnostic. All of them would have disagree with all of your viewpoints, and indeed, according to your religion, would burn.
i suggest you read a bit more about Darwin, because you're immensely far off. Darwin was in fact a Christian, as well as Einstein as well as Leonardo DaVinci. All of them referred to God as Creator at some duration of their life.
Einstein referred to "god as creator" in only the most metaphorical of sentiments. However even in those senses, you're only referring to those men because they were great scientists of their times. Well, if you know anything about science you should know that the leading scientists of today have immensely vaster knowledge of the universe than newton, or davinci or even einstien, and 93% of today's scientists are atheists.
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Speak for yourself.
Humanism, the school of though predominantly responsible for the cultural notion of the intrinsic value of human life, was founded by Atheist and Deist scholars during the enlightenment, and the rebirth of secular thought in the west. Before that, when religion itself dictated human morale, we had the Dark Ages.
Though if you need religion to justify being kind towards other human beings, by my guest. Continue to believe in what you do.
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
I also have heard the Dark Ages were full of advances and they are thinknig of changing the name from teh Dark Age to something else. Again I don't have sources for any of this but I do know the Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler were atheists and did horrible acts and that abortion has killed more than all the people in all the wars of all time.
Today it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages[6]. However, most modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[7][8]
That's crap. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. You're assuming in order to have morality you need religion, which has been disproved so many times it's not even funny. It's common knowledge that religion isn't necessary for humans to co-exist in peace. Quite the contrary, religion caused plenty of death and destruction. That's what you get when you have idealistic humans hell-bent on proving each other wrong.
Fact is, all those people you named up there were psychopaths with big dreams and got themselves into positions of power to reach them. Was it wrong? Sure, in the modern sense of morality yes, they definitely were in the wrong (some would disagree, but that's another topic). Would they have done it if they found God? We don't know, as history again shows that plenty of people have killed in the name of God.
How can you be sure that Atheism is the root of their corruption?
On September 19 2010 17:16 kammeyer wrote: i suggest you read a bit more about Darwin, because you're immensely far off. Darwin was in fact a Christian, as well as Einstein as well as Leonardo DaVinci. All of them referred to God as Creator at some duration of their life.
Maybe you need to read a bit more, because Darwin lost his faith in the bible as the word of god and became a self-proclaimed agnostic.
Einstein: "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."
Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
I'm truly sorry you need religion to justify the value of human life. I really don't know what to say. I'm glad you have a God to believe in then...
I however, as an Atheist, do not feel that way :/. Atheism in general leans away from that direction.
Today it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages[6]. However, most modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[7][8]
This has absolutely no relevance to the discussion on hand. Ok. The "Early-Middle Ages", and through in the Migration Era and pretty much everything since the fall of Rome (A secular nation).
As far as the west is concerned, that 1000 block chunk of time was a time of almost zero social, scientific, or cultural progress.
There are of course, a few small exceptions. Not surprisingly, all these exceptions occurred in areas outside of the influence of the Papacy.
I don't disagree the Roman Catholic Church became corrupt and made up a bunch of nonsense not found in scripture. Many ideas Catholicism says are real are not in scripture but made up. I also think their is STILL corrupt as evidenced by the child molestion. But there are still many good Catholics/Priests/Nuns, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
The Earth as center Pope Infallibility Saints Priests forgive sins Purgatory Forgiveness after death Buying forgiveness Worship of Mary Hiding Child Molestation/Homosexuality etc
I can think of more but thats off the top of my head.
The Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin so NO ONE could read it but the Church and they made up a bunch of stuff. Thats why Protestants, aka Martin Luther made it in German and other languages to be spread. The common people never got to read the Bible and it held them in control of the Church. So yes the Roman Catholic Church did stop information INCLUDING the Bible.
Still those people believed in God even if they were Deist/etc. I would say Steven Hawkings but I'm sure anymore but there is a Christian biochemist who sees the order as proof of God... can't remember his name but he argued with Dawkins.
Num 7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
Num 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
I'm really not trying to be vindictive against Christians here. Normally in threads where people go around uniformly yelling "ALL RELIGION IS TERRIBAD", I defend the merits of religion. (For instance, thanks to religion, Blitzreig is able to comprehend the value of human life :/)
I'm not even asking you refrain from criticizing Atheism. Criticism can only strengthen any system of belief. But if you want to, please don't do so from a base of ignorance kthx.
? Did you decide to copy and paste something from Biblegateway.com or wikipedia? It's not a base of ignorance, it's from a base from going to private school for the past 15 years of my life. There was no form of ethnic cleansing in the Bible, ever. Not even in Sadam and Gomorrah was there ethnic cleansing. You'll have to search harder, Half. because not a single time has the Bible ever done something as historically damaging as what Hitler did to the Jewish culture.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
It's common for everyone to always compare whoever they are against to the Nazi's. This never surprises me anymore- in the western world you always compare your enemy to Hitler or Nazi- its pretty standard by now.
Of course whats going on in the Congo for the last 15 years is many times worse than what happened during the Holocaust- but you have to stick with references that people in the west actually know about.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
Secularization is a sure sign of societal advanced technologically, scientifically and philosophically. Seems almost akin to a 14-year old going through puberty.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them..
Are you being serious? There's not one bit of truth to this statement what so ever. Science has historically been held back and restrained for centuries due to various religions. Religion has been one huge obstacle for sciencific progress. Copernicus might have been a religious man, but his books were still being judged as "foolish and absurd in philosophy." All thanks to the bible.
In any case you're looking a lot more aggressive about your beliefs than any atheist in this thread.
On September 19 2010 17:11 Half wrote: Show nested quote +
The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Actually it had several.
Ethnic cleansing? No, no it didn't.
Num 7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
Num 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
I'm really not trying to be vindictive against Christians here. Normally in threads where people go around uniformly yelling "ALL RELIGION IS TERRIBAD", I defend the merits of religion. (For instance, thanks to religion, Blitzreig is able to comprehend the value of human life :/)
I'm not even asking you refrain from criticizing Atheism. Criticism can only strengthen any system of belief. But if you want to, please don't do so from a base of ignorance kthx.
? Did you decide to copy and paste something from Biblegateway.com or wikipedia? It's not a base of ignorance, it's from a base from going to private school for the past 15 years of my life. There was no form of ethnic cleansing in the Bible, ever. Not even in Sadam and Gomorrah was there ethnic cleansing. You'll have to search harder, Half. because not a single time has the Bible ever done something as historically damaging as what Hitler did to the Jewish culture.
Look, are you denying the existence of the quotes? Perhaps you would want to argue the context they were given?
Because those quotes, taken in context, are by definition, an Ethnic cleansing.
Or are you saying that its not an Ethnic cleasing just because they didn't quite get as many people as the Nazis?
it's from a base from going to private school for the past 15 years of my life.
So in other words, your ethos is a high school education in theology in a religious private school.
You'll have to forgive me for not being impressed.
While on the topic of religion... just curious, is following Buddhism as a way to live life but not believe any of the afterlife things atheism?
Anyways, I kind of believe that the pope was a little out of line here. He should know that his words have very much gravity to them and should probably choose his words a little more wisely.
PS- Does it annoy anyone when some christian/catholic/any other religious person approaches you and tries to preach the word of god or whatever religion to you and tries to convince you to convert? Peeves the hell out of me. Sorry. my mind wanders a lot.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
Only Catholics follow the Pope. And there are like 2+ billion Catholics.
I can give many reasons religion and the abuse of scripture can be bad as well.
I can only find ONE reason for doing something good in Atheism (social contract) and thats not even doing good, that is looking for a reward for mutual benefit. Help is only given if it can return some other form of help.
On September 19 2010 17:11 kammeyer wrote: Uh, the Nazis were attempting to "ethnically" cleanse society. Nothing about Hitler or his regime was "Christian" in the slightest. It doesn't matter if he claimed himself as a Christian or attempted to move against the atheist movement, it's all about what the agenda is/was. Whether Hitler said it or not that humanity requires "faith", it's not as if any of his actions showed he was putting faith in God or any other form of moralistic fiber in the world.
The "exclusion" of religion and virtue makes no sense to me seeing as he almost wiped out a race of humanity. The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Either way, it's not a huge deal because our society is in an individualism age where people think "Man can overcome." it's nothing history has not seen before. Shortly after it'll go straight into a reformation age where society is completely reliant on religion and/or God. Sorry but uh, if Leonardo DaVinci can come to the end of his life and figure there must be some form of Creator than not too many other pseudo "intellectuals" are above his train of thought either.
See, clearly you must see how ridiculous it is when religious people claim that atheism influenced hitlers beliefs in any way, because you seem to be a hugely reasonable human being whether or not you believe in a god (which I believe you do). So, we can hopefully find some common ground in the complete unacceptence in blitzkrieger's post on the previous page, which I found to be horribly offensive and uninformed. If I were a mod I would temp ban him to give him a few days to think about the inaccuracies and the generalizations of the things he said.
However in response to your post, Leonardo DaVinci was a highly intellectual, thoughful individual for his time. Unfortunately for him, however, his entire worth of knowledge is easily surpassed by the average college graduate of the modern era. And, considering the fact that 93% of his modern-day in-field colleagues are atheist, I find it hard to doubt that he would also be an athiest if he were alive today and had the same mindset that made him that great scientist of his day.
The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Actually it had several.
I heard Einstein was pretty smart. Newton? A lot of people actually. In fact some monk found out how cells and basic genetics work. Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?). In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is. In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
All of those people were either Deist or Agnostic. All of them would have disagree with all of your viewpoints, and indeed, according to your religion, would burn.
i suggest you read a bit more about Darwin, because you're immensely far off. Darwin was in fact a Christian, as well as Einstein as well as Leonardo DaVinci. All of them referred to God as Creator at some duration of their life.
Einstein referred to "god as creator" in only the most metaphorical of sentiments. However even in those senses, you're only referring to those men because they were great scientists of their times. Well, if you know anything about science you should know that the leading scientists of today have immensely vaster knowledge of the universe than newton, or davinci or even einstien, and 93% of today's scientists are atheists.
That's immensely far off, 93% of scientists today are not atheists in the slightest. I have no idea where you got that figure, but I suggest looking it up again.
Comments like his are the reason that the average Christian is bashed so often. Granted the militant atheists don't make it easy. They forget that the loudest people tend to be the dumbest. A couple idiots are not an accurate representation of a whole people.
Also funny how he thinks it's appropriate to make these statements, considering all the problems the Catholic Church has been facing lately you'd think that he would work more towards appeasing the general populace rather than make inflammatory comments.
edit: Kammeyer where do you come up with these statistics? "93% of scientists are not atheist in the slightest" Atheism is growing, it's becoming more and more popular to state that you don't believe in a God than it is to say that you do.
If you're going to try and defend religion at least do it intelligently rather than blurt out false statistics and opinions.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
Secularization is a sure sign of societal advanced technologically, scientifically and philosophically. Seems almost akin to a 14-year old going through puberty.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them..
Are you being serious? There's not one bit of truth to this statement what so ever. Science has historically been held back and restrained for centuries due to various religions. Religion has been one huge obstacle for sciencific progress. Copernicus might have been a religious man, but his books were still being judged as "foolish and absurd in philosophy." All thanks to the bible.
In any case you're looking a lot more aggressive about your beliefs than any atheist in this thread.
This thread is attacking the Pope and religion. And if explaining why I agree with the Pope is aggressive than so be it. Thats what Christians do, we're salty, world don't like it.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
this and most of your posts in this thread contain the most stupid close minded bullshit I have ever had the misfortune to read. A persons morals arn't dictated by a God or a fucking book they are dictated by the person who chooses to believe in them, theres plenty of Christians out there who say they believe in god and do the exact moral opposite of what the "good book" teaches you.
On September 19 2010 17:11 Half wrote: Show nested quote +
The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Actually it had several.
Ethnic cleansing? No, no it didn't.
Num 7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
Num 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
I'm really not trying to be vindictive against Christians here. Normally in threads where people go around uniformly yelling "ALL RELIGION IS TERRIBAD", I defend the merits of religion. (For instance, thanks to religion, Blitzreig is able to comprehend the value of human life :/)
I'm not even asking you refrain from criticizing Atheism. Criticism can only strengthen any system of belief. But if you want to, please don't do so from a base of ignorance kthx.
? Did you decide to copy and paste something from Biblegateway.com or wikipedia? It's not a base of ignorance, it's from a base from going to private school for the past 15 years of my life. There was no form of ethnic cleansing in the Bible, ever. Not even in Sadam and Gomorrah was there ethnic cleansing. You'll have to search harder, Half. because not a single time has the Bible ever done something as historically damaging as what Hitler did to the Jewish culture.
Look, are you denying the existence of the quotes? Perhaps you would want to argue the context they were given?
Because those quotes, taken in context, are by definition, an Ethnic cleansing.
Or are you saying that its not an Ethnic cleasing just because they didn't quite get as many people as the Nazis?
I'm saying that nearly everyone, including the most radical and insane religious leaders of this world are capable of taking verses out of context and twisting them around for their agenda. It's nothing new, Half. It's actually the same exact thing the original poster is doing. Taking a very simple text and taking it out of context to make it seem belligerent and foolish. You'd have be a damn moron to think that Hitler had any form of Christianity views in him what so ever without being biased towards the dictator. If you truly knew the 10 commandments or anything about the Bible, the entire thing would be a complete fallacy.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
Only Catholics follow the Pope. And there are like 2+ billion Catholics.
I can give many reasons religion and the abuse of scripture can be bad as well.
I can only find ONE reason for doing something good in Atheism (social contract) and thats not even doing good, that is looking for a reward for mutual benefit. Help is only given if it can return some other form of help.
I can't find anything good with the Bible. You're basically out for yourself because then you wouldn't get into Heaven.
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '5% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
Secularization is a sure sign of societal advanced technologically, scientifically and philosophically. Seems almost akin to a 14-year old going through puberty.
On September 19 2010 17:09 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:58 SaDGoWu wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them..
Are you being serious? There's not one bit of truth to this statement what so ever. Science has historically been held back and restrained for centuries due to various religions. Religion has been one huge obstacle for sciencific progress. Copernicus might have been a religious man, but his books were still being judged as "foolish and absurd in philosophy." All thanks to the bible.
In any case you're looking a lot more aggressive about your beliefs than any atheist in this thread.
This thread is attacking the Pope and religion. And if explaining why I agree with the Pope is aggressive than so be it. Thats what Christians do, we're salty, world don't like it.
That's not what all Christians do. You yourself are ignorant and base your warped idea of Atheism on who knows what. You have no sources to back up your claim.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
Secularization is a sure sign of societal advanced technologically, scientifically and philosophically. Seems almost akin to a 14-year old going through puberty.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them..
Are you being serious? There's not one bit of truth to this statement what so ever. Science has historically been held back and restrained for centuries due to various religions. Religion has been one huge obstacle for sciencific progress. Copernicus might have been a religious man, but his books were still being judged as "foolish and absurd in philosophy." All thanks to the bible.
In any case you're looking a lot more aggressive about your beliefs than any atheist in this thread.
People first looked for laws because they believe in order from God. Since God made the universe there had to be undiscovered laws of how thinks work. The empirical science we have today is a direct result of the belief in God. Science believes, without knowing, there are laws and order to be discovered. Again wish I had sources...
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
It strips value from what in your mind is percieved as god and a greater meaning so I can somewhat see how that's upsetting. Still, that doesn't change the fact that we've up to this point never come across anything that's indicating any religions have anything to do with reality. And you don't need to tell me that because I'm atheist I can't value human life or have other things bring meaning to my existence.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
Secularization is a sure sign of societal advanced technologically, scientifically and philosophically. Seems almost akin to a 14-year old going through puberty.
On September 19 2010 17:09 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:58 SaDGoWu wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them..
Are you being serious? There's not one bit of truth to this statement what so ever. Science has historically been held back and restrained for centuries due to various religions. Religion has been one huge obstacle for sciencific progress. Copernicus might have been a religious man, but his books were still being judged as "foolish and absurd in philosophy." All thanks to the bible.
In any case you're looking a lot more aggressive about your beliefs than any atheist in this thread.
People first looked for laws because they believe in order from God. Since God made the universe there had to be undiscovered laws of how thinks work. The empirical science we have today is a direct result of the belief in God. Science believes, without knowing, there are laws and order to be discovered. Again wish I had sources...
Then why has religious institutions so blatantly been working against religion throughout our history and why is it that even today, when most scientists are in fact atheists, we're still making progress and our thirst of knowledge isn't diminishing. I don't understand how you can credit religion for anything to do with science, that's actually disturbing considering the amount of damage religion has caused sciences throughout our history.
Blitzkrieg could you stop fucking telling us how what our own belief is?
I know thats kind of Religions "thing", but not so much for Atheism.
I can only find ONE reason for doing something good in Atheism (social contract) and thats not even doing good, that is looking for a reward for mutual benefit. Help is only given if it can return some other form of help.
See, just because you need to be eternally rewarded for your actions to do something that doesn't reward you (wut), doesn't mean we all need to.
The discrepancy is thinking that most normal Christians claim to be perfect, when in actuality Christianity is a struggle to become whole and closer with God. While they're no better than Atheists, the argument is at least they're trying and recognizing the struggle between human instincts and divinity.
That's the main problem with society and the church today. One group sees nothing wrong with human instincts and the other group is pompous in thinking they're any better than the human instincts of what the general population makes even though the general population sees nothing wrong with there instincts.
That's the entire argument. Hitler's ethnic cleansing and Biblical wars are no where near in the same vicinity as one another. You can argue that until you're blue in the face, it's just unfortunately not the case no matter how much you want to twist Biblical scripture to your heart's desire.
On September 19 2010 17:27 Pioneer wrote: Comments like his are the reason that the average Christian is bashed so often. Granted the militant atheists don't make it easy. They forget that the loudest people tend to be the dumbest. A couple idiots are not an accurate representation of a whole people.
Also funny how he thinks it's appropriate to make these statements, considering all the problems the Catholic Church has been facing lately you'd think that he would work more towards appeasing the general populace rather than make inflammatory comments.
edit: Kammeyer where do you come up with these statistics? "93% of scientists are not atheist in the slightest" Atheism is growing, it's becoming more and more popular to state that you don't believe in a God than it is to say that you do.
If you're going to try and defend religion at least do it intelligently rather than blurt out false statistics and opinions.
Hi, uh, someone blurted out that statistic before me. It works both ways, champ. 93% of scientists are atheists is nowhere near the case. It's not even remotely close.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
Secularization is a sure sign of societal advanced technologically, scientifically and philosophically. Seems almost akin to a 14-year old going through puberty.
On September 19 2010 17:09 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:58 SaDGoWu wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them..
Are you being serious? There's not one bit of truth to this statement what so ever. Science has historically been held back and restrained for centuries due to various religions. Religion has been one huge obstacle for sciencific progress. Copernicus might have been a religious man, but his books were still being judged as "foolish and absurd in philosophy." All thanks to the bible.
In any case you're looking a lot more aggressive about your beliefs than any atheist in this thread.
People first looked for laws because they believe in order from God. Since God made the universe there had to be undiscovered laws of how thinks work. The empirical science we have today is a direct result of the belief in God. Science believes, without knowing, there are laws and order to be discovered. Again wish I had sources...
On September 19 2010 17:16 kammeyer wrote: i suggest you read a bit more about Darwin, because you're immensely far off. Darwin was in fact a Christian, as well as Einstein as well as Leonardo DaVinci. All of them referred to God as Creator at some duration of their life.
Maybe you need to read a bit more, because Darwin lost his faith in the bible as the word of god and became a self-proclaimed agnostic.
Einstein: "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."
Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
Lol, Darwin lost his faith because his daughter died - nothing more, nothing less.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
Also, that definition of Evolution obviously does not encompass the whole idea of it. You're taking the barest slice of the theory of Evolution and warping it to your own twisted beliefs. Where in that definition does it say "lack of morality"?
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
Thats just worshiping Charles Darwin lol. The fact that you believe this to be true, or even remotely plausible, just goes to show the huge rift between a religious and a secular value system.
Evolution does not have goals. Goals imply agency. Evolution is the statistical description of a trend in complex structures. As an Agent entity, why would I live my life according to a statistic? That is literally absurd. An Analogy would be if I told you Americans have an average of 2.3 children, and you interpreted that as America forces you to have two children and a disembodied fetus head.
I, for one, can't believe that people still actually seriously cling to these arcane religions. It really amazes me. You REALLY gotta have the blinders on to think that the world written about in the Bible is the world we actually live in.
These "Christian" type people seriously overestimate their importance and don't realize they are just a tiny whisper in time. Like the hundreds of silly religions that preceded them. In 5000 years Christians will be seen as we see Egyptian religion now. Or Roman gods, or ancient Greek gods. Just a bunch of mystical rigmarole slapped together to justify power systems.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
*cough* *cough* The Pope is the leader of the catholic faith, thank you very much. He has nothing to do with Christianity.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
than how are you going to use evolution as a rebuttal to this when you used evolution to coincide with your beliefs for the dolphins. Clearly something doesn't make sense here.
On September 19 2010 17:27 Pioneer wrote: Comments like his are the reason that the average Christian is bashed so often. Granted the militant atheists don't make it easy. They forget that the loudest people tend to be the dumbest. A couple idiots are not an accurate representation of a whole people.
Also funny how he thinks it's appropriate to make these statements, considering all the problems the Catholic Church has been facing lately you'd think that he would work more towards appeasing the general populace rather than make inflammatory comments.
edit: Kammeyer where do you come up with these statistics? "93% of scientists are not atheist in the slightest" Atheism is growing, it's becoming more and more popular to state that you don't believe in a God than it is to say that you do.
If you're going to try and defend religion at least do it intelligently rather than blurt out false statistics and opinions.
Its not the job of ANY Christian regardless of denomination to fall in line with public opinion or be liked. In fact if the world loves you and accepts you then you are failing as a Christian. Your job is to
A) Have faith B1) Spread faith B2) Try to emulate Jesus (and fail miserably I might add)
Public opinion changes from day to day. I'm going to say something and you must keep a straight face. Are you ready.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
Thats just worshiping Charles Darwin lol. The fact that you believe this to be true, or even remotely plausible, just goes to show the huge rift between a religious and a secular value system.
Evolution does not have goals. Goals imply agency. Evolution is the statistical description of a trend in complex structures. As an Agent entity, why would I live my life according to a statistic? That is literally absurd. An Analogy would be if I told you Americans have an average of 2.3 children, and you interpreted that as America forces you to have two children and a disembodied fetus head.
I know it doesn't have goals or think. Thank you for that. I should have said Operation.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
*cough* *cough* The Pope is the leader of the catholic faith, thank you very much. He has nothing to do with Christianity.
Catholicism is a type of Christianity so he does but its not to the whole Christian faith
The argument of "the population of Atheists is growing so much everyday!" It doesn't matter, man. It's like no one understands that it's not any different than the course of history. The time of Renaissance was no different. People thought they could overcome and they spent tons of times believing so and studying science and thinking they could overcome religion.
And then? The reformation came. It's no different. Society will take the same exact course within the next 50+ years. People will go RIGHT back to the time of reformation and people will start confiding in religion once again. to the comment of "Scientists now surpass Da Vinci and any other scientist of that time." The only reason they ever began to surpass those scientists is because of the information they gave to pass on. Even after passing on that information, they continued to (at the end of the their life) believe in some form of Creator. I really could not care less about the argument of science versus religion. Everything in the Universe we see is so old that it's nearly impossible to even begin to give a shit about about what any scientist has to say.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
*cough* *cough* The Pope is the leader of the catholic faith, thank you very much. He has nothing to do with Christianity.
Catholicism is a type of Christianity so he does but its not to the whole Christian faith
Warning: European humor may be a TOTAL waste of time on these boards.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
*cough* *cough* The Pope is the leader of the catholic faith, thank you very much. He has nothing to do with Christianity.
Catholicism is a type of Christianity so he does but its not to the whole Christian faith
Warning: European humor may be a TOTAL waste of time on these boards.
who knows I may be romanian
I don't know why I get involved in these threads defenders of them are generally close minded and confrontational in any sense to defend what they believe (which isn't terrible they just can't say they have lost or let others think they have lost so they fight pointlessly onward.) and the basher's have modern society on their side for the most part so its like a giant why not there's debatably more literal evidence for them anyway
On September 19 2010 17:39 cursor wrote: I, for one, can't believe that people still actually seriously cling to these arcane religions. It really amazes me. You REALLY gotta have the blinders on to think that the world written about in the Bible is the world we actually live in.
These "Christian" type people seriously overestimate their importance and don't realize they are just a tiny whisper in time. Like the hundreds of silly religions that preceded them. In 5000 years Christians will be seen as we see Egyptian religion now. Or Roman gods, or ancient Greek gods. Just a bunch of mystical rigmarole slapped together to justify power systems.
That's why Judaism has been around for nearly 7,000 years, right? because it's going to slowly drift off into time like Greek Mythology, correct? Take your head out of your ass, it'll help the discussion greatly.
Lol, Darwin lost his faith because his daughter died - nothing more, nothing less.
Did god tell you this?
lol.
Comments like his are the reason that the average Christian is bashed so often. Granted the militant atheists don't make it easy. They forget that the loudest people tend to be the dumbest. A couple idiots are not an accurate representation of a whole people.
Theists like you are why I haven't joined the "Down with religion bandwagon" :/.
Religion, on an individual and communal level, can be a powerful force of self improvement, self realization, and other positive effects. The issue is, due to its power, it lends itself to being easily manipulated, or distorted for private gain, unless used in conjunction with "Secular rationale".
I know it doesn't have goals or think. Thank you for that. I should have said Operation.
Your analogy sucks.
I'm actually aware that you didn't mean goals, but the funny part is you still think as if it had goals.
How can you apply a statistical trend and then say "THIS IS HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE"? What kind of reasoning is that.
Name a single atrocious act that an atheist will commit that a religious person would not. Hint you can't. Yet there are many terrible things that a religious person will do in the name of religion that an atheist has no motivation for. Eg: inquisition, genital mutilation, suicide bombing.
Religion provides justifications to atrocious acts whilst non-theism does no such thing.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
Only Catholics follow the Pope. And there are like 2+ billion Catholics.
I can give many reasons religion and the abuse of scripture can be bad as well.
I can only find ONE reason for doing something good in Atheism (social contract) and thats not even doing good, that is looking for a reward for mutual benefit. Help is only given if it can return some other form of help.
I can't find anything good with the Bible. You're basically out for yourself because then you wouldn't get into Heaven.
See what I did there?
You can't find anything good in the Bible at all? What about not murdering people? Oh wait that is ok because you are an atheist. So actually you wouldn't find anything because there are no values. Be fruitful and multiply is probably the only thing an atheist can agree with.
If you are being a Christian simply for a reward you don't get it, thats how atheists think though. You are supposed to love God and man and your faith gets you there. If you were trying to go to heaven for rewards only then you basically forfeit your ticket. Protestantism is about intentions.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
On September 19 2010 17:11 Half wrote: Show nested quote +
The Holy Bible may have wars, but they don't have any form of ethnic cleansing due to hair/eye color/religion.
Actually it had several.
Ethnic cleansing? No, no it didn't.
Num 7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
Num 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
I'm really not trying to be vindictive against Christians here. Normally in threads where people go around uniformly yelling "ALL RELIGION IS TERRIBAD", I defend the merits of religion. (For instance, thanks to religion, Blitzreig is able to comprehend the value of human life :/)
I'm not even asking you refrain from criticizing Atheism. Criticism can only strengthen any system of belief. But if you want to, please don't do so from a base of ignorance kthx.
? Did you decide to copy and paste something from Biblegateway.com or wikipedia? It's not a base of ignorance, it's from a base from going to private school for the past 15 years of my life. There was no form of ethnic cleansing in the Bible, ever. Not even in Sadam and Gomorrah was there ethnic cleansing. You'll have to search harder, Half. because not a single time has the Bible ever done something as historically damaging as what Hitler did to the Jewish culture.
Look, are you denying the existence of the quotes? Perhaps you would want to argue the context they were given?
Because those quotes, taken in context, are by definition, an Ethnic cleansing.
Or are you saying that its not an Ethnic cleasing just because they didn't quite get as many people as the Nazis?
it's from a base from going to private school for the past 15 years of my life.
So in other words, your ethos is a high school education in theology in a religious private school.
You'll have to forgive me for not being impressed.
Negative, University education in theology. It's not an ethnic cleansing because it goes no where near the same degree of what Hitler did. You can try to twist it how you please, it's no where near the same. It's a boring argument, Half. It really is, can you try something else to compare Hitler to the Bible? because you're far off that it's putting me to sleep at 3:46am.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
Secularization is a sure sign of societal advanced technologically, scientifically and philosophically. Seems almost akin to a 14-year old going through puberty.
On September 19 2010 17:09 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:58 SaDGoWu wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them..
Are you being serious? There's not one bit of truth to this statement what so ever. Science has historically been held back and restrained for centuries due to various religions. Religion has been one huge obstacle for sciencific progress. Copernicus might have been a religious man, but his books were still being judged as "foolish and absurd in philosophy." All thanks to the bible.
In any case you're looking a lot more aggressive about your beliefs than any atheist in this thread.
People first looked for laws because they believe in order from God. Since God made the universe there had to be undiscovered laws of how thinks work. The empirical science we have today is a direct result of the belief in God. Science believes, without knowing, there are laws and order to be discovered. Again wish I had sources...
Law and order predates the "discovery" of God.
Natural Laws, as in nature. Christians believe God made law for humans.
On September 19 2010 17:26 wesleyq wrote: While on the topic of religion... just curious, is following Buddhism as a way to live life but not believe any of the afterlife things atheism?
Atheism is plain and simply the lack of belief in any deities. People have proposed the existence of gods, whether they be Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Ra, or so on. An atheist has not been convinced that any of those proposed gods are real.
Nothing else is required or disallowed to be called an atheist. Many atheists strive to be scientifically literate and skeptical, others couldn't care less about science or reality. A person could believe in ghosts or fairies or unicorns or any other silly and irrational superstitions, and still not believe in a god.
There is nothing in Buddhism that speaks to the existence of a god. Some Buddhists believe in gods, while others do not and can be called atheists. Hope that answers your question.
Ya about Morals. They are learned from your parents. Right and wrong. It has more to do with Empathy for other humans and is more GENUINE when it is as such.
Just not doing something because "I'm afraid I'll go to hell" is the wrong reason to be good.
You get your morals from your parents. They tell you when what you do is right or wrong. Atheist or no, good parenting or no, that's where you get it from.
Lastly, to proclaim that religion has some how prevented more deaths than it has caused- with morals- vs its justification for wars- is a pretty silly argument for it.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
Are you to tell me that without religion or god, you would not have empathy for fellow human beings? That you would not like others to do to you as you to them? Religion -> Human morality? REDONKULOUS PROPOSITION.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
Only Catholics follow the Pope. And there are like 2+ billion Catholics.
I can give many reasons religion and the abuse of scripture can be bad as well.
I can only find ONE reason for doing something good in Atheism (social contract) and thats not even doing good, that is looking for a reward for mutual benefit. Help is only given if it can return some other form of help.
I can't find anything good with the Bible. You're basically out for yourself because then you wouldn't get into Heaven.
See what I did there?
You can't find anything good in the Bible at all? What about not murdering people? Oh wait that is ok because you are an atheist. So actually you wouldn't find anything because there are no values. Be fruitful and multiply is probably the only thing an atheist can agree with.
If you are being a Christian simply for a reward you don't get it, thats how atheists think though. You are supposed to love God and man and your faith gets you there. If you were trying to go to heaven for rewards only then you basically forfeit your ticket. Protestantism is about intentions.
It's hard to find a passage about murder when your entire old testament tells of rape and death.
If you think Atheism comes with a lack of morals, you're just thinking like a typical Religious nutjob, who can't think for themselves and needs a book to tell them how to live their life.
On September 19 2010 17:27 Pioneer wrote: Comments like his are the reason that the average Christian is bashed so often. Granted the militant atheists don't make it easy. They forget that the loudest people tend to be the dumbest. A couple idiots are not an accurate representation of a whole people.
Also funny how he thinks it's appropriate to make these statements, considering all the problems the Catholic Church has been facing lately you'd think that he would work more towards appeasing the general populace rather than make inflammatory comments.
edit: Kammeyer where do you come up with these statistics? "93% of scientists are not atheist in the slightest" Atheism is growing, it's becoming more and more popular to state that you don't believe in a God than it is to say that you do.
If you're going to try and defend religion at least do it intelligently rather than blurt out false statistics and opinions.
Hi, uh, someone blurted out that statistic before me. It works both ways, champ. 93% of scientists are atheists is nowhere near the case. It's not even remotely close.
Why would you use the statistic if you weren't sure about it. Also where did I state that 93% of scientists are atheists?
You're either a troll or a blithering idiot. Either way don't presume to talk down to me. Champ.
Negative, University education in theology. It's not an ethnic cleansing because it goes no where near the same degree of what Hitler did. You can try to twist it how you please, it's no where near the same. It's a boring argument, Half. It really is, can you try something else to compare Hitler to the Bible? because you're far off that it's putting me to sleep at 3:46am.
So your argument for why it isn't Ethnic cleansing is that they didn't kill as many people.
I don't know what to say to that. So if I killed every single Black person in detroit, it wouldn't be an ethnic cleansing because it was just detroit?
What the fuck is wrong with you.
Lastly, to proclaim that religion has some how prevented more deaths than it has caused- with morals- vs its justification for wars- is a pretty silly argument for it.
Religion doesn't cause deaths. People cause deaths. Religion exists because people want it, and some people need it. Its just the fulfillment of a natural demand. People will prefer delusion to despair.
Atheism is a natural state. People are born Atheists. Given an atmosphere of intellectual fulfillment and security, they will remain Atheists.
Hmm... to the above posters taking offence to my apparent arrogance, first off it wouldn't exactly be accurate to call Albert Einstein a religious person, nor Isaac Newton either for that matter, not that it matters at all really. If you have some time on your hands you should probably read some of the work of these populist genius's. And to be quite honest for the most part I've been disappointed.
In all honesty I only allowed myself to be drawn into this very very boring argument because i was extremely bored at the time. Here is the premise of the OP, Pope is a leader of a major religion. Pope claims to receive divine revelation for god. Pope says something that evidence suggest is overwhelmingly untrue in order to support his church's doctrine. Anything wrong with this picture?
What may appear as a low level assumption to you is as simple as 1+1 to me, and don't bother insulting my intelligence directly it's common, boring, and uninteresting, instead try to prove why your right.
Comments like his are the reason that the average Christian is bashed so often. Granted the militant atheists don't make it easy. They forget that the loudest people tend to be the dumbest. A couple idiots are not an accurate representation of a whole people.
Theists like you are why I haven't joined the "Down with religion bandwagon" :/.
Religion, on an individual and communal level, can be a powerful force of self improvement, self realization, and other positive effects. The issue is, due to its power, it lends itself to being easily manipulated, or distorted for private gain, unless used in conjunction with "Secular rationale".
I know it doesn't have goals or think. Thank you for that. I should have said Operation.
Your analogy sucks.
I'm actually aware that you didn't mean goals, but the funny part is you still think as if it had goals.
How can you apply a statistical trend and then say "THIS IS HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE"? What kind of reasoning is that.
Uh, no. Lol. It's actually recorded in multiple documentaries about Darwin especially due to the hardships him and his wife had due to the disagreements. He lost his daughter and reconsidered his faith. Nothing more, nothing less. It's in multiple books and documentaries.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
*cough* *cough* The Pope is the leader of the catholic faith, thank you very much. He has nothing to do with Christianity.
Catholicism is a type of Christianity so he does but its not to the whole Christian faith
Catholicism predates christianity, so you should go back to school.
Negative, University education in theology. It's not an ethnic cleansing because it goes no where near the same degree of what Hitler did. You can try to twist it how you please, it's no where near the same. It's a boring argument, Half. It really is, can you try something else to compare Hitler to the Bible? because you're far off that it's putting me to sleep at 3:46am.
So your argument for why it isn't Ethnic cleansing is that they didn't kill as many people.
I don't know what to say to that. So if I killed every single Black person in detroit, it wouldn't be an ethnic cleansing because it was just detroit?
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You're clearly unaware of what ethnic cleansing is. You're comparing killing every black person in Detroit to killing off nearly an entire ethnicity in Israel? Are you retarded?
Lol, Darwin lost his faith because his daughter died - nothing more, nothing less.
Did god tell you this?
lol.
Comments like his are the reason that the average Christian is bashed so often. Granted the militant atheists don't make it easy. They forget that the loudest people tend to be the dumbest. A couple idiots are not an accurate representation of a whole people.
Theists like you are why I haven't joined the "Down with religion bandwagon" :/.
Religion, on an individual and communal level, can be a powerful force of self improvement, self realization, and other positive effects. The issue is, due to its power, it lends itself to being easily manipulated, or distorted for private gain, unless used in conjunction with "Secular rationale".
I know it doesn't have goals or think. Thank you for that. I should have said Operation.
Your analogy sucks.
I'm actually aware that you didn't mean goals, but the funny part is you still think as if it had goals.
How can you apply a statistical trend and then say "THIS IS HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE"? What kind of reasoning is that.
Uh, no. Lol. It's actually recorded in multiple documentaries about Darwin especially due to the hardships him and his wife had due to the disagreements. He lost his daughter and reconsidered his faith. Nothing more, nothing less. It's in multiple books and documentaries.
LMFAO, there is no documented report that even implies that Darwin started questioning his faith because of the death of his daughter. Do a little research and come back with your tail between your legs please.
I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Uh, no. Lol. It's actually recorded in multiple documentaries about Darwin especially due to the hardships him and his wife had due to the disagreements. He lost his daughter and reconsidered his faith. Nothing more, nothing less. It's in multiple books and documentaries.
I was kind of being facetious. My point is its entirely silly to marginalize a persons religious beliefs like that. You don't know what he was thinking, I'm assuming.
If someone decided to believe in god because their daughter didn't die, you would think that would be more significant right? Yet if they converted to Atheism because there daughter died, there thought process is marginalized.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
Lol, Darwin lost his faith because his daughter died - nothing more, nothing less.
Did god tell you this?
lol.
Comments like his are the reason that the average Christian is bashed so often. Granted the militant atheists don't make it easy. They forget that the loudest people tend to be the dumbest. A couple idiots are not an accurate representation of a whole people.
Theists like you are why I haven't joined the "Down with religion bandwagon" :/.
Religion, on an individual and communal level, can be a powerful force of self improvement, self realization, and other positive effects. The issue is, due to its power, it lends itself to being easily manipulated, or distorted for private gain, unless used in conjunction with "Secular rationale".
I know it doesn't have goals or think. Thank you for that. I should have said Operation.
Your analogy sucks.
I'm actually aware that you didn't mean goals, but the funny part is you still think as if it had goals.
How can you apply a statistical trend and then say "THIS IS HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE"? What kind of reasoning is that.
Uh, no. Lol. It's actually recorded in multiple documentaries about Darwin especially due to the hardships him and his wife had due to the disagreements. He lost his daughter and reconsidered his faith. Nothing more, nothing less. It's in multiple books and documentaries.
LMFAO, there is no documented report that even implies that Darwin started questioning his faith because of the death of his daughter. Do a little research and come back with your tail between your legs please.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
You base your reasoning on the assumption that there is no other way to moral behavior than religion. This is the point where you are wrong. Moral behavior is possible without religion. Here is a few reasons why:
1. Philosophy. A lot of philosophers concerned with moral ethics tried to determine what is good and what is bad without ever relating to religion. Immanuel Kant is the best example. He basically said what Jesus said but totally detached it from the existance (and believe in) a higher force.
2. Moral Imprinting. Science tells us that we acquire moral standards by imprinting of our societal sourroundings. If a society is based on chritian ethics, the society will most likely feel bound by these ethics even if people do not actively believe in a god/higher power - ethical behavior is detached from religious believes
3. You basically assume that people will not do good things if they are not forced into it by the fear of eternal punishmeht (i.e. hell). I do not want to speculate about where you get this idea but its truly saddening. I would like to disagree with that and take it one step further: Atheists do moral ethics because they intrinsically believe them to be good/right. They do not need to be coerced into ethics with fear/threats - hence an atheist behaving ethically is morally superior to a bliever the way you understand them.
Imagine a person who does good things not because there is a reward in for them (heaven/paradise) and who refrains from doing bad stuff not because of fear of punishmeht (hell) but merely because is the moral way to behave. Who do you think is morally more evolved?
On September 19 2010 17:39 cursor wrote: I, for one, can't believe that people still actually seriously cling to these arcane religions. It really amazes me. You REALLY gotta have the blinders on to think that the world written about in the Bible is the world we actually live in.
These "Christian" type people seriously overestimate their importance and don't realize they are just a tiny whisper in time. Like the hundreds of silly religions that preceded them. In 5000 years Christians will be seen as we see Egyptian religion now. Or Roman gods, or ancient Greek gods. Just a bunch of mystical rigmarole slapped together to justify power systems.
I'm not religious at all but I hate it when people think they are on some higher plane of intelligence because they have gotten past the "god belief" or whatever. You are not better than "these "Christian" type people."
Uh, no. Lol. It's actually recorded in multiple documentaries about Darwin especially due to the hardships him and his wife had due to the disagreements. He lost his daughter and reconsidered his faith. Nothing more, nothing less. It's in multiple books and documentaries.
I was kind of being facetious. My point is its entirely silly to marginalize a persons religious beliefs like that. You don't know what he was thinking, I'm assuming.
If someone decided to belief in god because their daughter didn't die, you would think that would be more significant right? Yet if they converted to Atheism because there daughter died, there thought process is marginalized.
If someone decided to belief in god because their daughter didn't die
You're going to have to type sentences more clearly at 4am, I'm too tired to decipher what you're trying to say.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
Your whole premise is wrong. You're looking at atheists and say that because we do not believe in a higher power than ourselves, we would turn on all morale and become an anarchistic society where everyone just does as they wish. If there is no God to account to, you have to account for all the actions you are doing yourself. You're not left with "nothing", you're left with the realization that you're the only one accountable for what you're doing, no one else. I am fairly certain that you know at least a bit of philosophy? I do concur with you that humans do things mostly for their own gain, which is a philosophical theory called utilitarianism (Even though there are probably many atheists that would argue different) but that would not necessarily lead to a world that is worse than now. Most humans do want to live in Peace, and having no God above you doesn't change that. It is not that because I do not believe in God, suddenly I want to rape women or kill people or have a bad morale. Of course the church and even the religions themselves are instilling thoughts like that the world would fall into anarchy into their followers, given that it is necessary to keep them. For the church to prevail it has to have some kind of use for the humans (you see, even religious people use this) Now if you take away the life after death and salvation (things we cannot prove or disprove) then what is there left that the church can bring you? It's only the promise that everything would go worse if people were atheists, where it probably would either stay the same, or become only better. Most of the major conflicts in this world have had and still have religion as their basis. In this way, religion probably leads to more man-made death than anything else. People die and kill for "their God" for as long as we can think of religion, and you're saying Atheism would be worse?
I am in no way saying that the world suddenly would turn peaceful when everyone would be an atheist, but I do believe that it would not be worse than it is now, I think it could be even better.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
On September 19 2010 17:39 cursor wrote: I, for one, can't believe that people still actually seriously cling to these arcane religions. It really amazes me. You REALLY gotta have the blinders on to think that the world written about in the Bible is the world we actually live in.
These "Christian" type people seriously overestimate their importance and don't realize they are just a tiny whisper in time. Like the hundreds of silly religions that preceded them. In 5000 years Christians will be seen as we see Egyptian religion now. Or Roman gods, or ancient Greek gods. Just a bunch of mystical rigmarole slapped together to justify power systems.
I'm not religious at all but I hate it when people think they are on some higher plane of intelligence because they have gotten past the "god belief" or whatever. You are not better than "these "Christian" type people."
After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Blitzkreiger is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in religion is because you have morals in the first place. Morlas dont come from religion. Religion comes from morals.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
Are you to tell me that without religion or god, you would not have empathy for fellow human beings? That you would not like others to do to you as you to them? Religion -> Human morality? REDONKULOUS PROPOSITION.
I would feel much less and any amount that I did feel would be pre-determined by genetics/biology/etc to follow the social contract which human beings benefit from because I benefit, not because I am good.
God -> Morality
ugh... so many posts... good thing I drank so much coffee...
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I'm not sure that's something I could easily explain to you if you can't grasp it on your own, but I'll give it a shot.
First of all compassion is something very real and while it sure as hell doesn't show in all aspects of our world I do believe it exists. Then there's tribalism in various forms (religion, patriotism, and even family) that in a way hinders true compassion for our species. If you look at the origins of our species, many things indicate that even at the very beginning there was a form of compassion between members within different tribes. Some studies have found evidence that humans born with large deficits have lived relatively long lives in prehistoric times, which is staggering because it wouldn't be possible unless parents and other members of the same tribe gave a large bit of attention and care to those individuals.
If we fast-forward a couple of thousand years, tribalism has in a way extended and a lot of people are suddenly compassionate toward members of different sort of groups such as citizens of a nation, religious groups etcetera. In my mind the next step seems very obvious in that with time, people will be able to be compassionate toward our species as a whole.
There are even studies about compassion in monkeys, check this out. + Show Spoiler +
Imagine an experiment where you have some monkeys in a cage. There are two chains. Chain A will provide a large quantity of food for the monkeys. Chain B will provide a small quantity of food. Next the experimenters set it up so that pulling chain A will also give an electric shock to another monkey in another cage. The monkeys can see each other. And in particular the monkeys sees the pain of the shocked monkey. It is easy formulate the conclusion, even for a monkey, that pulling on the chain that gives the large food reward will result in pain for another monkey.
Now the question is whether the monkeys will continue to pull on the chain A to get the large food reward or will the monkeys be sensitive to the other monkey's pain. What is your guess?
The result as published in a paper by Stephenie Preston of University of California at Berkeley and Frans de Waal of Emory University showed that the monkeys no longer pulled on chain A which administers the shock. Two-thirds of the monkey will only pull on chain B which does not administer any shock. And the remaining third will not pull on any chain for as long as 5 days. There was one monkey that refused to pull on either chain for as long as 12 days. Quoting from the paper: "These monkeys were literally starving themselves to prevent the shock to the conspecific." This indicates that monkeys exhibit empathy, and some can say compassion, and other say altruism. Whatever term you call it, it is clear that even in primate monkeys, an individual is able to relate to the pain of another individual and will make decisions that will reduce the other's pain.
I find this infinitely more amazing than anything I read in the bible (yeah I read it.)
I am in no way saying that the world suddenly would turn peaceful when everyone would be an atheist, but I do believe that it would not be worse than it is now, I think it could be even better.
I think it would too, but I think your mistaking cause with effect.
The world will not be better when Religion stops existing. Religion will stop existing once the world gets better.
History has proven this to be a trend. Secularism and Social prosperity have coincided with each other with pinpoint accuracy in the Eastern and Western world.
I would feel much less and any amount that I did feel would be pre-determined by genetics/biology/etc to follow the social contract which human beings benefit from because I benefit, not because I am good.
You still haven't got it. Atheists do not worship encoded data, statistical trends, etc, any more then Gamaliel worshiped the sun. Why would I be predetermined by trends? Good is a relative value that exists between humans. So yes, you are "good".
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
than how are you going to use evolution as a rebuttal to this when you used evolution to coincide with your beliefs for the dolphins. Clearly something doesn't make sense here.
I am showing you that I understand Evolution in the most basic sense (as in no degree). I have books written by Steven Hawkings about the Universe and find very much interest in space, time, matter, etc.
For most things I can give you both an atheist/humanist answer and a Christian/religious answer. People think most Christians/religious people are idiots who don't understand anything.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I'm not sure that's something I could easily explain to you if you can't grasp it on your own, but I'll give it a shot.
First of all compassion is something very real and while it sure as hell doesn't show in all aspects of our world I do believe it exists. Then there's tribalism in various forms (religion, patriotism, and even family) that in a way hinders true compassion for our species. If you look at the origins of our species, many things indicate that even at the very beginning there was a form of compassion between members within different tribes. Some studies have found evidence that humans born with large deficits have lived relatively long lives in prehistoric times, which is staggering because it wouldn't be possible unless parents and other members of the same tribe gave a large bit of attention and care to those individuals.
If we fast-forward a couple of thousand years, tribalism has in a way extended and a lot of people are suddenly compassionate toward members of different sort of groups such as citizens of a nation, religious groups etcetera. In my mind the next step seems very obvious in that with time, people will be able to be compassionate toward our species as a whole.
There are even studies about compassion in monkeys, check this out. + Show Spoiler +
Imagine an experiment where you have some monkeys in a cage. There are two chains. Chain A will provide a large quantity of food for the monkeys. Chain B will provide a small quantity of food. Next the experimenters set it up so that pulling chain A will also give an electric shock to another monkey in another cage. The monkeys can see each other. And in particular the monkeys sees the pain of the shocked monkey. It is easy formulate the conclusion, even for a monkey, that pulling on the chain that gives the large food reward will result in pain for another monkey.
Now the question is whether the monkeys will continue to pull on the chain A to get the large food reward or will the monkeys be sensitive to the other monkey's pain. What is your guess?
The result as published in a paper by Stephenie Preston of University of California at Berkeley and Frans de Waal of Emory University showed that the monkeys no longer pulled on chain A which administers the shock. Two-thirds of the monkey will only pull on chain B which does not administer any shock. And the remaining third will not pull on any chain for as long as 5 days. There was one monkey that refused to pull on either chain for as long as 12 days. Quoting from the paper: "These monkeys were literally starving themselves to prevent the shock to the conspecific." This indicates that monkeys exhibit empathy, and some can say compassion, and other say altruism. Whatever term you call it, it is clear that even in primate monkeys, an individual is able to relate to the pain of another individual and will make decisions that will reduce the other's pain.
I find this infinitely more amazing than anything I read in the bible (yeah I read it.)
Haha, I love when people compare monkeys to human beings as if they're anywhere near as intellectually and culturally developed as we are. Absolutely fantastic.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
Are you to tell me that without religion or god, you would not have empathy for fellow human beings? That you would not like others to do to you as you to them? Religion -> Human morality? REDONKULOUS PROPOSITION.
I would feel much less and any amount that I did feel would be pre-determined by genetics/biology/etc to follow the social contract which human beings benefit from because I benefit, not because I am good.
God -> Morality
ugh... so many posts... good thing I drank so much coffee...
Um, are you saying, based off that conditional up there, that If NOT God, then NOT morality?
If you are, then you just made an error in logic. Sorry, your entire belief system is rubbish.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
*cough* *cough* The Pope is the leader of the catholic faith, thank you very much. He has nothing to do with Christianity.
Catholicism is a type of Christianity so he does but its not to the whole Christian faith
Catholicism predates christianity, so you should go back to school.
Maybe you should go back to school, Catholicism is indeed a branch of Christianity...
aswell as Luthern, Methodist, Baptist, Angelican, etc.
Negative, University education in theology. It's not an ethnic cleansing because it goes no where near the same degree of what Hitler did. You can try to twist it how you please, it's no where near the same. It's a boring argument, Half. It really is, can you try something else to compare Hitler to the Bible? because you're far off that it's putting me to sleep at 3:46am.
So your argument for why it isn't Ethnic cleansing is that they didn't kill as many people.
I don't know what to say to that. So if I killed every single Black person in detroit, it wouldn't be an ethnic cleansing because it was just detroit?
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You're clearly unaware of what ethnic cleansing is. You're comparing killing every black person in Detroit to killing off nearly an entire ethnicity in Israel? Are you retarded?
You're saying killing every black person in Detroit wouldn't fit the definition of ethnic cleansing?
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
than how are you going to use evolution as a rebuttal to this when you used evolution to coincide with your beliefs for the dolphins. Clearly something doesn't make sense here.
I am showing you that I understand Evolution in the most basic sense (as in no degree). I have books written by Steven Hawkings about the Universe and find very much interest in space, time, matter, etc.
For most things I can give you both an atheist/humanist answer and a Christian/religious answer. People think most Christians/religious people are idiots who don't understand anything.
You're not making a good job of convincing us otherwise.
On September 19 2010 17:56 Nutype wrote: After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Blitzkreiger is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in religion is because you have morals in the first place. Morlas dont come from religion. Religion comes from morals.
After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Nutype is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God.
On September 19 2010 17:56 Nutype wrote: After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Blitzkreiger is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in religion is because you have morals in the first place. Morlas dont come from religion. Religion comes from morals.
After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Nutype is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God.
On September 19 2010 17:56 Nutype wrote: After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Blitzkreiger is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in religion is because you have morals in the first place. Morlas dont come from religion. Religion comes from morals.
After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Nutype is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God.
Also MY LIFE FOR AUIR!
this guy is the best troll ever. gg. by the way, you dont "believe" in atheism. I like how you treat atheism as a religion.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I'm not sure that's something I could easily explain to you if you can't grasp it on your own, but I'll give it a shot.
First of all compassion is something very real and while it sure as hell doesn't show in all aspects of our world I do believe it exists. Then there's tribalism in various forms (religion, patriotism, and even family) that in a way hinders true compassion for our species. If you look at the origins of our species, many things indicate that even at the very beginning there was a form of compassion between members within different tribes. Some studies have found evidence that humans born with large deficits have lived relatively long lives in prehistoric times, which is staggering because it wouldn't be possible unless parents and other members of the same tribe gave a large bit of attention and care to those individuals.
If we fast-forward a couple of thousand years, tribalism has in a way extended and a lot of people are suddenly compassionate toward members of different sort of groups such as citizens of a nation, religious groups etcetera. In my mind the next step seems very obvious in that with time, people will be able to be compassionate toward our species as a whole.
There are even studies about compassion in monkeys, check this out. + Show Spoiler +
Imagine an experiment where you have some monkeys in a cage. There are two chains. Chain A will provide a large quantity of food for the monkeys. Chain B will provide a small quantity of food. Next the experimenters set it up so that pulling chain A will also give an electric shock to another monkey in another cage. The monkeys can see each other. And in particular the monkeys sees the pain of the shocked monkey. It is easy formulate the conclusion, even for a monkey, that pulling on the chain that gives the large food reward will result in pain for another monkey.
Now the question is whether the monkeys will continue to pull on the chain A to get the large food reward or will the monkeys be sensitive to the other monkey's pain. What is your guess?
The result as published in a paper by Stephenie Preston of University of California at Berkeley and Frans de Waal of Emory University showed that the monkeys no longer pulled on chain A which administers the shock. Two-thirds of the monkey will only pull on chain B which does not administer any shock. And the remaining third will not pull on any chain for as long as 5 days. There was one monkey that refused to pull on either chain for as long as 12 days. Quoting from the paper: "These monkeys were literally starving themselves to prevent the shock to the conspecific." This indicates that monkeys exhibit empathy, and some can say compassion, and other say altruism. Whatever term you call it, it is clear that even in primate monkeys, an individual is able to relate to the pain of another individual and will make decisions that will reduce the other's pain.
I find this infinitely more amazing than anything I read in the bible (yeah I read it.)
Haha, I love when people compare monkeys to human beings as if they're anywhere near as intellectually and culturally developed as we are. Absolutely fantastic.
Are you cognitively challenged or something? Read my post, it's highly related as we origin from a common ancestor. What I'm saying is that as evidence shows, it's likely that compassion and empathy are natural traits of our species. If he asks, I'm going to answer.
You're clearly unaware of what ethnic cleansing is. You're comparing killing every black person in Detroit to killing off nearly an entire ethnicity in Israel? Are you retarded?
You religious folk really like to play the random word spewing thing when you don't have anything to say.
So you're saying kill every black person in Detroit isn't an ethnic cleansing? Yes or No. Look, I really don't know what to say. So you're point is the Bible isn't quite as bad as Nazism, its more on the level of the KKK?
Who is more moral?
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he believes that is what god wishes of him.
Or
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he feels empathy for a fellow human being.
While this would be an excellent example of "religion going wrong", I'm just gonna say not all religious people are motivated to do good stuff because of a reward in the afterlife.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
Nope lots of animals eat their babies or leave eggs, ever heard of a spider? Yes in order to survive we take care of our own. For humans its called the Social Contract. We act in ways which are beneficial to use either for rewards or fear of punishment whether we are conscious of this or not. If it became more beneficial to kill babies (abortion) then we would. Thats why those apocalypse movies are so scary because when there is no reward (or less benefit vs cost) humans will turn on each other. Think of a junky trying to get a fix. They will punch out old people.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
Nope lots of animals eat their babies or leave eggs, ever heard of a spider? Yes in order to survive we take care of our own. For humans its called the Social Contract. We act in ways which are beneficial to use either for rewards or fear of punishment whether we are conscious of this or not. If it became more beneficial to kill babies (abortion) then we would. Thats why those apocalypse movies are so scary because when there is no reward (or less benefit vs cost) humans will turn on each other. Think of a junky trying to get a fix. They will punch out old people.
Thanks for spewing out irrelevant facts. You still haven't answered what this has to do with Atheism lacking morality.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about??
morals? you look for morals in religion?
tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad ..
fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope?
Only Catholics follow the Pope. And there are like 2+ billion Catholics.
I can give many reasons religion and the abuse of scripture can be bad as well.
I can only find ONE reason for doing something good in Atheism (social contract) and thats not even doing good, that is looking for a reward for mutual benefit. Help is only given if it can return some other form of help.
I can't find anything good with the Bible. You're basically out for yourself because then you wouldn't get into Heaven.
See what I did there?
You can't find anything good in the Bible at all? What about not murdering people? Oh wait that is ok because you are an atheist. So actually you wouldn't find anything because there are no values. Be fruitful and multiply is probably the only thing an atheist can agree with.
I thought the universal condemnation of your ignorant rants was enough...but you keep plunging further and further up your own ass, and the shit you're sucking out is intolerable.
You idiotically pretend that an atheist's life is empty and an atheist's mind is morally bankrupt, even in the face of genuine atheists patiently refuting your derogatory fantasies in real time. You grasp at lies for an excuse to hate your fellow man, and you conclude with smug superiority that you're a better person because you need the illusion of an all-powerful divine hand jerking you off day in and day out, or you'd gleefully rape and kill everyone you've ever met.
As you reject coherence, please absorb this point. God demands you shepherd your fellows into heaven - and your eternal celestial blowjobs IMMORTAL SOUL is at stake. The shit you peddle will catch more flies if you stop waving your arms and frothing like a lunatic. So shut the fuck up until you can craft a single helpful word.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
Nope lots of animals eat their babies or leave eggs, ever heard of a spider? Yes in order to survive we take care of our own. For humans its called the Social Contract. We act in ways which are beneficial to use either for rewards or fear of punishment whether we are conscious of this or not. If it became more beneficial to kill babies (abortion) then we would. Thats why those apocalypse movies are so scary because when there is no reward (or less benefit vs cost) humans will turn on each other. Think of a junky trying to get a fix. They will punch out old people.
Look you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
You got ID confused with Social Contract and skipped the whole Superego part.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
Nope lots of animals eat their babies or leave eggs, ever heard of a spider? Yes in order to survive we take care of our own. For humans its called the Social Contract. We act in ways which are beneficial to use either for rewards or fear of punishment whether we are conscious of this or not. If it became more beneficial to kill babies (abortion) then we would. Thats why those apocalypse movies are so scary because when there is no reward (or less benefit vs cost) humans will turn on each other. Think of a junky trying to get a fix. They will punch out old people.
That's not true. Humans as well as animals commit acts of compassion without reward or fear of punishment. Hell, even with loss. According to your world view, chimpanzee's are ethically superior to human beings. :D
On September 19 2010 17:26 wesleyq wrote: While on the topic of religion... just curious, is following Buddhism as a way to live life but not believe any of the afterlife things atheism?
Atheism is plain and simply the lack of belief in any deities. People have proposed the existence of gods, whether they be Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Ra, or so on. An atheist has not been convinced that any of those proposed gods are real.
Nothing else is required or disallowed to be called an atheist. Many atheists strive to be scientifically literate and skeptical, others couldn't care less about science or reality. A person could believe in ghosts or fairies or unicorns or any other silly and irrational superstitions, and still not believe in a god.
There is nothing in Buddhism that speaks to the existence of a god. Some Buddhists believe in gods, while others do not and can be called atheists. Hope that answers your question.
On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote: I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
Okay my english isn't too great but... This whole thing seems to be a fight between the public and a few close minded christians. The way I see it blitz, you're calling anyone who isn't christian an atheist. or at least that is what i'm feeling from all this talk. your words are written in an offensive way and you try to portray us as monsters for not believing the same beliefs you do. I for one believe that I get my morals through the teachings of Buddha. I dunno. I'm more of a I love everyone type of person but people like you who try to push religion and beliefs on to others disgust me.
@Blitzkrieger, I wrote something regarding your claim that atheism would take all morale away from humans, sadly it's the last post of page 6, so probably unread by most of you. Take a look at it.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists?
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
Nope lots of animals eat their babies or leave eggs, ever heard of a spider? Yes in order to survive we take care of our own. For humans its called the Social Contract. We act in ways which are beneficial to use either for rewards or fear of punishment whether we are conscious of this or not. If it became more beneficial to kill babies (abortion) then we would. Thats why those apocalypse movies are so scary because when there is no reward (or less benefit vs cost) humans will turn on each other. Think of a junky trying to get a fix. They will punch out old people.
Apocalypse movies have got this guy scared of atheism. nuff said.
On September 19 2010 18:09 snpnx wrote: @Blitzkrieger, I wrote something regarding your claim that atheism would take all morale away from humans, sadly it's the last post of page 6, so probably unread by most of you. Take a look at it.
Don't bother. He's either a troll or one of those ultra-religious people. We can't use reason to deal with him.
As you reject coherence, please absorb this point. God demands you shepherd your fellows into heaven - and your eternal celestial blowjobs IMMORTAL SOUL is at stake. The shit you peddle will catch more flies if you stop waving your arms and frothing like a lunatic. So shut the fuck up until you can craft a single helpful word.
Eh, I'd have to say reading that made wasting an hour of my life talking to fucking inanimate object worth it.
On September 19 2010 17:58 ShadeR wrote: Who is more moral?
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he believes that is what god wishes of him.
Or
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he feels empathy for a fellow human being.
I think that is a great point. Or, let alone, the one who acts out of Fear- which would obviously be even worse.
Ah I didn't see that post.
Both would feel empathy and it would be "good" for both to help. However deeds do not make one go to heaven and deeds aren't the basis for salvation in Protestantism. When you have faith in God you are able to go to heaven. Same for Islam/Judaism but Catholicism has its own thing.
Protestants don't act out of fear. In fact fear is more close to revere usually. And if there is anything to fear it should be God since God has power over everything.
The whole thing with Jesus was we couldn't save follow the Law so if we have faith we are redeemed (but most try to act right and you can't fake God out). Its about intentions and faith.
On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote: [quote]
Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS?
Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
Nope lots of animals eat their babies or leave eggs, ever heard of a spider? Yes in order to survive we take care of our own. For humans its called the Social Contract. We act in ways which are beneficial to use either for rewards or fear of punishment whether we are conscious of this or not. If it became more beneficial to kill babies (abortion) then we would. Thats why those apocalypse movies are so scary because when there is no reward (or less benefit vs cost) humans will turn on each other. Think of a junky trying to get a fix. They will punch out old people.
Thanks for spewing out irrelevant facts. You still haven't answered what this has to do with Atheism lacking morality.
anyone else finds Blitzkrieger's nick mildly ironic? While Hitler wasn't the first to employ the tactics as it had been used at the end of the great war in some minor battles already it was the second world war which made large scale use of it - And now we are here with him defending the Pope saying atheists are like Hitler's Blitzkrieger.
edit: lets just say your presumption about "every act is to gain" is right... I can spin it just the same for christians "every act is just to get into heaven (which is "gain" as well) - which of course is an hilarious assumption I would not support but your argument is flawed.
On September 19 2010 17:58 ShadeR wrote: Who is more moral?
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he believes that is what god wishes of him.
Or
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he feels empathy for a fellow human being.
I think that is a great point. Or, let alone, the one who acts out of Fear- which would obviously be even worse.
Ah I didn't see that post.
Both would feel empathy and it would be "good" for both to help. However deeds do not make one go to heaven and deeds aren't the basis for salvation in Protestantism. When you have faith in God you are able to go to heaven. Same for Islam/Judaism but Catholicism has its own thing.
Protestants don't act out of fear. In fact fear is more close to revere usually. And if there is anything to fear it should be God since God has power over everything.
The whole thing with Jesus was we couldn't save follow the Law so if we have faith we are redeemed (but most try to act right and you can't fake God out). Its about intentions and faith.
And as I said, good is subjective. In fact, even in Theism its subjective because whats was considered as good by a theist 2000 years ago would be derided as lunacy now. Your saying that the actions of the Atheist are not empirically good because we receive satisfactions from doing so. Well no fucking shit.
What you've successfully proven is that the Acts of the atheist cannot be good in a religious framework. Impressive sir, perhaps next you could prove how jews go to hell?
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
Nope lots of animals eat their babies or leave eggs, ever heard of a spider? Yes in order to survive we take care of our own. For humans its called the Social Contract. We act in ways which are beneficial to use either for rewards or fear of punishment whether we are conscious of this or not. If it became more beneficial to kill babies (abortion) then we would. Thats why those apocalypse movies are so scary because when there is no reward (or less benefit vs cost) humans will turn on each other. Think of a junky trying to get a fix. They will punch out old people.
Thanks for spewing out irrelevant facts. You still haven't answered what this has to do with Atheism lacking morality.
Every act is to gain.
Yes, every act is to gain. Some people gain physical things. and some people like you like to gain warm fuzzy feelings by acting morally.
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
Nope lots of animals eat their babies or leave eggs, ever heard of a spider? Yes in order to survive we take care of our own. For humans its called the Social Contract. We act in ways which are beneficial to use either for rewards or fear of punishment whether we are conscious of this or not. If it became more beneficial to kill babies (abortion) then we would. Thats why those apocalypse movies are so scary because when there is no reward (or less benefit vs cost) humans will turn on each other. Think of a junky trying to get a fix. They will punch out old people.
Thanks for spewing out irrelevant facts. You still haven't answered what this has to do with Atheism lacking morality.
Every act is to gain.
Wrong. Some act to gain, and some acts we make are to gain.
You're assuming that an act that results in a gain for you is bereft of morality? What are you smoking.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
... There is absolutely nothing that says you cant have ethics without religion, which basically makes this post sort of bullshit.
And bringing up Hitler as an example of what happens without religion is just retarded - you realize the other side has like 2000+ years of tyrants to pick from if they want to make a counter example =[?
EDIT: Urgh, I hadnt refreshed this since page 2 lol, now I realize theres 9 pages - oops!
@ Blitzkrieger: Ever occured to you that you iron belief in Utilitarianism might be close to a religion, too?
There is compelling evidence that humans frequently help strangers even when it is obvious that the stranger will never pay back the debt and when helping is costly. See for example work by Ernst Fehr and his group (published e.g. in Science and Nature).
Not every person is a straightforward utilitarian. Not every person acts only according to rationally calculating future benefits. Most people are not entirely rational. Most people have a sense of moral that is not dependend on a religious faith and act according to it.
Also, I think criticism of religion mostly applied to the institutionalization of religion. Whether it is Islam, Christianity or Judaism, the so called religious leaders/moral authorities are usually bigots who do not abide by their own rules and abuse their power basis.
Institutionalized religions have demonstrated a tendency to be utterly intolerant of people who do not share their values. hence, as George Carlin put it: Thou shalt keep they religion to thyself!
Edit: Just read that the chatholic church tried to dopwnplay the pope's nazi comparison. >The choice of words is brilliant, though (quote from BBC): However, the Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about".
Also, I think criticism of religion mostly applied to the institutionalization of religion. Whether it is Islam, Christianity or Judaism, the so called religious leaders/moral authorities are usually bigots who do not abide by their own rules and abuse their power basis.
Institutionalized religions have demonstrated a tendency to be utterly intolerant of people who do not share their values. hence, as Georga Carlin put it: Thou shalt keep they religion to thyself!
If the bigots were just genuinely retarded, I'd almost be ok, but 99% of the time they're not. They're using the fervor of there followers for personal secular gain.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are purely secular for both sides. Religion is but a tool one of the sides employs. I have to say its very effective. This pretty much applies to almost every single war ever fought.
Also, I think criticism of religion mostly applied to the institutionalization of religion. Whether it is Islam, Christianity or Judaism, the so called religious leaders/moral authorities are usually bigots who do not abide by their own rules and abuse their power basis.
Institutionalized religions have demonstrated a tendency to be utterly intolerant of people who do not share their values. hence, as Georga Carlin put it: Thou shalt keep they religion to thyself!
If the bigots were just genuinely retarded, I'd almost be ok, but 99% of the time they're not. They're using the fervor of there followers for personal secular gain.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are purely secular for both sides. Religion is but a tool one of the sides employs. I have to say its very effective. This pretty much applies to almost every single war ever fought.
Agree. Basically that is the reason why one central aspect of the Age of Enlightenment procuded the separation of state and religion as well as freedom of religion. So that people can practice their religion privately wihtout it being abused for power-related issues and to prevent religion-based intolerance/violence.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
Your whole premise is wrong. You're looking at atheists and say that because we do not believe in a higher power than ourselves, we would turn on all morale and become an anarchistic society where everyone just does as they wish. If there is no God to account to, you have to account for all the actions you are doing yourself. You're not left with "nothing", you're left with the realization that you're the only one accountable for what you're doing, no one else. I am fairly certain that you know at least a bit of philosophy? I do concur with you that humans do things mostly for their own gain, which is a philosophical theory called utilitarianism (Even though there are probably many atheists that would argue different) but that would not necessarily lead to a world that is worse than now. Most humans do want to live in Peace, and having no God above you doesn't change that. It is not that because I do not believe in God, suddenly I want to rape women or kill people or have a bad morale. Of course the church and even the religions themselves are instilling thoughts like that the world would fall into anarchy into their followers, given that it is necessary to keep them. For the church to prevail it has to have some kind of use for the humans (you see, even religious people use this) Now if you take away the life after death and salvation (things we cannot prove or disprove) then what is there left that the church can bring you? It's only the promise that everything would go worse if people were atheists, where it probably would either stay the same, or become only better. Most of the major conflicts in this world have had and still have religion as their basis. In this way, religion probably leads to more man-made death than anything else. People die and kill for "their God" for as long as we can think of religion, and you're saying Atheism would be worse?
I am in no way saying that the world suddenly would turn peaceful when everyone would be an atheist, but I do believe that it would not be worse than it is now, I think it could be even better.
Your the last post I'm going to answer since most aren't even much more than trolling/BM and I didn't see ur post. Ugh I'm so tired this is gonna be a bad post...
I'm not saying it will be anarchist. I'm saying that Evolution will present things like mass genocide/ethnic cleansing etc on a much larger scale. I know many people don't consider abortion to be killing but its basically the biggest genocide we've ever had. And who decides what is life and what isn't? What has value and what doesn't? Who is God so to speak? Everything becomes arbitrary and laws lose their value because they have no basis. Its kind of like what gun control people argue, guns allow all these bad things to happen. Its not that every atheist is a bloodthirsty babykiller who blends kittens but it allows any act to be acceptable. You can't say X is right or wrong.
Right now you could view religion as a huge lock on human nature. Humans are under control and if it were removed all hell would break loose even if you don't believe religion is true or valid. You might not change much but other people would. People become expendable and a resource. A lot of crimes are done because people use techniques of neutralization, meaning they justify it in their own mind. Not everyone is intelligent either. Most people don't have educations and not many go to college. People often due bad things simply because they don't understand it as being wrong
Ugh I'm so tired this is probably a bunch of crap...
But what I am trying to say is if you are deeply religious you can act right even if it means you don't get rewards.
Most of the conflicts are about resources and masked by religion.
The only way I can see an atheist future was if we found some way of having near infinite resources, and there could still be problems because power/control/pecking scale can never be infinite.
3am... cant think, I played like 4hrs of sc2 before this too...
On September 19 2010 18:24 Electric.Jesus wrote: @ Blitzkrieger: Ever occured to you that you iron belief in Utilitarianism might be close to a religion, too?
There is compelling evidence that humans frequently help strangers even when it is obvious that the stranger will never pay back the debt and when helping is costly. See for example work by Ernst Fehr and his group (published e.g. in Science and Nature).
Not every person is a straightforward utilitarian. Not every person acts only according to rationally calculating future benefits. Most people are not entirely rational. Most people have a sense of moral that is not dependend on a religious faith and act according to it.
Also, I think criticism of religion mostly applied to the institutionalization of religion. Whether it is Islam, Christianity or Judaism, the so called religious leaders/moral authorities are usually bigots who do not abide by their own rules and abuse their power basis.
Institutionalized religions have demonstrated a tendency to be utterly intolerant of people who do not share their values. hence, as George Carlin put it: Thou shalt keep they religion to thyself!
Edit: Just read that the chatholic church tried to dopwnplay the pope's nazi comparison. >The choice of words is brilliant, though (quote from BBC): However, the Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about".
I Kant agree with Utilitarianism.
Ok I'm going to bed, I hope you atheists don't destroy the world by the time I wake up.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
Your whole premise is wrong. You're looking at atheists and say that because we do not believe in a higher power than ourselves, we would turn on all morale and become an anarchistic society where everyone just does as they wish. If there is no God to account to, you have to account for all the actions you are doing yourself. You're not left with "nothing", you're left with the realization that you're the only one accountable for what you're doing, no one else. I am fairly certain that you know at least a bit of philosophy? I do concur with you that humans do things mostly for their own gain, which is a philosophical theory called utilitarianism (Even though there are probably many atheists that would argue different) but that would not necessarily lead to a world that is worse than now. Most humans do want to live in Peace, and having no God above you doesn't change that. It is not that because I do not believe in God, suddenly I want to rape women or kill people or have a bad morale. Of course the church and even the religions themselves are instilling thoughts like that the world would fall into anarchy into their followers, given that it is necessary to keep them. For the church to prevail it has to have some kind of use for the humans (you see, even religious people use this) Now if you take away the life after death and salvation (things we cannot prove or disprove) then what is there left that the church can bring you? It's only the promise that everything would go worse if people were atheists, where it probably would either stay the same, or become only better. Most of the major conflicts in this world have had and still have religion as their basis. In this way, religion probably leads to more man-made death than anything else. People die and kill for "their God" for as long as we can think of religion, and you're saying Atheism would be worse?
I am in no way saying that the world suddenly would turn peaceful when everyone would be an atheist, but I do believe that it would not be worse than it is now, I think it could be even better.
Your the last post I'm going to answer since most aren't even much more than trolling/BM and I didn't see ur post. Ugh I'm so tired this is gonna be a bad post...
I'm not saying it will be anarchist. I'm saying that Evolution will present things like mass genocide/ethnic cleansing etc on a much larger scale. I know many people don't consider abortion to be killing but its basically the biggest genocide we've ever had. And who decides what is life and what isn't? What has value and what doesn't? Who is God so to speak? Everything becomes arbitrary and laws lose their value because they have no basis. Its kind of like what gun control people argue, guns allow all these bad things to happen. Its not that every atheist is a bloodthirsty babykiller who blends kittens but it allows any act to be acceptable. You can't say X is right or wrong.
Right now you could view religion as a huge lock on human nature. Humans are under control and if it were removed all hell would break loose even if you don't believe religion is true or valid. You might not change much but other people would. People become expendable and a resource. A lot of crimes are done because people use techniques of neutralization, meaning they justify it in their own mind. Not everyone is intelligent either. Most people don't have educations and not many go to college. People often due bad things simply because they don't understand it as being wrong
Ugh I'm so tired this is probably a bunch of crap...
But what I am trying to say is if you are deeply religious you can act right even if it means you don't get rewards.
Most of the conflicts are about resources and masked by religion.
The only way I can see an atheist future was if we found some way of having near infinite resources, and there could still be problems because power/control/pecking scale can never be infinite.
3am... cant think, I played like 4hrs of sc2 before this too...
then why do secularized nations like sweden and japan have such low crime rates?
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
Your whole premise is wrong. You're looking at atheists and say that because we do not believe in a higher power than ourselves, we would turn on all morale and become an anarchistic society where everyone just does as they wish. If there is no God to account to, you have to account for all the actions you are doing yourself. You're not left with "nothing", you're left with the realization that you're the only one accountable for what you're doing, no one else. I am fairly certain that you know at least a bit of philosophy? I do concur with you that humans do things mostly for their own gain, which is a philosophical theory called utilitarianism (Even though there are probably many atheists that would argue different) but that would not necessarily lead to a world that is worse than now. Most humans do want to live in Peace, and having no God above you doesn't change that. It is not that because I do not believe in God, suddenly I want to rape women or kill people or have a bad morale. Of course the church and even the religions themselves are instilling thoughts like that the world would fall into anarchy into their followers, given that it is necessary to keep them. For the church to prevail it has to have some kind of use for the humans (you see, even religious people use this) Now if you take away the life after death and salvation (things we cannot prove or disprove) then what is there left that the church can bring you? It's only the promise that everything would go worse if people were atheists, where it probably would either stay the same, or become only better. Most of the major conflicts in this world have had and still have religion as their basis. In this way, religion probably leads to more man-made death than anything else. People die and kill for "their God" for as long as we can think of religion, and you're saying Atheism would be worse?
I am in no way saying that the world suddenly would turn peaceful when everyone would be an atheist, but I do believe that it would not be worse than it is now, I think it could be even better.
Your the last post I'm going to answer since most aren't even much more than trolling/BM and I didn't see ur post. Ugh I'm so tired this is gonna be a bad post...
I'm not saying it will be anarchist. I'm saying that Evolution will present things like mass genocide/ethnic cleansing etc on a much larger scale. I know many people don't consider abortion to be killing but its basically the biggest genocide we've ever had. And who decides what is life and what isn't? What has value and what doesn't? Who is God so to speak? Everything becomes arbitrary and laws lose their value because they have no basis. Its kind of like what gun control people argue, guns allow all these bad things to happen. Its not that every atheist is a bloodthirsty babykiller who blends kittens but it allows any act to be acceptable. You can't say X is right or wrong.
Right now you could view religion as a huge lock on human nature. Humans are under control and if it were removed all hell would break loose even if you don't believe religion is true or valid. You might not change much but other people would. People become expendable and a resource. A lot of crimes are done because people use techniques of neutralization, meaning they justify it in their own mind. Not everyone is intelligent either. Most people don't have educations and not many go to college. People often due bad things simply because they don't understand it as being wrong
Ugh I'm so tired this is probably a bunch of crap...
But what I am trying to say is if you are deeply religious you can act right even if it means you don't get rewards.
Most of the conflicts are about resources and masked by religion.
The only way I can see an atheist future was if we found some way of having near infinite resources, and there could still be problems because power/control/pecking scale can never be infinite.
3am... cant think, I played like 4hrs of sc2 before this too...
then why do secularized nations like sweden and japan have such low crime rates?
e: sleep tight
because logic and reason as well as lasting appreciation of truth are none of the things religious folks have going for them. they are opposing it, as it is required for religious belief to exist at all. instead they cherish that warm fuzzy feeling that nutype mentioned.
unfortunately the largest amount of people has not been detached from nature enough to value their intellect more than their emotions. despite common neglect of that fact most human intellects are still apes after all.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
Your whole premise is wrong. You're looking at atheists and say that because we do not believe in a higher power than ourselves, we would turn on all morale and become an anarchistic society where everyone just does as they wish. If there is no God to account to, you have to account for all the actions you are doing yourself. You're not left with "nothing", you're left with the realization that you're the only one accountable for what you're doing, no one else. I am fairly certain that you know at least a bit of philosophy? I do concur with you that humans do things mostly for their own gain, which is a philosophical theory called utilitarianism (Even though there are probably many atheists that would argue different) but that would not necessarily lead to a world that is worse than now. Most humans do want to live in Peace, and having no God above you doesn't change that. It is not that because I do not believe in God, suddenly I want to rape women or kill people or have a bad morale. Of course the church and even the religions themselves are instilling thoughts like that the world would fall into anarchy into their followers, given that it is necessary to keep them. For the church to prevail it has to have some kind of use for the humans (you see, even religious people use this) Now if you take away the life after death and salvation (things we cannot prove or disprove) then what is there left that the church can bring you? It's only the promise that everything would go worse if people were atheists, where it probably would either stay the same, or become only better. Most of the major conflicts in this world have had and still have religion as their basis. In this way, religion probably leads to more man-made death than anything else. People die and kill for "their God" for as long as we can think of religion, and you're saying Atheism would be worse?
I am in no way saying that the world suddenly would turn peaceful when everyone would be an atheist, but I do believe that it would not be worse than it is now, I think it could be even better.
But what I am trying to say is if you are deeply religious you can act right even if it means you don't get rewards.
Most of the conflicts are about resources and masked by religion.
The only way I can see an atheist future was if we found some way of having near infinite resources, and there could still be problems because power/control/pecking scale can never be infinite.
3am... cant think, I played like 4hrs of sc2 before this too...
As ive said before, everyone acts "right" for rewards. Those you refer to as being deeply religious merely act on the fact that their reward for acting "right" is for the warm fuzzy feeling they get because they believe theyre acting "right"
@blitzkreiger: But god is simply another arbitrator of what is right and wrong. Even if you believe in him, he is only a higher authority in that he has the power to compel us to comply with his beliefs. There's nothing intrinsically moral about that either- it's like doing whatever you're told by the government, no matter how questionable, in the belief that 'of course they are right!'
I actually think it's a kind of moral cowardice to go 'we need a god to tell us what is correct and proper'. Surely it is possible to come to conclusions on this on your own using a few obvious metrics- happiness, health, liberty, etc.
There are so many factual and logical errors in the posts of both parties up until page 7 (sorry, couldn't read any farther) that it borderlines between tragedy and comedy. I'll opt for comedy
You guys should get on with your life and stop letting other people tell you what religion, atheism or even right or wrong is. Go get foundation in humanistic and natural sciences (philosophy, mathematics and logic should be all you really need) and make up your own mind. The information is already out there, don't let others blind you from getting it. ^^
If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist.
Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy
Need I go on?
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
Nope lots of animals eat their babies or leave eggs, ever heard of a spider? Yes in order to survive we take care of our own. For humans its called the Social Contract. We act in ways which are beneficial to use either for rewards or fear of punishment whether we are conscious of this or not. If it became more beneficial to kill babies (abortion) then we would. Thats why those apocalypse movies are so scary because when there is no reward (or less benefit vs cost) humans will turn on each other. Think of a junky trying to get a fix. They will punch out old people.
Thanks for spewing out irrelevant facts. You still haven't answered what this has to do with Atheism lacking morality.
Every act is to gain.
I wonder what gained those children who were(still are) raped by catholic priests around the world, and who will punish them, since we all know god wont..
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
Atheism isn´t a belief system. its merely a world view. Killing someone and then saying ´´ i don´t believe in a god and don´t think i will burn forever´´ isn´t gonna save you from the law.
People who come up with arguments like these are usually people who would love to rape, kill and steal but don´t because they are afraid of a omnipotent beign.
Stalin never said ´´ I do this in the name of atheism ´´. Hitler did.
And about abortion , stam cell research etc... As if we don´t have enough children without parents, we need to get more children on this overpopulated world. what about Adopting a child? Your helping everyone out!!!!
This shows the results of a 1998 research under members of the NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 7% said they believe in God, 72.2% said they did not. The remaining 20.8% were agnostics. Although Meta's statement that 93% of scientists is atheist isn't proven, it's pretty clear that the majority of scientists does not believe in God.
@Blitzkreiger: Could you please stop making ridiculous claims, when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about?
On September 19 2010 19:44 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The pope would know about nazism , being a member of the hitler youth during the 40s and all.
Let's not stoop down to their level and go there. Why not talk about how when ratzinger was incharge of the church sex abuse scandals prior to being the pontiff claimed that what was most at stake was the reputation of the church rather than the victims of sexual abuse and rape.
I'm an agnostic. A very tired asgnostic, so excuse the incompleteness of my thought until I sleep and come back.
But i was raised Catholic. And then I learned the differences between the Septuagint, the King James, the NRSV, and the various texts of the New Testament. And then I learned that we have a crapload of gospels, only some of which are "canonical". And then I learned that Paul only wrote a fraction of the "canonical" letters attributed to him. And then I came the the personal opinion that Paul was an attention seeking jackass with issues. And then I learned that every single copy of the NT texts we have has been, by monks, (copied + altered)*X. And then (actually earlier, I'm losing the timeline), I saw all the internal contradictions in the canonical gospels. For easy instance, the Markan community thought the world was going to end Right Now! The Lukan community was largely Greek and had different rules about the Jewish heritage from the Matthew community. etc, i could go on.
I know some extremely bright Christians but none of them require the literal truth of any of this, because they know that is silly and impossible and small-minded and ignorant. They (and they are from different traditions, don't know each other, and are mostly professors in ancient history stuff) just have their beliefs. They don't force them on me and I respect them & theirs.
There doesn't have to be a war here.
( I mean maybe except against the American Evangelicals who are "biblical literalists" who may be so irredeemably dumb they should be .. spanked or something. I won't get banned by saying what I really think about them.)
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
Also, so the Pope says a bunch of stuff that bothers you. Well, he's only reaching Catholics. If you're poor and in South America and he's convincing you not to use condoms, well that's a problem. The vast quantities of gold hoarded at the Vatican while he ensures your poverty, ill-education, and suffering is a big problem.
The Pope may not be a world leader, but there are much better ways to criticize him than saying he did some bad stuff in 1940. I mean, he's telling Mexicans not to use condoms and get poorer while his Vatican City hoards a flillion dollars worth of wealth he could, but won't, use to help the poor.
Were the Vatican to use its wealth the help the poor, they'd obviously need a plan beforehand to make sure it gets used optimally .... but you're not going to see them disassemble their wealth to do Christ's teaching. "that would be absurd!" they'll say as they eat their steak dinners and sleep on feather beds with good wine as the people who trust them don't use condoms, have more kids, and live in squalor.
Hard to forgive.
I am not a Catholic any more because while I think Jesus (what we historically know of him) was pretty cool, the bureaucracies and structures &c. that have built up around him are corrupt and BS. The leading one being the Vatican but, in my backyard, American Evangelism being dumber and more immediately malignant.
Were Jesus to look at Christianity as perpetuated in his name today, he would have a shit fit.
On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote: Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction.
On September 19 2010 18:01 blitzkrieger wrote: The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God.
Just because I'm not convinced you know what atheism is:
Most of the people who identify as atheists today, will say they do so because they haven't seen any evidence for a god or gods, or the evidence shown wasn't sufficient to make them believe.
That's all. Religion is selling some story as truth. Atheist aren't selling some other story. They're just not buying yours.
I know that in some dictionaries atheism is defined as conclusively believing gods don't exist, but that's not how most atheists would define it. And before anyone plays the 'you're describing agnosticism' card: agnosticism is a position on whether we can ultimately know for sure whether a god or gods exist. It doesn't have anything to do with the answer to that question itself. So you could be an agnostic theist (I believe god exists), a gnostic theist (I know god exists), an agnostic atheist (I don't believe god exists), and a gnostic atheist (I know god doesn't exist). I realize there's more to it, and I'm cutting some corners, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think this suffices.
So atheism doesn't strip anything from anything. It doesn't conclusively reject anything, and it doesn't posit anything. Now a lot of atheists have a lot of things in common. Some things atheists have in common are a direct result of them being atheist (low church attendance), and some have in many cases lead to them being atheists (a reverence for the scientific method). If a lot of atheist have a higher than average appreciation for science, that doesn't mean that science is a part of what constitutes atheism.
'Well, nice story bro, but why did you bother to write this all down?' you ask... Well, I'm bothered by the notion that without religion life wouldn't have meaning or purpose. I can lie in the grass for hours on end and just appreciate the beauty of nature. I don't think a story for which there is no evidence adds to that beauty. It doesn't add meaning, and it doesn't add purpose. And yes, I've read the bible (and most of the Qur'an), I've been to church, and I've been to christian summer camps. I'm amazed at how the phenomena such as 'beauty', 'meaning' and 'purpose' work. You just experience them, without having a good reason. For some things you could give an explanation, but if you keep asking 'why?' on and on, you'll end up with an explanation that doesn't intuitively make sense. And still we can all appreciate beauty, and meaning, and purpose. I think it's great that it's not our task to effect someone else's purpose, but that we can define our true selves by finding our own purpose in life.
Now religion tries to answer the perpetual 'why?' question with the 'god' answer. If something has meaning to us, it's because it's god's will. But I'm not going to stop asking 'why?' there. Why is it god's will? Why is this god's purpose? If you cannot answer those questions, you haven't added to the understanding of our purpose (or beauty, or meaning). Not because you couldn't answer the 'final' question, but because the question remains basically the same. You haven't reduced the problem to something simpler, with less assumptions. You have therefore not explained anything.
This is where my appreciation for science comes in, and how I get back to the first line of you I quoted. While atheism doesn't strip anything off of anything, it doesn't add anything useful either. But although we don't need anything to add to the beauty and purpose of the world around us, there is so much that we can add to it. Even though the world is beautiful by itself, the way it works is (to some) even more wonderful than the way it looks. That's where science comes in. Science can explain why we experience the purpose we feel, and in some cases why we experience some things as beautiful. And if you have an appreciation for such explanations, then that means that for you science adds to the beauty of life. Science can only add to this beauty. It never detracts.
The transcript of the next video is on its youtube page:
On September 19 2010 20:21 Jibba wrote: I'm an atheist but I tend to see the world with a lot of pluralism. This comment angers me in a way that no other religious comment ever has.
If I were Catholic, I would be ashamed of my religion today.
Reminds me of a documentary I've seen years ago where a lot of contemporary witnesses of the nazi time have been interviewed.
One of them was a catholic priest who said basically the same thing as the pope today. The assumed fact that the nazi-regime was something like a godless movement that stands against everything christianity stands for is perhaps more common sense among Catholics than you would think.
On September 19 2010 18:01 blitzkrieger wrote: The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God.
Just because I'm not convinced you know what atheism is:
Most of the people who identify as atheists today, will say they do so because they haven't seen any evidence for a god or gods, or the evidence shown wasn't sufficient to make them believe.
That's all. Religion is selling some story as truth. Atheist aren't selling some other story. They're just not buying yours.
I know that in some dictionaries atheism is defined as conclusively believing gods don't exist, but that's not how most atheists would define it. And before anyone plays the 'you're describing agnosticism' card: agnosticism is a position on whether we can ultimately know for sure whether a god or gods exist. It doesn't have anything to do with the answer to that question itself. So you could be an agnostic theist (I believe god exists), a gnostic theist (I know god exists), an agnostic atheist (I don't believe god exists), and a gnostic atheist (I know god doesn't exist). I realize there's more to it, and I'm cutting some corners, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think this suffices.
So atheism doesn't strip anything from anything. It doesn't conclusively reject anything, and it doesn't posit anything. Now a lot of atheists have a lot of things in common. Some things atheists have in common are a direct result of them being atheist (low church attendance), and some have in many cases lead to them being atheists (a reverence for the scientific method). If a lot of atheist have a higher than average appreciation for science, that doesn't mean that science is a part of what constitutes atheism.
'Well, nice story bro, but why did you bother to write this all down?' you ask... Well, I'm bothered by the notion that without religion life wouldn't have meaning or purpose. I can lie in the grass for hours on end and just appreciate the beauty of nature. I don't think a story for which there is no evidence adds to that beauty. It doesn't add meaning, and it doesn't add purpose. And yes, I've read the bible (and most of the Qur'an), I've been to church, and I've been to christian summer camps. I'm amazed at how the phenomena such as 'beauty', 'meaning' and 'purpose' work. You just experience them, without having a good reason. For some things you could give an explanation, but if you keep asking 'why?' on and on, you'll end up with an explanation that doesn't intuitively make sense. And still we can all appreciate beauty, and meaning, and purpose. I think it's great that it's not our task to effect someone else's purpose, but that we can define our true selves by finding our own purpose in life.
Now religion tries to answer the perpetual 'why?' question with the 'god' answer. If something has meaning to us, it's because it's god's will. But I'm not going to stop asking 'why?' there. Why is it god's will? Why is this god's purpose? If you cannot answer those questions, you haven't added to the understanding of our purpose (or beauty, or meaning). Not because you couldn't answer the 'final' question, but because the question remains basically the same. You haven't reduced the problem to something simpler, with less assumptions. You have therefore not explained anything.
This is where my appreciation for science comes in, and how I get back to the first line of you I quoted. While atheism doesn't strip anything off of anything, it doesn't add anything useful either. But although we don't need anything to add to the beauty and purpose of the world around us, there is so much that we can add to it. Even though the world is beautiful by itself, the way it works is (to some) even more wonderful than the way it looks. That's where science comes in. Science can explain why we experience the purpose we feel, and in some cases why we experience some things as beautiful. And if you have an appreciation for such explanations, then that means that for you science adds to the beauty of life. Science can only add to this beauty. It never detracts.
This is a great post. It summarizes my view of the world.
The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask.
And it wouldn't hurt to keep in mind that however intelligent a person is his conclusions are only as true as the information it is based on. Someone that has spent 15 years in a private theological education will not have been presented with the same information you were, and his opinions will differ from yours - in his mind rightly so. Try to point out common ground and proceed from there. Point out errors in logic, but doing so in a hostile way guarantees your point will not get across. Also, be careful about making bold factual claims to knock down an opponent - while the information may be objectively true if it comes from what your opponent believes is a biased or untrustworthy source he will dismiss it completely.
I do understand the urge to correct someone that is completely misrepresenting reality but think about what you're looking to gain from the conversation, and channel that urge into actually trying to convince your opponent rather than knocking him down.
Wilbert, this horrible thread really doesn't deserve a post like yours - also i never knew if i should consider myself atheistic or agnostic - agnostic atheist it is... thanks
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
On September 19 2010 21:19 Blix wrote: Wilbert, this horrible thread really doesn't deserve a post like yours - also i never knew if i should consider myself atheistic or agnostic - agnostic atheist it is... thanks
Personally, I have added absurdism to that list. Agnostic atheistic absurdist. Depending on the mood I'm set on one specifically. This thread turns me agnostic.
On September 19 2010 21:09 Cantankerous wrote: The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask.
For your information: this thread discusses religion. The (root) proof from religious people is a collection of very old writings. The proof from the other camp is generally lacking, with the disbelief in the others' proof. Double straw man all the way.
Ah religion, how I love your consistent ability to complain about what other people, of whom have nothing to do with you, are doing. I've always noticed that religion always try to preach to atheists, get us to abide by their rules (I am not trying to say that religious rules and views are entirely invalid! There are many standard religious rules that humanists morally agree with and abide by!) and you just consistently yip at anyone who does not agree with you. Whereas (at least for me, I would never try to speak for other atheists) we just want you to SHUT UP! If religious people decided to leave others to their own beliefs, things would be so much easier in this world! (I want to quickly note here, that I am not trying to suggest that people become ignorant of other peoples actions and beliefs, it is clear that in cases, such as when Human Rights are being violated, that others should indeed step in, as this is a common agreeable goal!)
On September 19 2010 21:19 Blix wrote: Wilbert, this horrible thread really doesn't deserve a post like yours - also i never knew if i should consider myself atheistic or agnostic - agnostic atheist it is... thanks
Personally, I have added absurdism to that list. Agnostic atheistic absurdist. Depending on the mood I'm set on one specifically. This thread turns me agnostic.
On September 19 2010 21:09 Cantankerous wrote: The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask.
For your information: this thread discusses religion. The (root) proof from religious people is a collection of very old writings. The proof from the other camp is generally lacking, with the disbelief in the others' proof. Double straw man all the way.
I'm not sure quite what you're saying - are you challenging my statement that both sides in this thread have employed straw man arguments? Albeit some more than others.
On September 19 2010 21:19 Blix wrote: Wilbert, this horrible thread really doesn't deserve a post like yours - also i never knew if i should consider myself atheistic or agnostic - agnostic atheist it is... thanks
Personally, I have added absurdism to that list. Agnostic atheistic absurdist. Depending on the mood I'm set on one specifically. This thread turns me agnostic.
On September 19 2010 21:09 Cantankerous wrote: The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask.
For your information: this thread discusses religion. The (root) proof from religious people is a collection of very old writings. The proof from the other camp is generally lacking, with the disbelief in the others' proof. Double straw man all the way.
I'm not sure quite what you're saying - are you challenging my statement that both sides in this thread have employed straw man arguments? Albeit some more than others.
Although I don't necessarily disagree, I want to add that pointing out logical fallacies is only useful when you make them explicit. If you're not going to point to the actual straw man your remark is pointless. I'm going to assume the straw men in this discussion where unintentional. So most likely the people who committed those fallacies won't be able to see that when you don't point out where exactly their reasoning went wrong. (And also, if a straw man was in fact intentional, no-one is going to admit that unless forced to do so.)
On September 19 2010 18:01 blitzkrieger wrote: The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God.
Just because I'm not convinced you know what atheism is:
Most of the people who identify as atheists today, will say they do so because they haven't seen any evidence for a god or gods, or the evidence shown wasn't sufficient to make them believe.
That's all. Religion is selling some story as truth. Atheist aren't selling some other story. They're just not buying yours.
I know that in some dictionaries atheism is defined as conclusively believing gods don't exist, but that's not how most atheists would define it. And before anyone plays the 'you're describing agnosticism' card: agnosticism is a position on whether we can ultimately know for sure whether a god or gods exist. It doesn't have anything to do with the answer to that question itself. So you could be an agnostic theist (I believe god exists), a gnostic theist (I know god exists), an agnostic atheist (I don't believe god exists), and a gnostic atheist (I know god doesn't exist). I realize there's more to it, and I'm cutting some corners, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think this suffices.
So atheism doesn't strip anything from anything. It doesn't conclusively reject anything, and it doesn't posit anything. Now a lot of atheists have a lot of things in common. Some things atheists have in common are a direct result of them being atheist (low church attendance), and some have in many cases lead to them being atheists (a reverence for the scientific method). If a lot of atheist have a higher than average appreciation for science, that doesn't mean that science is a part of what constitutes atheism.
'Well, nice story bro, but why did you bother to write this all down?' you ask... Well, I'm bothered by the notion that without religion life wouldn't have meaning or purpose. I can lie in the grass for hours on end and just appreciate the beauty of nature. I don't think a story for which there is no evidence adds to that beauty. It doesn't add meaning, and it doesn't add purpose. And yes, I've read the bible (and most of the Qur'an), I've been to church, and I've been to christian summer camps. I'm amazed at how the phenomena such as 'beauty', 'meaning' and 'purpose' work. You just experience them, without having a good reason. For some things you could give an explanation, but if you keep asking 'why?' on and on, you'll end up with an explanation that doesn't intuitively make sense. And still we can all appreciate beauty, and meaning, and purpose. I think it's great that it's not our task to effect someone else's purpose, but that we can define our true selves by finding our own purpose in life.
Now religion tries to answer the perpetual 'why?' question with the 'god' answer. If something has meaning to us, it's because it's god's will. But I'm not going to stop asking 'why?' there. Why is it god's will? Why is this god's purpose? If you cannot answer those questions, you haven't added to the understanding of our purpose (or beauty, or meaning). Not because you couldn't answer the 'final' question, but because the question remains basically the same. You haven't reduced the problem to something simpler, with less assumptions. You have therefore not explained anything.
This is where my appreciation for science comes in, and how I get back to the first line of you I quoted. While atheism doesn't strip anything off of anything, it doesn't add anything useful either. But although we don't need anything to add to the beauty and purpose of the world around us, there is so much that we can add to it. Even though the world is beautiful by itself, the way it works is (to some) even more wonderful than the way it looks. That's where science comes in. Science can explain why we experience the purpose we feel, and in some cases why we experience some things as beautiful. And if you have an appreciation for such explanations, then that means that for you science adds to the beauty of life. Science can only add to this beauty. It never detracts.
This post sums up my views on atheism, agnosticism, and science better than I've ever articulated myself. I really hope blitzkrieger reads and thinks about this, I'm interested in how one could still believe atheism = amoralism after such a post.
(Also super bonus points for Feynman, I almost feel bad for deciding to give up on cosmology for now)
if you think of satan music from southpark while your looking at the pope, it fits! its ironic that the figurehead of the catholic church looks somewhat similar to a zombie/dracula/deadite
On September 19 2010 22:12 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: This post sums up my views on atheism, agnosticism, and science better than I've ever articulated myself. I really hope blitzkrieger reads and thinks about this, I'm interested in how one could still believe atheism = amoralism after such a post.
(Also super bonus points for Feynman, I almost feel bad for deciding to give up on cosmology for now)
Thanks. I'm quite new here, and I don't have a lot of starcraft knowledge, so it's nice to see at least some of the TL visitors appreciate this contribution.
Also, if you like Feynman, definitely check this out (if you haven't already):
On September 19 2010 21:19 Blix wrote: Wilbert, this horrible thread really doesn't deserve a post like yours - also i never knew if i should consider myself atheistic or agnostic - agnostic atheist it is... thanks
Personally, I have added absurdism to that list. Agnostic atheistic absurdist. Depending on the mood I'm set on one specifically. This thread turns me agnostic.
On September 19 2010 21:09 Cantankerous wrote: The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask.
For your information: this thread discusses religion. The (root) proof from religious people is a collection of very old writings. The proof from the other camp is generally lacking, with the disbelief in the others' proof. Double straw man all the way.
I'm not sure quite what you're saying - are you challenging my statement that both sides in this thread have employed straw man arguments? Albeit some more than others.
Although I don't necessarily disagree, I want to add that pointing out logical fallacies is only useful when you make them explicit. If you're not going to point to the actual straw man your remark is pointless. I'm going to assume the straw men in this discussion where unintentional. So most likely the people who committed those fallacies won't be able to see that when you don't point out where exactly their reasoning went wrong. (And also, if a straw man was in fact intentional, no-one is going to admit that unless forced to do so.)
Oh actually I am quite sure that they were unintentional (and on the atheist side, some things I can even see myself saying) - my core point was just that - I don't think the theist side is intentionally coming up with straw man arguments and knocking them down. I think that it's simply a product of not quite understanding your opponent's view. I would even go as far as saying that a mild case of straw man thinking is present in all emotionally involved arguments - and as far as saying that it is like a default mode of argument for any human being. I can only speak for myself, but after reading some of what I have written in the past, I have even noticed myself employing this kind of thinking - and what really scares me is that I inevitably feel that somehow it was justified - because I am right, and they are not.
I didn't realise it when writing my post but you are right that it's not especially useful to point out logical fallacies without specifying what you mean. At the time I did not want to go pointing fingers without a good reason in case anyone took it personally.
Blaming the exploits of history's many despots on any individual factor in particular is foolish, whether it be claiming Pol Pot was a monster because of atheism or religion was the cause of most of Europe's wars. Powerful men all have their own reasons and justifications for doing what they do, and they are individualistic enough in their own right to have their own goals in mind as opposed to be slave to any particular belief or ideology. Terrible people will be terrible people no matter what their stance on religion, and good people will be good etc.
However, it is worth considering that of the many reasons for inflicting suffering on our fellow beings, many religions (obviously, I am mainly referring to the great monotheistic religions) provide some very handy excuses. Islam and Christianity (and everything in between) both have very similar potential for destructive behavior from human to human, and if the human race as a whole could think and act in a purely logical and reasonable manner as opposed to being beholden to such things, we would be much better off.
Of course, not all people can handle a world without religion, as such as world is for the majority of the world's population a world without hope. Removing religion at this point would do more harm than good, but I suppose as the human race continues to evolve intellectually I do hope that the power held by religious powers from the Vatican to militant Islam is severely curtailed, simply because their outdated doctrines provide excuses and even the right to make life harder for the rest of us.
I'm always curious as to why religion is held to be the magisterium of morals? You need religion to be moral as much as you need religion to make toast, they are completely unrelated. Indeed many people have used religion as an excuse to commit many great atrocities.
So please, don't tell me of how religion is related to morality. It is not and never has been.
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Speak for yourself.
Humanism, the school of though predominantly responsible for the cultural notion of the intrinsic value of human life, was founded by Atheist and Deist scholars during the enlightenment, and the rebirth of secular thought in the west. Before that, when religion itself dictated human morale, we had the Dark Ages.
Though if you need religion to justify being kind towards other human beings, by my guest. Continue to believe in what you do.
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
I also have heard the Dark Ages were full of advances and they are thinknig of changing the name from teh Dark Age to something else. Again I don't have sources for any of this but I do know the Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler were atheists and did horrible acts and that abortion has killed more than all the people in all the wars of all time.
Today it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages[6]. However, most modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[7][8]
Listen buddy, atheism is not believing in any deity. Do you get that? No? How does this translate to having no values? It's not a question by the way. I'm an atheist and your characterization is not one of the mere non-belief in ghosts. Get that? You clearly don't know/care about humanism. That's your loss. I totally agree about the ""Dark Ages"" being a moronic misnomer for an era. I'm not going to go into it, but too many internet atheists (and anti-theists) are so arrogant that they don't even bother looking up what the "dark" in dark ages actually refers to. You didn't even bother to seriously argue the link between atheism and genocide, so I'm not going to waste my time on that. I will say that abortion is a human thing, not an atheist one. Get your facts straight.
While I am not a student of such things, it seems to me that the idea that religion=morality comes from way back in the day when religion really was the only fixed moral code in many great civilisations, simply because we hadn't reached the same point of intellectual evolution and concepts such as human rights had not appeared yet.
Feel free to correct me of course, but I think the widespread view that religion is the father of morality is on some level rooted in reality. It is of course no longer the case in the modern age that there cannot be morality without faith so nothing of what I have said is entirely relevant, but it is still interesting.
The point is, none of those commandments have anything to do with morality. Many people tell me without them I'd be an immoral soulless bastard. Then again, these same people need to rely on an invisible sky tyrant to tell them not to kill people.
On September 19 2010 23:11 NightRapier wrote: Feel free to correct me of course, but I think the widespread view that religion is the father of morality is on some level rooted in reality.
A lot of the behavior that we would consider to be a sign of our morality is also displayed by other life forms. This indicates that what we consider morality actually predates religion by quite a large margin.
@ nadir: I would argue that the commandments have a great deal to do with morality (adultery, thievery, murder, lying etc) and set quite a good basis for morality. However, it is the product of a bygone time and a very different culture, so as Carlin so amusingly stated in his own special way, many of the commandments are no longer relevant.
On September 19 2010 23:11 NightRapier wrote: Feel free to correct me of course, but I think the widespread view that religion is the father of morality is on some level rooted in reality.
A lot of the behavior that we would consider to be a sign of our morality is also displayed by other life forms. This indicates that what we consider morality actually predates religion by quite a large margin.
While it is reasonable to suggest that humans are naturally 'moral' beings, as great efforts have been made throughout history to improve our morality as a species, religion still seems to be one of the first instances where such morality was set in stone, so to speak.Of course, myself being a very strong atheist, I would welcome an example that proves otherwise.
I'm not contending that religion is an early record of man's morality. I'm contending it's the source of it. Or, more precise, I'm pointing out that there's no evidence for that statement.
On September 19 2010 23:11 NightRapier wrote: While I am not a student of such things, it seems to me that the idea that religion=morality comes from way back in the day when religion really was the only fixed moral code in many great civilisations, simply because we hadn't reached the same point of intellectual evolution and concepts such as human rights had not appeared yet.
Feel free to correct me of course, but I think the widespread view that religion is the father of morality is on some level rooted in reality. It is of course no longer the case in the modern age that there cannot be morality without faith so nothing of what I have said is entirely relevant, but it is still interesting.
Religion has always dealt with what people should or shouldn't do. That doesn't mean that morality in any way originated from religion. It should be mentioned that many good people (past and present) refer to scripture when they argue for universal rights (I think an example could be M L King), but I don't think that this fact has much to do with religious people bashing others who don't buy their crap. It seems like an inability to cast aside the myths they feed themselves. The myths being that they are good because of their subordination to an imaginary father figure. Christians especially have an amazing lack of faith in the inate humanity of humans. It's supposed to be God that bring out our redeeming characteristics, nothing else. Good (obediance) vs Evil (freedom). It's an outdated starting point for the exploration of morality. This is something which even the adherents of certain more advanced branches of christianity will acknowledge. I'm sorry if I wandered from the point you were making. I just don't think that it's all that relevant. I mean religion and culture used to be so joined at the hip, that you can argue that all the good things of the cultres were the result of religion... I don't see any reason to make such assumptions. It's also worth exploring the exact meaning of of the word "morality", because it's often confused with related concepts. This is no doubt another reason why it's so easy for religious zealots to persuade themselves that "morality" is a religious thing.
You make good points and I completely agree. However, one point I would still like to make is that religion made a point of writing down a moral code of sorts, which also has the effect of being the creation of laws of a sort. That the religion of Moses would use their version of morality as a basis for law seems to me to be evidence that religion has been a good source of a moral guide in the past.
I also agree that the meaning of the world morality could use some clearing up. My definition of morality which I am making up as I am typing is 'an internal code that regulates our behaviour by considering the effects of our behaviour on others'. I don't know if this is actually the case, if you asked me to tell the difference between morals and ethics I would be stuck.
Ahaha, I just wrote an essay arguing that secularism is the best way to run a nation. I used O'Donnell as one example of a crazy anti-secularist. Looks like the Pope might be another good example.
On September 19 2010 23:52 NightRapier wrote: You make good points and I completely agree. However, one point I would still like to make is that religion made a point of writing down a moral code of sorts, which also has the effect of being the creation of laws of a sort. That the religion of Moses would use their version of morality as a basis for law seems to me to be evidence that religion has been a good source of a moral guide in the past.
I also agree that the meaning of the world morality could use some clearing up. My definition of morality which I am making up as I am typing is 'an internal code that regulates our behaviour by considering the effects of our behaviour on others'. I don't know if this is actually the case, if you asked me to tell the difference between morals and ethics I would be stuck.
You know, the disagreement I have with your assertion is that jews didn't write down what I would consider morality. I think something like the ten commandements is in part an expression of morality (nrs (5),6,7,8 and 9 only). It's not 'generalized' morality itself. For instance,it doesn't say : don't do to others what you would not want to have done to yourself. I don't know, it seems to me like a substitute for moral thought. I believe that morality requires empathy, honesty and critical thought. All this stuff is absent in the commandments. The fact that these jews lived in a time in which humans could write doesn't make their rules particularly elevated. Writing didn't develop because of the belief in gods as far as I know. Religion is many things and I certainly agree that it is very good at passing on "knowledge" and values. The culture of our ancestors is undoubtedly the foundation of the present. Luckily for us we get to pick which aspects we choose to preserve, and which we cast aside. There's a lot of "evil" about religious morals that we've been able to get rid of in the West. Thank God.
okay, for the record. everytime these discussions pop up, i feel the urge to intervene. Let me say this first and foremost and with extreme conviction; Atheism is stupid and atheist people are stupid. Period. It's as simple as that.
I reject all forms of organized religions, and i obviously admit that religions have historically been an obstacle to our advancement of knowledge. The problem here is that some unstable people will use the failure of religion to declare with absolute certainty that God does NOT exist. Excuse me? The smartest people in the world have always had the same goal; to discover God's well structured laws. Religious failures and the nonexistence of God do not equate. Some idiots will observe the failures of the bunch of morons at the top of their respective clergies, and will find refuge in Atheism.
These fun-loving individuals will observe Christians, Muslims and Jews misbehave and will conclude with absolute certainty that God does NOT exist based on the moronic behavior of a few carefully selected individuals. They happily jump on the "hi!, God does not exist" bandwagon, and reject the existence of a creator from their empirical observation of a bunch of morons living on Earth. How can you imagine the creation of the Universe and it's prefect harmonious structure if no creator is involved? it just happened? sure.
Einstein always thought that the Universe and it's rules are so well organized that the nonexistence of God is unimaginable. He said; "God does not play dice. We just have to find the rules"
Deism is where it's at;
"Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/, us dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings."
Atheists are almost as stupid as religious people.
I suppose I could be more accurately described as an agnostic, since the non-existence of god cannot be definitively proven or disproven. When it comes down to why I, and so many others are not theists, it is very simple: in this modern age, we have science and reason to explain the mysteries of the universe. And the existence of a supreme being, one of many theories and one originally created to explain in older times what we can now explain with science, is looking less and less likely. That isn't to say it is impossible, but what is important is that we distinguish between a 'supreme being' and the deities of our great monotheistic religions, because the latter are almost certainly non-existent.
But when it comes down to it:
okay, for the record. everytime these discussions pop up, i feel the urge to intervene. Let me say this first and foremost and with extreme conviction; Atheism is stupid and atheist people are stupid. Period. It's as simple as that.
yeah, everytime i argue with an atheist i pretty much always succeed to convert him at least to agnosticism, which is still wrong, but closer to reality than die-hard atheism.
On September 19 2010 16:46 blitzkrieger wrote:They do teach safe sex and those other things. Abstinence until marriage is safe sex and its free.
They also teach that married couples should try to have as many kids as possible, a lot of impoverished families in the 3rd world take this very seriously resulting in many families trying to support a lot of kids on a very low income.
On September 20 2010 00:59 intrudor wrote: yeah, everytime i argue with an atheist i pretty much always succeed to convert him at least to agnosticism, which is still wrong, but closer to reality than die-hard atheism.
Personally, I find it amusing you claim atheists are wrong for believing god does not exist and theists are wrong for believing god does exist, yet you see no problem with yourself claiming that you are unequivocally correct. If substituting passion for reasonable argument is the definition of an illogical thinker, then that is exactly what you are.
More importantly, you're a really bad poster, and should probably fix that.
On September 20 2010 01:01 WilbertK wrote: lol @ Intrudor's 'everybody's a moron except for me' rant. A+. Have read again. Keep posting!
I don't think he realises that atheism is either the lack of belief in any deity or the belief that no deity exists. It isn't a claim to knowledge concerning the existence of any deity.
Einstein always thought that the Universe and it's rules are so well organized that the nonexistence of God is unimaginable. He said; "God does not play dice. We just have to find the rules"
People shouldn't be so obsessed with a quote which characterises why Einstein didn't accept QM, especially when he turned out to be wrong.
On September 20 2010 00:59 intrudor wrote: yeah, everytime i argue with an atheist i pretty much always succeed to convert him at least to agnosticism, which is still wrong, but closer to reality than die-hard atheism.
Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to the question whether or not the ultimate truth of our existence can be known. Atheism is a position which rejects all the current claims about gods. It doesn't say they're wrong, it says they haven't met their burden of proof.
Agnosticism does not exclude atheism you aren't one or the other, semantics aren't that hard people. I am agnostic about having fairies in my garden, and at the same time I don't believe in them, technically nothing is 100% certain it does not mean that some things are much less likely then other things. I don't know of any gnostic atheist.
On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote: If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
As an Atheist, I take offense to your post and bigotry.
On September 20 2010 01:08 Polis wrote: Agnosticism does not exclude atheism you aren't one or the other, semantics aren't that hard people. I am agnostic about having fairies in my garden, and at the same time I don't believe in them, technically nothing is 100% certain it does not mean that some things are much less likely then other things. I don't know of any gnostic atheist.
Yeh and to take it one step further I don't know any way to prove that anything except my own mind exists but I certainly don't walk around thinking everything is a figment of my own imagination.
@ intrudor I think there's absolutely no reason to assume that deism has any special validity. Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist. You can call this stupid, but I think it's quite a reasonable assumption. Proportedly having Einstein on your side doesn't help you, because intelligence is no substitute for complete understanding and knowledge. Einstein wished the universe to be "elegant" at its core. How exactly an elegant universe is evidence of intelligence is beyond me. The universe and what lies beneath is a great mystery. It could very well remain a great mystery forever. Instead of resorting to bogus arguments about why people choose not to believe in gods, you might like to expand on why there, in fact, most certainly is one. While you're at it, explain exactly what a god is. Or don't. You're off topic anyway.
...really pope? you think atheism is comparable to nazism? how about you and i skim through the vatican archives and read up on the human rights violations, immorality, sexual crimes, authoritarianism, flagrant abuses of power, corruption, propaganda, hatred of non-catholics, violence, and the systemetic murder of non-...believers that makes up the history of the roman catholic church?
Seriously though, its one thing to say that atheism is bad (not that I think it's true), but its another to say that atheism is bad and that your religion is better, when there has clearly been some major faults in it during the past.
On September 20 2010 01:23 nomsayin wrote: I am becoming more and more convinced that the pope is one of the most evil men alive today.
That seems a tad far, in all honesty. Why do you think that?
The catholic church was systematically raping and torturing children, and he was the leader of this institution. He knew about the cases, and continued to put the public image of the church before the victims.
Maybe not one of the most evil men alive, that may have been a bit reactionary, but nevertheless I was very disappointed when I learned he he wouldn't be arrested and brought to justice in Britian.
To be fair, atheists and agnosticists spread lies about the Vatican as well. Just look at the joke images we have on the NSFW and SFW random pictures threads.
Pope should have a better understanding of German History.
But for now I'll leave the off chance that he misspoke and what he seems to be saying was not his true intention.
On September 19 2010 17:47 cursor wrote: Ya about Morals. They are learned from your parents. Right and wrong. It has more to do with Empathy for other humans and is more GENUINE when it is as such.
Just not doing something because "I'm afraid I'll go to hell" is the wrong reason to be good.
You get your morals from your parents. They tell you when what you do is right or wrong. Atheist or no, good parenting or no, that's where you get it from.
Lastly, to proclaim that religion has some how prevented more deaths than it has caused- with morals- vs its justification for wars- is a pretty silly argument for it.
I read about 6 pages of the long argument, and I found this quote to be compelling. I leave people with their own decision on if they want to be religious or not. I am personally a Buddhist, but I would not force my own beliefs onto others. Sure I may explain why I am a Buddhist (I feel at peace when I enter a temple), but it does not mean I should disrespect or try to convince anyone else to join my faith, or indeed, to join a faith at all.
I have had enough times of other religions telling me if I did not join them, that I would go to hell. Thank you very much, I prefer that the human populace just try to be decent human beings, instead of the finger game. That the world seems to like using too much nowadays.
The Pope did indeed say some,er, interesting things (in my university, my theology teacher is forcing us to read a book he wrote, it's a Catholic U, go figure.) If he truly believes that, so be it, he's a theologian, as my teacher explained, not a charismatic leader.
I personally do not condone what he wrote, but if if it's his view, then I will just quietly take note of it and strengthen my resolve in what I am doing in my own life everyday.
I think there are a lot strong opinions on both sides of the argument. If the Pope calls secularism akin to Nazism, I think we should give the man some credit. I mean he was in the Hitler youth as spry German lad, so I think that makes him the authority on the subject. I think that we all know that "it takes one to know one." Doesn't take God's insight to figure this one out. Duh.
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:48 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
On September 20 2010 01:34 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: To be fair, atheists and agnosticists spread lies about the Vatican as well. Just look at the joke images we have on the NSFW and SFW random pictures threads.
Pope should have a better understanding of German History.
But for now I'll leave the off chance that he misspoke and what he seems to be saying was not his true intention.
Joke images are not lies, they are obviously parody.
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
Burden of proof only goes one way in many cases. The simplest explanation is the default unless there is evidence to the contrary.
No gods exist is simpler than gods creating people in their image and giving them souls and free will to choose to believe in them or not, and punish these souls for not choosing to believe in them.
On September 20 2010 01:34 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: To be fair, atheists and agnosticists spread lies about the Vatican as well. Just look at the joke images we have on the NSFW and SFW random pictures threads.
Pope should have a better understanding of German History.
But for now I'll leave the off chance that he misspoke and what he seems to be saying was not his true intention.
Joke images are not lies, they are obviously parody.
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
Burden of proof only goes one way in many cases. The simplest explanation is the default unless there is evidence to the contrary.
No gods exist is simpler than gods creating people in their image and giving them souls and free will to choose to believe in them or not, and punish these souls for not choosing to believe in them.
Occam's Razor is inductive, not deductive
it's fine if you want to believe that God doesn't exist because it is a simpler explanation, but if you want to talk about proof and accurately describing what is true, it goes both ways - both the assertion and refutation have the burden of proof
(agnostic) Atheism is the only intellectually honest position to take, however much the child-rapist defending Pope wants to make atheism look evil.
Pope is an evil, vicious man who just got nothing to say about other people's morals or acts done in the past. Hitler was a roman catholic, anyone that read mein kampf or other works by Hitler knows this.
On September 20 2010 02:02 Valikyr wrote: (agnostic) Atheism is the only intellectually honest position to take, however much the child-rapist defending Pope wants to make atheism look evil.
Pope is an evil, vicious man who just got nothing to say about other people's morals or acts done in the past. Hitler was a roman catholic, anyone that read mein kampf or other works by Hitler knows this.
agnosticism in general is honest, not just agnostic atheism
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
no wtf....
Burden of proof only goes one way. If I say "Unicorns exist", I have to prove it. I can't say "WELL I CANT PROVE IT BUT YOU CANT NOT PROVE IT".
okay, for the record. everytime these discussions pop up, i feel the urge to intervene. Let me say this first and foremost and with extreme conviction; Atheism is stupid and atheist people are stupid. Period. It's as simple as that.
I reject all forms of organized religions, and i obviously admit that religions have historically been an obstacle to our advancement of knowledge. The problem here is that some unstable people will use the failure of religion to declare with absolute certainty that God does NOT exist. Excuse me? The smartest people in the world have always had the same goal; to discover God's well structured laws. Religious failures and the nonexistence of God do not equate. Some idiots will observe the failures of the bunch of morons at the top of their respective clergies, and will find refuge in Atheism.
These fun-loving individuals will observe Christians, Muslims and Jews misbehave and will conclude with absolute certainty that God does NOT exist based on the moronic behavior of a few carefully selected individuals. They happily jump on the "hi!, God does not exist" bandwagon, and reject the existence of a creator from their empirical observation of a bunch of morons living on Earth. How can you imagine the creation of the Universe and it's prefect harmonious structure if no creator is involved? it just happened? sure.
Einstein always thought that the Universe and it's rules are so well organized that the nonexistence of God is unimaginable. He said; "God does not play dice. We just have to find the rules"
Deism is where it's at;
"Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/, us dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings."
Atheists are almost as stupid as religious people.
tl;dr
"My beliefs are better then everyone else because of x, y, and z. LOL IM SO SMART".
I'm an atheist but I tend to see the world with a lot of pluralism. This comment angers me in a way that no other religious comment ever has.
Yeah, I agree with that :/. Usually I just avoid topics like this.
I guess there is no doubt that atheists without or very low moral values can exist.
And that isn't "Atheist Extremism", thats just being a fucking bad person. Tons of awful religious people exist too. In fact, statistically, religious people are more likely to commit crime then Atheists, and also every single crime as well, with the sole exception of Suicide.
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
no wtf....
Burden of proof only goes one way. If I say "Unicorns exist", I have to prove it. I can't say "WELL I CANT PROVE IT BUT YOU CANT NOT PROVE IT".
did you even bother to skim the article I linked?
you can't prove it, I can't disprove it conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.
you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.
to say you are certain that unicorns don't exist because there is no proof that they do exist is a logical fallacy. it's wrong, simple as that.
tl;dr: just read the article I linked, it has a better chance of enlightening you than I do
I honestly can't believe it. As a 4th year Philosophy student going to be going for my Ph.D I find this just ludicrous. I honestly don't understand how some people's logic fails so miserably. There are points made to defend theism and atheism, but the theists NEVER use the logical defenses. They always spout the useless tripe and fallacies they were taught by the churches ignorance. It is just jaw-dropping. If you have atheist philosophy professors throwing up better defenses for God and religion than actual theists.
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
What would that logical fallacy be? Could you give me an example of that fallacy?
:EDIT: just in case: you might confuse me for a positive atheist, a.k.a. a gnostic atheist, more commonly known as someone who claims to know there is no god. I don't claim to know. I claim to have not been given sufficient evidence to believe, and therefore don't believe religious claims. Is that a fallacy?
On September 20 2010 02:21 Cytokinesis wrote: lol @ this thread
I honestly can't believe it. As a 4th year Philosophy student going to be going for my Ph.D I find this just ludicrous. I honestly don't understand how some people's logic fails so miserably. There are points made to defend theism and atheism, but the theists NEVER use the logical defenses. They always spout the useless tripe and fallacies they were taught by the churches ignorance. It is just jaw-dropping. If you have atheist philosophy professors throwing up better defenses for God and religion than actual theists.
I personally find the loud-mouthed "bill maher" type of atheists to be far more annoying than the bible-thumping fundy theists
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
What would that logical fallacy be? Could you give me an example of that fallacy?
:EDIT: just in case: you might confuse me for a positive atheist, a.k.a. a gnostic atheist, more commonly known as someone who claims to know there is no god. I don't claim to know. I claim to have not been given sufficient evidence to believe, and therefore don't believe religious claims. Is that a fallacy?
I'll just quote some very general examples from the wikipedia article that no one bothered to skim
1.) P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true. 2.) P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.
theists tend to make the first fallacy, atheists tend to make the second fallacy
and no, not believing religious claims is not a fallacy. saying you know that there is no God because there is no evidence for God is a fallacy (which would follow the argument form of the second example)
I do find it pretty funny that during WW2 the Vatican stood behind Hitler, let's not try and re-write who side religion was on when Germany was rolling over Europe.
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
no wtf....
Burden of proof only goes one way. If I say "Unicorns exist", I have to prove it. I can't say "WELL I CANT PROVE IT BUT YOU CANT NOT PROVE IT".
did you even bother to skim the article I linked?
you can't prove it, I can't disprove it conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.
you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.
to say you are certain that unicorns don't exist because there is no proof that they do exist is a logical fallacy. it's wrong, simple as that.
tl;dr: just read the article I linked, it has a better chance of enlightening you than I do
You appeared to have misunderstood the context of my argument, intentionally or otherwise.
Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
In other words, if you said to me "Unicorns exist", and I say "No they do not there is no proof", the burden of proof would not fall on me at all. However, if I said to you as an argument "Unicorns do not exist", then indeed, the burden of proof would fall on me.
In fact, nobody in this entire fucking conversation tried to reason god does not exist, only reject the proposition that he does, which is what Atheism is.
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
no wtf....
Burden of proof only goes one way. If I say "Unicorns exist", I have to prove it. I can't say "WELL I CANT PROVE IT BUT YOU CANT NOT PROVE IT".
did you even bother to skim the article I linked?
you can't prove it, I can't disprove it conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.
you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.
to say you are certain that unicorns don't exist because there is no proof that they do exist is a logical fallacy. it's wrong, simple as that.
tl;dr: just read the article I linked, it has a better chance of enlightening you than I do
You appeared to have misunderstood the context of my argument, intentionally or otherwise.
Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
In other words, if you said to me "Unicorns exist", and I say "No they do not there is no proof", the burden of proof would not fall on me at all. However, if I said to you "God does not exist", then indeed, the burden of proof would fall on me.
In fact, nobody in this entire fucking conversation tried to reason god does not exist, only reject the proposition that he does, which is what Atheism is.
I actually think you misunderstood what I was saying.
The article you just provided for evidence actually just backs up what I originally said because in the second sentence it mentions that "In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof."
so basically you disagreed with me, thought about it, and now instead of realizing you misunderstood what I said, you are going to try to say that I misunderstood you, and quote an article that supports exactly what I originally said to try to prove "your point". thanks for being a man about wasting both of our time.
and the rejection of the notion that God exists would be Weak Atheism which is essentially a form of Agnosticism
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
no wtf....
Burden of proof only goes one way. If I say "Unicorns exist", I have to prove it. I can't say "WELL I CANT PROVE IT BUT YOU CANT NOT PROVE IT".
did you even bother to skim the article I linked?
you can't prove it, I can't disprove it conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.
you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.
to say you are certain that unicorns don't exist because there is no proof that they do exist is a logical fallacy. it's wrong, simple as that.
tl;dr: just read the article I linked, it has a better chance of enlightening you than I do
You appeared to have misunderstood the context of my argument, intentionally or otherwise.
Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
In other words, if you said to me "Unicorns exist", and I say "No they do not there is no proof", the burden of proof would not fall on me at all. However, if I said to you as an argument "Unicorns do not exist", then indeed, the burden of proof would fall on me.
In fact, nobody in this entire fucking conversation tried to reason god does not exist, only reject the proposition that he does, which is what Atheism is.
I agree; I think instead of calling myself an agnostic for that reason, I'd rather have people understand and redefine atheism as "rejection of theism", not "belief in no god".
21st century and the pope is comparing secularism to atheism. The sad thing is that this isn't even anything new as there are people in the U.S. comparing 20th century crimes against humanity with atheism. Terrible times.
On September 20 2010 02:18 Yurebis wrote: Good thing I'm not an atheist. My god is Richard Dawkins!
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
no wtf....
Burden of proof only goes one way. If I say "Unicorns exist", I have to prove it. I can't say "WELL I CANT PROVE IT BUT YOU CANT NOT PROVE IT".
did you even bother to skim the article I linked?
you can't prove it, I can't disprove it conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.
you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.
to say you are certain that unicorns don't exist because there is no proof that they do exist is a logical fallacy. it's wrong, simple as that.
tl;dr: just read the article I linked, it has a better chance of enlightening you than I do
You appeared to have misunderstood the context of my argument, intentionally or otherwise.
You originally posted this
Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
In other words, if you said to me "Unicorns exist", and I say "No they do not there is no proof", the burden of proof would not fall on me at all. However, if I said to you as an argument "Unicorns do not exist", then indeed, the burden of proof would fall on me.
In fact, nobody in this entire fucking conversation tried to reason god does not exist, only reject the proposition that he does, which is what Atheism is.
I agree; I think instead of calling myself an agnostic for that reason, I'd rather have people understand and redefine atheism as "rejection of theism", not "belief in no god".
well, I don't necessarily think the word should be redefined when there's already an existing word for what it intends to be redefined as, which would be Agnosticism
the root of the word "Atheism" in Greek even means "without Gods"
Weak Atheists asking for Atheism to strictly define only Weak Atheism would be like Weak Theists asking for Theism to strictly define only Weak Theism, it's just silly when there's already a word that covers both arguments, and the only intention for redefining the word would be to try to gain some "logical high-ground" that neither side possesses in terms of Strong Atheism/Theism. Strong Theists and Strong Atheists are both equally wrong.
On September 20 2010 01:16 wadadde wrote: Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
That's not true. Atheism isn't about assuming anything. It's about NOT assuming gods DO exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
no wtf....
Burden of proof only goes one way. If I say "Unicorns exist", I have to prove it. I can't say "WELL I CANT PROVE IT BUT YOU CANT NOT PROVE IT".
did you even bother to skim the article I linked?
you can't prove it, I can't disprove it conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.
you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.
to say you are certain that unicorns don't exist because there is no proof that they do exist is a logical fallacy. it's wrong, simple as that.
tl;dr: just read the article I linked, it has a better chance of enlightening you than I do
You appeared to have misunderstood the context of my argument, intentionally or otherwise.
You originally posted this
Atheism is all about assuming that gods don't exist.
burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy
In other words, if you said to me "Unicorns exist", and I say "No they do not there is no proof", the burden of proof would not fall on me at all. However, if I said to you as an argument "Unicorns do not exist", then indeed, the burden of proof would fall on me.
In fact, nobody in this entire fucking conversation tried to reason god does not exist, only reject the proposition that he does, which is what Atheism is.
I agree; I think instead of calling myself an agnostic for that reason, I'd rather have people understand and redefine atheism as "rejection of theism", not "belief in no god".
well, I don't necessarily think the word should be redefined when there's already an existing word for what it intends to be redefined as, which would be Agnosticism
the root of the word "Atheism" in Greek even means "without Gods"
Weak Atheists asking for Atheism to strictly define only Weak Atheism would be like Weak Theists asking for Theism to strictly define only Weak Theism, it's just silly when there's already a word that covers both arguments
Okay, sorry for the attempted hijack. (but I really wanted to be able to just call myself atheist...)
Anyone ever read the story of the tower of bable? That shit's fucked up. If that's in your text book where you derive your moral code from, I want no part in that philosophy (truth about god being imaginary aside).
On September 19 2010 16:51 Shatter wrote: A religious leader says that the world would be better if people followed his religion and that mankind would be less without it. I would kind of expect him to believe this...I don't really see what is wrong with it.
He is arguing that without God and belief and whatever, it can lead to, in extreme cases, things such as the Nazi movement. I guess I just don't see what the problem is. He thinks that a world without Christianity would be a bad world, which isn't surprising considering he is the Pope.
Do I agree with him? No but I'm not outraged or anything.
I dont have a reaso to outrage but I agree on your points, he is the Pope in the end what do people expect?
i'm just curious how many people actually read the entire speech?
also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve. maybe to some of you that means the same thing, but there's a small difference. also, the part that you quoted is the only part where he explicitly mentions chaotic society without christianity.
that being said, I agree that our pope (catholic here btw.) is a little kooky. bring back john paul II imo.
edit:
On September 20 2010 02:53 Steamboatlol wrote: Anyone ever read the story of the tower of bable? That shit's fucked up. If that's in your text book where you derive your moral code from, I want no part in that philosophy (truth about god being imaginary aside).
Negative, University education in theology. It's not an ethnic cleansing because it goes no where near the same degree of what Hitler did. You can try to twist it how you please, it's no where near the same. It's a boring argument, Half. It really is, can you try something else to compare Hitler to the Bible? because you're far off that it's putting me to sleep at 3:46am.
So your argument for why it isn't Ethnic cleansing is that they didn't kill as many people.
I don't know what to say to that. So if I killed every single Black person in detroit, it wouldn't be an ethnic cleansing because it was just detroit?
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You're clearly unaware of what ethnic cleansing is. You're comparing killing every black person in Detroit to killing off nearly an entire ethnicity in Israel? Are you retarded?
You're saying killing every black person in Detroit wouldn't fit the definition of ethnic cleansing?
Some people are just plain stupid. Props to Half for continuing to argue with such a stubborn idiot. After reading kammeyer's statement, I decided to stop reading this thread because his argument is completely flawed beyond all reason. So if you're saying that killing all the black people in Detroit isn't ethnic cleansing because it wasn't on a large scale like the Holocaust was? If Half was able to start a movement and have multiple accomplices and kill much more blacks then it would then be classified as your view of "ethnic cleansing?" Tell me then, how many blacks would he have to kill so it could be considered ethnic cleansing.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote: i'm just curious how many people actually read the entire speech?
also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve. that we attain our full potentials as human beings. maybe to some of you that means the same thing, but there's a small difference.
that being said, I agree that our pope (catholic here btw.) is a little kooky. bring back john paul II imo.
On September 20 2010 02:53 Steamboatlol wrote: Anyone ever read the story of the tower of bable? That shit's fucked up. If that's in your text book where you derive your moral code from, I want no part in that philosophy (truth about god being imaginary aside).
lol wtf. have you actually read the story?
Yep, man kind is living pretty well together when they all decide "lets build a tower that will reach the heaven's themselves!" and god decides this is arrogant, so like a bully at the beach he kicks over their tower and makes them all speak different languages dooming mankind to an eternity of war and misunderstanding.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
On September 19 2010 18:01 blitzkrieger wrote: The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God.
Just because I'm not convinced you know what atheism is:
Most of the people who identify as atheists today, will say they do so because they haven't seen any evidence for a god or gods, or the evidence shown wasn't sufficient to make them believe.
That's all. Religion is selling some story as truth. Atheist aren't selling some other story. They're just not buying yours.
I know that in some dictionaries atheism is defined as conclusively believing gods don't exist, but that's not how most atheists would define it. And before anyone plays the 'you're describing agnosticism' card: agnosticism is a position on whether we can ultimately know for sure whether a god or gods exist. It doesn't have anything to do with the answer to that question itself. So you could be an agnostic theist (I believe god exists), a gnostic theist (I know god exists), an agnostic atheist (I don't believe god exists), and a gnostic atheist (I know god doesn't exist). I realize there's more to it, and I'm cutting some corners, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think this suffices.
So atheism doesn't strip anything from anything. It doesn't conclusively reject anything, and it doesn't posit anything. Now a lot of atheists have a lot of things in common. Some things atheists have in common are a direct result of them being atheist (low church attendance), and some have in many cases lead to them being atheists (a reverence for the scientific method). If a lot of atheist have a higher than average appreciation for science, that doesn't mean that science is a part of what constitutes atheism.
'Well, nice story bro, but why did you bother to write this all down?' you ask... Well, I'm bothered by the notion that without religion life wouldn't have meaning or purpose. I can lie in the grass for hours on end and just appreciate the beauty of nature. I don't think a story for which there is no evidence adds to that beauty. It doesn't add meaning, and it doesn't add purpose. And yes, I've read the bible (and most of the Qur'an), I've been to church, and I've been to christian summer camps. I'm amazed at how the phenomena such as 'beauty', 'meaning' and 'purpose' work. You just experience them, without having a good reason. For some things you could give an explanation, but if you keep asking 'why?' on and on, you'll end up with an explanation that doesn't intuitively make sense. And still we can all appreciate beauty, and meaning, and purpose. I think it's great that it's not our task to effect someone else's purpose, but that we can define our true selves by finding our own purpose in life.
Now religion tries to answer the perpetual 'why?' question with the 'god' answer. If something has meaning to us, it's because it's god's will. But I'm not going to stop asking 'why?' there. Why is it god's will? Why is this god's purpose? If you cannot answer those questions, you haven't added to the understanding of our purpose (or beauty, or meaning). Not because you couldn't answer the 'final' question, but because the question remains basically the same. You haven't reduced the problem to something simpler, with less assumptions. You have therefore not explained anything.
This is where my appreciation for science comes in, and how I get back to the first line of you I quoted. While atheism doesn't strip anything off of anything, it doesn't add anything useful either. But although we don't need anything to add to the beauty and purpose of the world around us, there is so much that we can add to it. Even though the world is beautiful by itself, the way it works is (to some) even more wonderful than the way it looks. That's where science comes in. Science can explain why we experience the purpose we feel, and in some cases why we experience some things as beautiful. And if you have an appreciation for such explanations, then that means that for you science adds to the beauty of life. Science can only add to this beauty. It never detracts.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
I think he means those who actively try to disprove religion, especially infront of religious people. There are those who just don't believe in God and that's that. I guess that wouldn't be 'extreme' atheism..
On the other hand, if extremism is defined as spreading your message religious extremism is a crippling majority.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
Your post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.
Why are people like you so fucking arrogant? Some of the most powerful nations on earth were built upon the absence of religion, and many world powers today are mostly irreligious, like Japan and Korea, and many moderate European Nations like Sweden and Denmark.
On September 20 2010 02:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: the rejection of the notion that God exists would be Weak Atheism which is essentially a form of Agnosticism
Weak Atheism is as much a form of agnosticism as a blue castle is a shade of blue. I would let this slide, not wanting to turn this into a semantics discussion, where it not for the fact that a lot of evangelical christians seem to want to discredit atheism by claiming that all atheists are in fact 'just' agnostics, and that there are no 'real' atheists. I'm not saying you are one of those, I'm just explaining why I think it's important to point this out.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
I strongly agree with you that people should be more mindful of psychology and that any logical deduction relies on a correct set of underlying assumptions but I you are not correctly representing that one one side of this argument no attempt is made to employ logic at all. I won't by any means claim that all arguments I've seen for atheism have been logically sound - but can you offer up a single one in the other direction?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
Same with the universe. Is there really an end to the length of our universe? Who knows?
Yes. An infinite set requires no beginning. The universe has a beginning, thus, it has an end.
On September 20 2010 03:35 L wrote: You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
I don't distance myself from anything. I had given a specific example on how religion can motivate you do you something, and I want to hear example for how atheism can motivate you to do something.
My only point was that I am extreme Muslim so I will kill person who made Muhammad cartoons is logical, and I want to hear what bad follows from extreme atheism, I am extreme atheist so...
On September 20 2010 03:35 L wrote:I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
To bad that you was unable to give any argument for it, just some baseless assumptions about my motivations, and that would be adhominem argument anyway.
I really doubt anyone here believes God will save them from inevitable death. Where the hell did you come up with this one?
He meant death as the end of your conscious existence. I'm shocked that you didn't understand it.
If he means that, it's all the more surprising to me why he thinks that way. Is it really impossible to be some form of afterlife? And how is believing that there isn't an afterlife 'manning up' as he calls it?
We can neither prove it or refute it.
Same with the universe. Is there really an end to the length of our universe? Who knows?
Which is why I don't see why people have to keep arguing about whether their view on the unknown is right or wrong. We never really can know for sure in our lifetime, so it's really up to personal belief.
edit: also the way he worded it was retarded as hell too. how would God 'protect' you from inevitable death if his very existence as well as the existence of heaven contradicts 'death' of your existence.
^ok I used the word existence alot but hope you understand it rofl
However, the fact that neither can be proven does not mean that both are equally likely. I despise analogies, since inevitably someone comes along, quotes you, and takes your analogy grossly out of context and then laughs that it's not actually completely the same - but if I were to make one I'd compare it to a weighted die.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
I strongly agree with you that people should be more mindful of psychology and that any logical deduction relies on a correct set of underlying assumptions but I you are not correctly representing that one one side of this argument no attempt is made to employ logic at all. I won't by any means claim that all arguments I've seen for atheism have been logically sound - but can you offer up a single one in the other direction?
One 'side'?
The entire push for the 'knowability' of nature comes from the platonic drive to know an ultimate form of the 'good'. Science isn't divorced from religion, its a direct response to the western conception of the divine. There's a reason why the west kept searching for the truth and kept pushing the boundaries of what's knowable, despite some instances of knowledge being interfered with.
In comparison, China, the only other society of similar (actually superior, during the timeframe) means compared with western europe actually banned the majority of scientific developments for many centuries. Japan similarly went through a period of cultural re-entrenchment. The west pushed forth because of a few core beliefs:
1) The world is knowable.
- This seems odd, because 'everyone' believes that, right? Wrong. Hindu and Buddist belief systems often posit the complete opposite: that those with knowledge are to strive to liberate others, but that they're ultimately removed from the flow of karma as superior beings. Hinduism goes as far as to construe the world as an illusion.
2) That knowing is useful.
- Why would this be useful in a largely agrarian pre-industrial revolutionary society? After the initial period of specialization and agrivariation which led to domestication, there was relatively little resources available to spend. In some areas, say, on easter island, the extra resources were used to build monuments to local chiefs. They all died. In some areas, the extra food was used to feed more people. This is the case during the Chinese period wherein advancement was banned in the interest of a static culture. In the west, knowledge itself was prized as an avenue towards the divine, and the rich strove to become leaders in the field of knowledge because of the prestige that the religious background gave it.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
On September 20 2010 04:08 Cantankerous wrote: However, the fact that neither can be proven does not mean that both are equally likely.
This is a good point. Thousands of years of observing stuff falling to the ground doesn't prove that your monitor will fall to the ground if you push it off the desk. However, I think we can intuitively agree that it is more likely the monitor will indeed fall, than that it won't.
The problem is that we use inductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that the monitor will fall if we push it. Technically, inductive reasoning is a logical fallacy. However, it works, and it is what science is built on.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
I strongly agree with you that people should be more mindful of psychology and that any logical deduction relies on a correct set of underlying assumptions but I you are not correctly representing that one one side of this argument no attempt is made to employ logic at all. I won't by any means claim that all arguments I've seen for atheism have been logically sound - but can you offer up a single one in the other direction?
One 'side'?
The entire push for the 'knowability' of nature comes from the platonic drive to know an ultimate form of the 'good'. Science isn't divorced from religion, its a direct response to the western conception of the divine. There's a reason why the west kept searching for the truth and kept pushing the boundaries of what's knowable, despite some instances of knowledge being interfered with.
In comparison, China, the only other society of similar (actually superior, during the timeframe) means compared with western europe actually banned the majority of scientific developments for many centuries. Japan similarly went through a period of cultural re-entrenchment. The west pushed forth because of a few core beliefs:
1) The world is knowable.
- This seems odd, because 'everyone' believes that, right? Wrong. Hindu and Buddist belief systems often posit the complete opposite: that those with knowledge are to strive to liberate others, but that they're ultimately removed from the flow of karma as superior beings. Hinduism goes as far as to construe the world as an illusion.
2) That knowing is useful.
- Why would this be useful in a largely agrarian pre-industrial revolutionary society? After the initial period of specialization and agrivariation which led to domestication, there was relatively little resources available to spend. In some areas, say, on easter island, the extra resources were used to build monuments to local chiefs. They all died. In some areas, the extra food was used to feed more people. This is the case during the Chinese period wherein advancement was banned in the interest of a static culture. In the west, knowledge itself was prized as an avenue towards the divine, and the rich strove to become leaders in the field of knowledge because of the prestige that the religious background gave it.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
It truly is amazing hearing this from the other end. Considering I distinctly remember posting the exact same thing in another religious thread somewhere.
Yes, when it comes down to it, Atheism is a system of belief, just as Religion is a system of belief, which can be further divided into individual religions. These systems of belief are ways we interpret value from world. Systems of belief are inherently subjective, and thus, none can be objectively better then another. People need systems of beliefs in order to function in this world, and any argument whos basis is inherently subjective is just a confliction of values in differing systems of beliefs.
You just realize that?
Indeed If you tried to argue any actual position, you yourself would fall into the same fallacy's you deride us for falling into.
But of course, your better then arguing for any actual position right? You just get your kicks from laughing at people with ideals and convictions. Every single person marginalized or derided is just another mental victory. In the end, your viewpoint becomes nothing more then an useless structure to preposition yourself as superior to your fellow man, because you lack actual convictions. A kind of mental device to vindicate yourself as superior to everyone else, by the shear virtue of being detached and effectively redundant.
Its amazing how you can write so much and say absolutely nothing.
I'm sure you feel really proud about yourself. You want a cookie?
Its funny because despite your purported sophistication, you present an argument that has no more merit then Blitzkriegs criticism of Atheism.
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
Essentially, you attempt to attack the integrity of an argument for Atheism from the role of an outsider. due to its lack of empirical merit, despite the fact that Atheism does not claim to have emperical merit (in terms of "moral value"), only empirical social value in the context of the world today (not the world two thousand years ago), and subjective personal value.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
I strongly agree with you that people should be more mindful of psychology and that any logical deduction relies on a correct set of underlying assumptions but I you are not correctly representing that one one side of this argument no attempt is made to employ logic at all. I won't by any means claim that all arguments I've seen for atheism have been logically sound - but can you offer up a single one in the other direction?
One 'side'?
The entire push for the 'knowability' of nature comes from the platonic drive to know an ultimate form of the 'good'. Science isn't divorced from religion, its a direct response to the western conception of the divine. There's a reason why the west kept searching for the truth and kept pushing the boundaries of what's knowable, despite some instances of knowledge being interfered with.
In comparison, China, the only other society of similar (actually superior, during the timeframe) means compared with western europe actually banned the majority of scientific developments for many centuries. Japan similarly went through a period of cultural re-entrenchment. The west pushed forth because of a few core beliefs:
1) The world is knowable.
- This seems odd, because 'everyone' believes that, right? Wrong. Hindu and Buddist belief systems often posit the complete opposite: that those with knowledge are to strive to liberate others, but that they're ultimately removed from the flow of karma as superior beings. Hinduism goes as far as to construe the world as an illusion.
2) That knowing is useful.
- Why would this be useful in a largely agrarian pre-industrial revolutionary society? After the initial period of specialization and agrivariation which led to domestication, there was relatively little resources available to spend. In some areas, say, on easter island, the extra resources were used to build monuments to local chiefs. They all died. In some areas, the extra food was used to feed more people. This is the case during the Chinese period wherein advancement was banned in the interest of a static culture. In the west, knowledge itself was prized as an avenue towards the divine, and the rich strove to become leaders in the field of knowledge because of the prestige that the religious background gave it.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
You're confusing the historical background with truth. Christianity may or may not have contributed to a culture that values knowledge, but that is entirely besides the point of whether or not the claims of the religion are true. In particular that one point concerning whether or not god actually exist is in question. It really does not matter if christianity makes people into super nice cuddle machines that work their entire lives to spread love and understanding to the less fortunate.
As for the reason science and religion are distinct is that science in its very definition does not allow for religious thinking. There are plenty of people that fit both in their minds, but that is a matter of cognitive dissonance and does not reflect the philosophical compatibility of the two.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Case in point.
It's a pretty big assumption to say that scientific advancement is synonymous with making the world a better place. I think I'd rather be a hunter gatherer than go to college.
On September 20 2010 04:08 Cantankerous wrote: However, the fact that neither can be proven does not mean that both are equally likely.
This is a good point. Thousands of years of observing stuff falling to the ground doesn't prove that your monitor will fall to the ground if you push it off the desk. However, I think we can intuitively agree that it is more likely the monitor will indeed fall, than that it won't.
The problem is that we use inductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that the monitor will fall if we push it. Technically, inductive reasoning is a logical fallacy. However, it works, and it is what science is built on.
Not to make this sound like the atheist support club where we go to pat each other on the back but this is also a very good point that needs to be stressed
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Case in point.
It's a pretty big assumption to say that scientific advancement is synonymous with making the world a better place. I think I'd rather be a hunter gatherer than go to college.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Interesting point given the fact that the Church, I'm sure, could make an enormous difference in say building/digging wells, schools, and teaching safe sex in Africa.
you're right, non-religious folk clearly don't know how to use condoms or shovels.
A excellent speech by Dawkins. I find it ridiculous that anyone takes the Pope seriously. Because he says something, it makes it worth discussing about? Dawkins has devoted his life to discussing it, so I honor him for it. But why all this arguing? Let the religious people live their own world, they're the ones missing out.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.
Why are people like you so fucking arrogant? Some of the most powerful nations on earth were built upon the absence of religion, and many world powers today are mostly irreligious, like Japan and Korea, and many moderate European Nations like Sweden and Denmark.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Now this is slightly less common among the younger generation but it did play a significant part both of those nations history.
In Scandinavia you had the early Nordic Gods, and there was also a strong Christian movement in Denmark at least (Catholic and Protestant) again this are less common now with the younger generation but religion has played a part in the country as it developed.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
On September 19 2010 16:35 Dgtl wrote: It's unfortunate that actual intelligent religious people are represented by this guy. Not all religious people are stupid.
Is there such a thing as an intelligent religious person? Intelligence is relative. Anyways to the OP, I don't think you cant expect a religious organization or leader for that matter to hold up once scrutinized. I mean how important is research and evidence when there is faith and doctrine.
Here is some hope though if you believe a Stanford Binet IQ test is an accurate measure of intelligence; This test clearly shows that despite larger family size and inbreeding, IQ's are going up by 3 points on average per decade. Hopefully that means people will be more self aware and not flock like sheep.
I heard Einstein was pretty smart. Newton? A lot of people actually. In fact some monk found out how cells and basic genetics work. Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?). In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is. In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them.
I've heard its going down because poor people have more kids and poor people are usually less educated/intelligent. Smart people tend to have less kids and focus on individual pursuits, whether that be business, science, or faith.
Einstein was spiritual, saying that "God" was in the beauty and complexity of nature. And the graph up there is the most moronic thing anyone could ever have though of. If it wasn't for Islam, a lot of the scientific progress would've been lost - same goes the other way around. Who exactly do you guys think printed the theories? Sure, the dark ages are called dark for a reason, but using the dark ages as a reason for religion being bad is like using the Hiroshima as an argument that science is bad...
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact.
I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now.
Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' Point is, avoiding using phrases like 'Atheist scum' to try and make me come across as some non-religious hating person.
If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing.
On September 20 2010 02:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote: the rejection of the notion that God exists would be Weak Atheism which is essentially a form of Agnosticism
Weak Atheism is as much a form of agnosticism as a blue castle is a shade of blue. I would let this slide, not wanting to turn this into a semantics discussion, where it not for the fact that a lot of evangelical christians seem to want to discredit atheism by claiming that all atheists are in fact 'just' agnostics, and that there are no 'real' atheists. I'm not saying you are one of those, I'm just explaining why I think it's important to point this out.
I apologize, I didn't mean to say Atheism, specifically Weak Atheism, was the same as Agnosticism.
I merely wanted to emphasize that Weak Atheism (as well as Weak Theism) are both compatible with Agnosticism, whereas Strong Atheism/Theism are not compatible with Agnosticism.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.
Why are people like you so fucking arrogant? Some of the most powerful nations on earth were built upon the absence of religion, and many world powers today are mostly irreligious, like Japan and Korea, and many moderate European Nations like Sweden and Denmark.
my history might be a little iffy, but the only two powerful nations I know of that were built upon the absence of religion would be Communist China and the USSR (both of which are modern)
almost every Great Empire in history has had some form of religion or another which either it was directly founded upon or had a significant role to play in it's founding
On September 20 2010 05:02 Sadist wrote: Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?).
What a horrid example, so Darwin had lost his faith becouse of his scientific research, and that shows that science, and religion goes well together?
On September 20 2010 05:02 Sadist wrote:In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is.
In fact people in general are interested in knowing answers to such questions, and religion stop people from thinking by saying them that there is an invisible being that can't be understand behind it all. Hawking was told by a pope that scientist should not try to discover why Big Band had happen, becouse that should be left for religion.
Scientist don't give God as an explanation, naming physical laws with the world god is not religion but semantics.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact.
I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now.
Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.'
If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing.
You're right, I often do argue at a lower standard in threads like this, because they are so intrinsically based upon presumption and faith that an intellectual analysis isn't worth the time or effort.
This is the post I responded to.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.
He has absolutely no analytical, logical, or correlative evidence to back up this statement. Yet in order to prove him empirically wrong, one would need to waste his time forming a complex dissertative analysis to an opinion whos only rationale behind it was an intuitive insight that was formed as a result of a religious upbringing.
Instead, I chose to respond in the simplest way possible. A statement of simple truths to expand his narrow perspective.
Now I'm assuming your smarter then he is, and now your trying to say these simple truths don't empirically disprove his statement. Well no shit. Because his statement was not one that had any sort of scientific rationale behind it what so ever.
but fyi, stop using Japan as an example. Shintoism and Buddhism have almost nothing in common with Christianity.
my history might be a little iffy, but the only two powerful nations I know of that were built upon the absence of religion would be Communist China and the USSR (both of which are modern)
See if I wanted to be pretentious like L would say something like how Chinese religious values ingrained in the culture were instrumental in the development of the PRC, despite being formally repressed by the government during the earlier years, despite that fact contributing little to the discussion at hand or something :o.
But not really.
No nation is truly devoid of religious influences. Not really even then ones you mentioned, so yes. However, religious values have shown consistent decline in the years after WW2 in most developed countries, to the point where many countries are predominantly irreligious (like the ones I had mentioned), the primary point being that despite this, the moral values expressed by the nations have only improved in relation to humanism.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.
Why are people like you so fucking arrogant? Some of the most powerful nations on earth were built upon the absence of religion, and many world powers today are mostly irreligious, like Japan and Korea, and many moderate European Nations like Sweden and Denmark.
my history might be a little iffy, but the only two powerful nations I know of that were built upon the absence of religion would be Communist China and the USSR (both of which are modern)
almost every Great Empire in history has had some form of religion or another which either it was directly founded upon or had a significant role to play in it's founding
Before modern times, the only way for a ruler to actually exert control over a vast land was through superstition and religion.
How could a King make people follow his rules without having 1 guard per citizen? It's not like they had video surveillence or forensics to figure out who was breaking the law. By getting everyone to fear and worship one or many gods, you can use this fear of divine supervision as a way to get people to follow the rules. Remember, back then, vast distances of land couldn't easily be crossed. Guards would be at guard posts rather spread out, so in small villages (most of the population) by the time you send a messenger to a guard, it could be days or weeks later before they come to investigate a crime. Nowadays police can get almost anywhere super fast in cars. Cities have response times of 7 to 15 minutes to a 911 call, while rural areas might take an hour. Even if they miss the crime, they can collect forensic evidence. The criminal law system was basically one man's word against another. Law enforcement is exponentially better now, so we don't need religion to keep people afraid of breaking the rules.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
I strongly agree with you that people should be more mindful of psychology and that any logical deduction relies on a correct set of underlying assumptions but I you are not correctly representing that one one side of this argument no attempt is made to employ logic at all. I won't by any means claim that all arguments I've seen for atheism have been logically sound - but can you offer up a single one in the other direction?
One 'side'?
The entire push for the 'knowability' of nature comes from the platonic drive to know an ultimate form of the 'good'. Science isn't divorced from religion, its a direct response to the western conception of the divine. There's a reason why the west kept searching for the truth and kept pushing the boundaries of what's knowable, despite some instances of knowledge being interfered with.
In comparison, China, the only other society of similar (actually superior, during the timeframe) means compared with western europe actually banned the majority of scientific developments for many centuries. Japan similarly went through a period of cultural re-entrenchment. The west pushed forth because of a few core beliefs:
1) The world is knowable.
- This seems odd, because 'everyone' believes that, right? Wrong. Hindu and Buddist belief systems often posit the complete opposite: that those with knowledge are to strive to liberate others, but that they're ultimately removed from the flow of karma as superior beings. Hinduism goes as far as to construe the world as an illusion.
2) That knowing is useful.
- Why would this be useful in a largely agrarian pre-industrial revolutionary society? After the initial period of specialization and agrivariation which led to domestication, there was relatively little resources available to spend. In some areas, say, on easter island, the extra resources were used to build monuments to local chiefs. They all died. In some areas, the extra food was used to feed more people. This is the case during the Chinese period wherein advancement was banned in the interest of a static culture. In the west, knowledge itself was prized as an avenue towards the divine, and the rich strove to become leaders in the field of knowledge because of the prestige that the religious background gave it.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
It truly is amazing hearing this from the other end. Considering I distinctly remember posting the exact same thing in another religious thread somewhere.
Yes, when it comes down to it, Atheism is a system of belief, just as Religion is a system of belief, which can be further divided into individual religions. These systems of belief are ways we interpret value from world. Systems of belief are inherently subjective, and thus, none can be objectively better then another. People need systems of beliefs in order to function in this world, and any argument whos basis is inherently subjective is just a confliction of values in differing systems of beliefs.
You just realize that?
Indeed If you tried to argue any actual position, you yourself would fall into the same fallacy's you deride us for falling into.
But of course, your better then arguing for any actual position right? You just get your kicks from laughing at people with ideals and convictions. Every single person marginalized or derided is just another mental victory. In the end, your viewpoint becomes nothing more then an useless structure to preposition yourself as superior to your fellow man, because you lack actual convictions. A kind of mental device to vindicate yourself as superior to everyone else, by the shear virtue of being detached and effectively redundant.
Its amazing how you can write so much and say absolutely nothing.
I'm sure you feel really proud about yourself. You want a cookie?
Its funny because despite your purported sophistication, you present an argument that has no more merit then Blitzkriegs criticism of Atheism.
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
Essentially, you attempt to attack the integrity of an argument for Atheism from the role of an outsider. due to its lack of empirical merit, despite the fact that Atheism does not claim to have emperical merit (in terms of "moral value"), only empirical social value in the context of the world today (not the world two thousand years ago), and subjective personal value.
The entire critique of cultural relativism that you posit in this over-long post is pretty standard and dealt with in a number of ways by memetics or by Nietzsche's philosophical utilitarian perspective theory. I also disagree with the proposition that all worldviews are equally valid, and I never stated that they are.
More to the point, you're incredibly defensive about a post that just said "take a step back and look at the history of the concepts you're looking at" while giving some examples. Its as if you want to violently reject that most westerners operate out of unexamined assumptions which stem from their theistic cultural history. In trying to do so, you're trying to 'cleanse' yourself of a philosophy that you view as barbaric and primitive. Its very much, again, akin to Nietzsche's mocking of Socrates.
I mean, you think I'm attacking the 'merit of Atheism'. Did I? Or did you infer that, then make it the center of your post? Seems like a rather emotional reaction from someone claiming to come from such a place of enlightened rationality.
The benefit of taking a step back from culture isn't to stand above it all and mock others in superiority. Its to find solutions to problems. More importantly, its also to allow you to see patterns in thought which are recurrent and fast forward through similar themes which have been exhausted in the past. In the current instance, there's a cultural divide between theists and non-theists which is exaggerated by the effects of group thought. The irony, however, is that the arguments being deployed claim the opposite of the actual dialog. And not just in this thread, although there are countless threads like this, but in popular discourse as well.
This isn't an empty statement; I'm asking both sides to actually go do some research and look at the core of their convictions and start acting through them instead of just mouthing support while collectively acting like 7 year olds.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact.
I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now.
Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' Point is, avoiding using phrases like 'Atheist scum' to try and make me come across as some non-religious hating person.
If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing.
Edit: This is actually Meta talking, I'm at my friend's house and didn't realize I was logged in on his account.
You don't think the overwhelming sexual oppression the priesthood bestows upon themselves leads to a lifetime of built-up sexual urges? You don't think that this might at least aid in the littlest bit to the priest's explosion of sexual misconduct over the past 40 years? If not, it seems a little odd to me that SO MANY catholic priests have been charged with child rape.
Also, I gotta respond to the dude who responded to my post on page two, where I claimed that 93% of scientists are atheists. According to this website, it's actually more like 64%, which is still an overwhelming majority when compared to the average atheism among non-scientists.
Also, that Dawkins video expressed exactly the thought process behind the Pope's speech. It wasn't about secularism at all, it was about diverting attention away from the horrible atrocities that catholic priests have been carrying out against children for decades. It was about covering up the fact that Ratzinger was the soul individual behind the cover-ups of these molestation cases for the past 30 years. He's trying to divert attention away from his own illegal and immoral activities for fear of secular retribution for his heinous crimes, and talking about anything else at this point is exactly playing to his agenda. It's sickening, thinking about all the poor child victims of the catholic church, and how many of them may never see the criminals behind their torture locked away.
Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact.
I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now.
Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.'
If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing.
You're right, I often do argue at a lower standard in threads like this, because they are so intrinsically based upon presumption and faith that an intellectual analysis isn't worth the time or effort.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.
He has absolutely no analytical, logical, or correlative evidence to back up this statement. Yet in order to prove him empirically wrong, one would need to waste his time forming a complex dissertative analysis to an opinion whos only rationale behind it was an intuitive insight that was formed as a result of a religious upbringing.
Instead, I chose to respond in the simplest way possible. A statement of simple truths to expand his narrow perspective.
Now I'm assuming your smarter then he is, and now your trying to say these simple truths don't empirically disprove his statement. Well no shit. Because his statement was not one that had any sort of scientific rationale behind it what so ever.
but fyi, stop using Japan as an example. Shintoism and Buddhism have almost nothing in common with Christianity.
I wasn't addressing his post whatsoever, you covered that just a little inaccurately. His post is asinine, moral standards are what keeps society from crumbling not a belief in a god. Religion just happened to be the outlet that this was expressed through for a long time.
I think you need to take a break from this, the stupid is wearing you down. You can't argue with most of the people in these threads, Atheist or Theist, because they are unwilling to think logically about it and resort to insulting rather than taking a step back and think about what they are saying. You started of very strong with good posts but it's easy to see the gradual decline in your posting as the thread went along.
Rule of thumb that is hard to follow sometimes, is to avoid religious threads and discussions offline and online because they will always be plagued with idiots on both sides. I broke the rule and became partially invested in the thread but most of the time if you can avoid these types of discussions you'll be a much happier person. You can't change peoples beliefs just like you can't fix stupid, all you get by trying is a headache and shitty day.
Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.
The irony of this statement is fantastic.
Jews were persecuted so hard by Christians before the Nazis. They didn't slaughter the Jews, but they sure didn't treat Jews equally or with respect. Many Western countries actually banned Jews from immigrating before WWII. After the war, they freed millions of Jews, but they kinda still didn't want too many Jews to move in and so the Allies helped to create Israel to put the Jews elsewhere.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact.
I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now.
Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' Point is, avoiding using phrases like 'Atheist scum' to try and make me come across as some non-religious hating person.
If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing.
Edit: This is actually Meta talking, I'm at my friend's house and didn't realize I was logged in on his account.
You don't think the overwhelming sexual oppression the priesthood bestows upon themselves leads to a lifetime of built-up sexual urges? You don't think that this might at least aid in the littlest bit to the priest's explosion of sexual misconduct over the past 40 years? If not, it seems a little odd to me that SO MANY catholic priests have been charged with child rape.
Also, I gotta respond to the dude who responded to my post on page two, where I claimed that 93% of scientists are atheists. According to this website, it's actually more like 64%, which is still an overwhelming majority when compared to the average atheism among non-scientists.
Also, that Dawkins video expressed exactly the thought process behind the Pope's speech. It wasn't about secularism at all, it was about diverting attention away from the horrible atrocities that catholic priests have been carrying out against children for decades. It was about covering up the fact that Ratzinger was the soul individual behind the cover-ups of these molestation cases for the past 30 years. He's trying to divert attention away from his own illegal and immoral activities for fear of secular retribution for his heinous crimes, and talking about anything else at this point is exactly playing to his agenda. It's sickening, thinking about all the poor child victims of the catholic church, and how many of them may never see the criminals behind their torture locked away.
I'm sure that it's a factor in their actions, but there is still something wrong with them overall. There are many priests, pastors, etc. that don't do this. My statement still stands that they aren't Catholics that are pedophiles, but rather pedophiles that are Catholics.
Really the issue is that you get people in a position of power that have skewed beliefs and ideals. It all comes down the line, the Bible doesn't state that you should beat/kill Jews, gays, etc. nor does the Qur'an state that it's people must kill all non-believers. These issues arise because you have someone in a position of power that perpetuates these beliefs to those that listen to him thus causing issues. The real issue is with organized religion rather than religion or a belief in god.
Remember, not all sexually deviant Priests are pedophiles or even gay. Something like 20% of the children abused are girls, and Priests also use hookers and stuff, that just isn't as big a news story. They are sexually repressed and they'll find a release somewhere, whether it's an altar boy, sunday school girl, hooker, or another Priest.
On September 20 2010 05:42 Zzoram wrote: Remember, not all sexually deviant Priests are pedophiles or even gay. Something like 20% of the children abused are girls, and Priests also use hookers and stuff, that just isn't as big a news story.
I used pedophilia as the example since it has been the topic of discussion regarding the Catholic Church and it tends to be a larger part of the whole sexual deviancy (this is not the exact phrase I wanted to use but I can't brain right now) aspect than the use of hookers, or other means.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.
Why are people like you so fucking arrogant? Some of the most powerful nations on earth were built upon the absence of religion, and many world powers today are mostly irreligious, like Japan and Korea, and many moderate European Nations like Sweden and Denmark.
my history might be a little iffy, but the only two powerful nations I know of that were built upon the absence of religion would be Communist China and the USSR (both of which are modern)
almost every Great Empire in history has had some form of religion or another which either it was directly founded upon or had a significant role to play in it's founding
Before modern times, the only way for a ruler to actually exert control over a vast land was through superstition and religion.
How could a King make people follow his rules without having 1 guard per citizen? It's not like they had video surveillence or forensics to figure out who was breaking the law. By getting everyone to fear and worship one or many gods, you can use this fear of divine supervision as a way to get people to follow the rules. Remember, back then, vast distances of land couldn't easily be crossed. Guards would be at guard posts rather spread out, so in small villages (most of the population) by the time you send a messenger to a guard, it could be days or weeks later before they come to investigate a crime. Nowadays police can get almost anywhere super fast in cars. Cities have response times of 7 to 15 minutes to a 911 call, while rural areas might take an hour. Even if they miss the crime, they can collect forensic evidence. The criminal law system was basically one man's word against another. Law enforcement is exponentially better now, so we don't need religion to keep people afraid of breaking the rules.
all of this is true, however it would be a mistake to say that the only purpose religion ever served was that of fear or political control/manipulation of the masses
I agree with pretty much everything you said Pioneer. Sexual deviancy among priests should not include consensual, adult sexual relations because frankly, that's not deviant, that's completely natural. However it gets out of line when certain members start to abuse children. The fiasco escalates when the higher-up members of the church release an ultimatum that any priest who talks about the crimes will be excommunicated, and when the self-inflicted punishment is merely moving the offending priests from parish to parish to rape and molest more children. Now the single person responsible for the cover-ups has been elected Pope (go figure), and he releases this ill-informed statement as a means of crisis control.
Eventually the secular court systems around the world will follow the paper trail and prosecutors will finally achieve something that the current regime within the catholic church could never offer: justice. Ratzinger's just biding his time until then.
If he means that, it's all the more surprising to me why he thinks that way. Is it really impossible to be some form of afterlife? And how is believing that there isn't an afterlife 'manning up' as he calls it?
We can neither prove it or refute it.
Same with the universe. Is there really an end to the length of our universe? Who knows?
Which is why I don't see why people have to keep arguing about whether their view on the unknown is right or wrong. We never really can know for sure in our lifetime, so it's really up to personal belief.
The problem is when people believe stuff because it makes them feel safe or comfortable. This is where manning up comes in.
The question isn't whether there could possibly be an afterlife. Sure, noone can prove there couldn't. But, given what you know about the world is there any indication of it? If you truly, honestly examined the evidence, without letting your hopes and fears getting in the way, what would be your answer? If it's "I'm not sure", which one looks more likely: yes or no?
The problem with faith (not necessarily religious fate) isn't that the conclusion is wrong. It may or may not be. It's that whole process is wrong. Instead of looking at the evidence impartially faith ignores it unless it's absolutely owerwhelming. You really do not see a problem with this thinking process?
If someone did this in other areas of their life what would you think? Maybe something that could hurt someone else: like convincing themselves that they could drive safely when they haven't slept for 24 hours. After all there's no way to know for sure if it's going to lead to an accident or not. I would think that the person is irresponsible or even callous.
In the end faith is just a dishonest way of looking at the world. In its most harmless form it just weakens our defense against self-deception. At its worst it hurts others, possibly costing lives.
On September 20 2010 02:56 goldenkrnboi wrote:also, he compares extreme atheism to nazism, not secularism. big difference. it's like how we reject extreme muslims or extreme christians. no point in hurting the followers who don't harm the rest of society.
What the hell is extreme atheist, how can you be extreme in your lack of belief in God? Lack of belief in God in itself does not motivate for anything good or bad. I kill people becouse I am atheist simply does not follow. What in your mind is equivalent of "I do x becouse bible say x" in atheism?
Having a worldview isn't just a motivation, but a manner and mode of thinking which changes all of your goals and conceptions about the world around you, as well as your interaction with the goals and conceptions of others.
You post, for instance, is an example of this. You encounter another worldview and exclaim that it is vehemently irrational. The addition of killing people to the discourse, similarly, is a way to further distance yourself from said worldview. Why? You and your opposites have different assumptions about how the world works. Different starting points for your moral calculations.
The only way you can make your claim is if your position is somehow sanctified as the neutral cultural norm. Now think about the argument in reverse from the opposite perspective.
I've always found these threads interesting to note how similar both sides are.
I strongly agree with you that people should be more mindful of psychology and that any logical deduction relies on a correct set of underlying assumptions but I you are not correctly representing that one one side of this argument no attempt is made to employ logic at all. I won't by any means claim that all arguments I've seen for atheism have been logically sound - but can you offer up a single one in the other direction?
One 'side'?
The entire push for the 'knowability' of nature comes from the platonic drive to know an ultimate form of the 'good'. Science isn't divorced from religion, its a direct response to the western conception of the divine. There's a reason why the west kept searching for the truth and kept pushing the boundaries of what's knowable, despite some instances of knowledge being interfered with.
In comparison, China, the only other society of similar (actually superior, during the timeframe) means compared with western europe actually banned the majority of scientific developments for many centuries. Japan similarly went through a period of cultural re-entrenchment. The west pushed forth because of a few core beliefs:
1) The world is knowable.
- This seems odd, because 'everyone' believes that, right? Wrong. Hindu and Buddist belief systems often posit the complete opposite: that those with knowledge are to strive to liberate others, but that they're ultimately removed from the flow of karma as superior beings. Hinduism goes as far as to construe the world as an illusion.
2) That knowing is useful.
- Why would this be useful in a largely agrarian pre-industrial revolutionary society? After the initial period of specialization and agrivariation which led to domestication, there was relatively little resources available to spend. In some areas, say, on easter island, the extra resources were used to build monuments to local chiefs. They all died. In some areas, the extra food was used to feed more people. This is the case during the Chinese period wherein advancement was banned in the interest of a static culture. In the west, knowledge itself was prized as an avenue towards the divine, and the rich strove to become leaders in the field of knowledge because of the prestige that the religious background gave it.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
It truly is amazing hearing this from the other end. Considering I distinctly remember posting the exact same thing in another religious thread somewhere.
Yes, when it comes down to it, Atheism is a system of belief, just as Religion is a system of belief, which can be further divided into individual religions. These systems of belief are ways we interpret value from world. Systems of belief are inherently subjective, and thus, none can be objectively better then another. People need systems of beliefs in order to function in this world, and any argument whos basis is inherently subjective is just a confliction of values in differing systems of beliefs.
You just realize that?
Indeed If you tried to argue any actual position, you yourself would fall into the same fallacy's you deride us for falling into.
But of course, your better then arguing for any actual position right? You just get your kicks from laughing at people with ideals and convictions. Every single person marginalized or derided is just another mental victory. In the end, your viewpoint becomes nothing more then an useless structure to preposition yourself as superior to your fellow man, because you lack actual convictions. A kind of mental device to vindicate yourself as superior to everyone else, by the shear virtue of being detached and effectively redundant.
Its amazing how you can write so much and say absolutely nothing.
I'm sure you feel really proud about yourself. You want a cookie?
Its funny because despite your purported sophistication, you present an argument that has no more merit then Blitzkriegs criticism of Atheism.
You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it.
When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
Essentially, you attempt to attack the integrity of an argument for Atheism from the role of an outsider. due to its lack of empirical merit, despite the fact that Atheism does not claim to have emperical merit (in terms of "moral value"), only empirical social value in the context of the world today (not the world two thousand years ago), and subjective personal value.
The entire critique of cultural relativism that you posit in this over-long post is pretty standard and dealt with in a number of ways by memetics or by Nietzsche's philosophical utilitarian perspective theory. I also disagree with the proposition that all worldviews are equally valid, and I never stated that they are.
More to the point, you're incredibly defensive about a post that just said "take a step back and look at the history of the concepts you're looking at" while giving some examples. Its as if you want to violently reject that most westerners operate out of unexamined assumptions which stem from their theistic cultural history. In trying to do so, you're trying to 'cleanse' yourself of a philosophy that you view as barbaric and primitive. Its very much, again, akin to Nietzsche's mocking of Socrates.
I mean, you think I'm attacking the 'merit of Atheism'. Did I? Or did you infer that, then make it the center of your post? Seems like a rather emotional reaction from someone claiming to come from such a place of enlightened rationality.
The benefit of taking a step back from culture isn't to stand above it all and mock others in superiority. Its to find solutions to problems. More importantly, its also to allow you to see patterns in thought which are recurrent and fast forward through similar themes which have been exhausted in the past. In the current instance, there's a cultural divide between theists and non-theists which is exaggerated by the effects of group thought. The irony, however, is that the arguments being deployed claim the opposite of the actual dialog. And not just in this thread, although there are countless threads like this, but in popular discourse as well.
This isn't an empty statement; I'm asking both sides to actually go do some research and look at the core of their convictions and start acting through them instead of just mouthing support while collectively acting like 7 year olds.
How am I arguing against cultural relativism? I'm arguing for it. I'm making a case for the value Atheism within a subjective and cultural set of variables in a specific point in time.
Nor for that matter, was I unaware of any of the facts you pointed out. I wasn't personally taken aback by your post. If your core point is that some of the criticisms against Christianity are perhaps too harsh, in the end simply renders atheism as another tool used to marginalize a varied group of people, I'd be inclined to agree. In fact, I've argued repeatedly in this thread in others for the exact same ideal.
However, what I took issue with is how you expressed them. Specifically, you expressed them without any clear stance, instead, simply as a criticism of the behavior of Atheists in this thread. If your goal was to foster a better mode of dialogue, then posting self justifying pretentious monologues about displays of group thought which are a clear reaction to the shear incoherence displayed by some theistic individuals earlier in this thread was not do so. Despite advocating a position of balance, your own post was not balanced in the slightest.
Is Atheism driven by rigid conventions that are not questioned and group and oppositional mentality any better then religion? Of course not, but if your goal was to dissuade that, then posting a relevant and balanced critique of both sides was the way to accomplish it. Instead, your post vehemently berates some Atheists in this thread presenting flawed arguments still grounded in rationale to the pure undiluted bullshit that some theists posted early in this thread, and you do so for what I would assume to be for personal gratification.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact.
I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now.
Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' Point is, avoiding using phrases like 'Atheist scum' to try and make me come across as some non-religious hating person.
If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing.
Edit: This is actually Meta talking, I'm at my friend's house and didn't realize I was logged in on his account.
You don't think the overwhelming sexual oppression the priesthood bestows upon themselves leads to a lifetime of built-up sexual urges? You don't think that this might at least aid in the littlest bit to the priest's explosion of sexual misconduct over the past 40 years? If not, it seems a little odd to me that SO MANY catholic priests have been charged with child rape.
Also, I gotta respond to the dude who responded to my post on page two, where I claimed that 93% of scientists are atheists. According to this website, it's actually more like 64%, which is still an overwhelming majority when compared to the average atheism among non-scientists.
Also, that Dawkins video expressed exactly the thought process behind the Pope's speech. It wasn't about secularism at all, it was about diverting attention away from the horrible atrocities that catholic priests have been carrying out against children for decades. It was about covering up the fact that Ratzinger was the soul individual behind the cover-ups of these molestation cases for the past 30 years. He's trying to divert attention away from his own illegal and immoral activities for fear of secular retribution for his heinous crimes, and talking about anything else at this point is exactly playing to his agenda. It's sickening, thinking about all the poor child victims of the catholic church, and how many of them may never see the criminals behind their torture locked away.
I'm sure that it's a factor in their actions, but there is still something wrong with them overall. There are many priests, pastors, etc. that don't do this. My statement still stands that they aren't Catholics that are pedophiles, but rather pedophiles that are Catholics.
Really the issue is that you get people in a position of power that have skewed beliefs and ideals. It all comes down the line, the Bible doesn't state that you should beat/kill Jews, gays, etc. nor does the Qur'an state that it's people must kill all non-believers. These issues arise because you have someone in a position of power that perpetuates these beliefs to those that listen to him thus causing issues. The real issue is with organized religion rather than religion or a belief in god.
I agree. I don't think Christianity can be held accountable for the actions of their priests. It just goes to show that in the end, priests are just people, albeit sex starved people at that.
However, it is an issue when one of the most common arguments for religion as a whole is that the world is a better place if people believe in god. If that is the case - why do priests that devote their entire lives to god still do the kind of sick things you read about? And, why does the church not completely reject these people and prosecute them to the furthest extent of the law?
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Please don't dissect parts of my posts and only choose bits and pieces that might help your argument. Argue against the whole statement not parts that you manipulate and take out of context. I also realize you said 'Some of the most powerful nations'. All I did was take the examples given and dispute what you said with fact.
I didn't say that it was the predominant belief, I said it's still a prominent belief in these countries. Many politicians and leaders in these countries still hold to their beliefs as do the older generation. I said that it is less common now among the younger generation (generally 30 years old and younger). I also stated that they played a significant part in history not that they are the be all end all now.
Please don't act like I have a hate on for atheists, I have never once stated in any post that I have an issue with Atheism, it is a belief and you're perfectly entitled to it. I don't think it's wrong or right, it's just what you choose to believe or not believe. I don't think a persons religious beliefs make them inherently a bad person. A priest doesn't decide molest children because he Catholic nor does an Atheist. The world doesn't work like that. People aren't 'A Christian who is a bad person' or 'A Atheist who is a bad person' it's 'A bad person who happens to be Christian/Atheist/Muslim/etc.' Point is, avoiding using phrases like 'Atheist scum' to try and make me come across as some non-religious hating person.
If you're going to argue at least do it intelligently and logically, not by nit picking, twisting words, and demonizing anyone that doesn't believe as you do you are no better than the extremists of any religion who do the same thing.
Edit: This is actually Meta talking, I'm at my friend's house and didn't realize I was logged in on his account.
You don't think the overwhelming sexual oppression the priesthood bestows upon themselves leads to a lifetime of built-up sexual urges? You don't think that this might at least aid in the littlest bit to the priest's explosion of sexual misconduct over the past 40 years? If not, it seems a little odd to me that SO MANY catholic priests have been charged with child rape.
Also, I gotta respond to the dude who responded to my post on page two, where I claimed that 93% of scientists are atheists. According to this website, it's actually more like 64%, which is still an overwhelming majority when compared to the average atheism among non-scientists.
Also, that Dawkins video expressed exactly the thought process behind the Pope's speech. It wasn't about secularism at all, it was about diverting attention away from the horrible atrocities that catholic priests have been carrying out against children for decades. It was about covering up the fact that Ratzinger was the soul individual behind the cover-ups of these molestation cases for the past 30 years. He's trying to divert attention away from his own illegal and immoral activities for fear of secular retribution for his heinous crimes, and talking about anything else at this point is exactly playing to his agenda. It's sickening, thinking about all the poor child victims of the catholic church, and how many of them may never see the criminals behind their torture locked away.
I'm sure that it's a factor in their actions, but there is still something wrong with them overall. There are many priests, pastors, etc. that don't do this. My statement still stands that they aren't Catholics that are pedophiles, but rather pedophiles that are Catholics.
Really the issue is that you get people in a position of power that have skewed beliefs and ideals. It all comes down the line, the Bible doesn't state that you should beat/kill Jews, gays, etc. nor does the Qur'an state that it's people must kill all non-believers. These issues arise because you have someone in a position of power that perpetuates these beliefs to those that listen to him thus causing issues. The real issue is with organized religion rather than religion or a belief in god.
I agree. I don't think Christianity can be held accountable for the actions of their priests. It just goes to show that in the end, priests are just people, albeit sex starved people at that.
However, it is an issue when one of the most common arguments for religion as a whole is that the world is a better place if people believe in god. If that is the case - why do priests that devote their entire lives to god still do the kind of sick things you read about? And, why does the church not completely reject these people and prosecute them to the furthest extent of the law?
Well you have to take into account that there is a large Catholic presence world wide, it's not just isolated to the Vatican State, even in Georgia (where I live) there are probably 3-4 Catholic Churches that I can get to within a 20-30 minute drive and I'm not in Atlanta. Taking into account the amount of Catholic churches and the multiple levels of priesthood (this is more so including from the very bottom all the way up to the cardinals) there is a significant number of priests period. Granted that the numbers aren't exactly small in the amount of priests that have committed these acts you must take into account the number of priests. In an ideal world none of these individuals would have done this, but this isn't an ideal world. Within in a group of people there are always going to be a portion of the group that will do various things that would be deemed unacceptable by most people (not just molestation), this coupled with the rule of celibacy quite possibly caused an increase in the cases. My real issue is not so much with the amount of cases there are, it's with how the church handled it. You can't control peoples actions for the most part, the only thing you can surely control is how you react to it and the church reacted very poorly. I think this is the issue surrounding the Catholic church, more so than acts of pedophilia, is the general thought process behind how the church reacted. If the church had actually done a decent job punishing these individuals there wouldn't be so much a stink as there is now. It would be instead focused on the local church(churches) rather than the whole Church.
Ya, the criticism isn't that Priests are more likely to be pedophiles. The criticism is that in the secular world, they would be charged for their crimes and go to jail. In the Catholic world, the Vatican shuffles them around to a new location to continue raping kids while obstructing the police trying to investigate.
He was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today.
As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it.
I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well.
As many people said before, the most extreme Atheists you'll find are on this thread. Atheism is nothing but the disbelief in god. That itself is not a motive for people to do anything.
Communism=/=Atheism. I do not have to be a Communist to be an Atheist.
On September 20 2010 06:11 Zzoram wrote: Ya, the criticism isn't that Priests are more likely to be pedophiles. The criticism is that in the secular world, they would be charged for their crimes and go to jail. In the Catholic world, the Vatican shuffles them around to a new location to continue raping kids while obstructing the police trying to investigate.
Ya. If a member of your extended family turns out to be a rapist, well, you can't be held accountable. If you help a member of your family rape and get away with it, you are an accomplice to rape, and you go to prison where you take it like the bitch you are.
Unless you're the pope, because for some shitty reason, the civilized world refuses to try him for his crimes.
He was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today.
As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it.
I wouldn't call him an atheist because he believed in the supernatural and destiny, even if it wasn't exactly the Christian God. Believing in the supernatural and destiny suggests that he believed in some sort of god or gods, since it doesn't make sense to think there is a divine plan for your life if you don't believe in a diety that crafted the plan.
How am I arguing against cultural relativism? I'm arguing for it. I'm making a case for the value Atheism within a subjective and cultural set of variables in a specific point in time.
Arguing for the primacy of a value system is pretty much the opposite of adopting relativism. You haven't made reference to subjective and cultural factors which produce a superior outcome for Atheism, but rather you pointed to absolutes.
Nor for that matter, was I unaware of any of the facts you pointed out. I wasn't personally taken aback by your post. If your core point is that some of the criticisms against Christianity are perhaps too harsh, in the end simply renders atheism as another tool used to marginalize a varied group of people, I'd be inclined to agree. In fact, I've argued repeatedly in this thread in others for the exact same ideal.
However, what I took issue with is how you expressed them. Specifically, you expressed them without any clear stance, instead, simply as a criticism of the behavior of Atheists in this thread. If your goal was to foster a better mode of dialogue, then posting self justifying pretentious monologues about displays of group thought which are a clear reaction to the shear incoherence displayed by some theistic individuals earlier in this thread was not do so. Despite advocating a position of balance, your own post was not balanced in the slightest.
You took issue with the fact that I wasn't willing to label myself with respect to a basket of the most fundamental and primary assumptions facing humans? Well, I'll have to pardon myself, but I find these concepts a bit too important to be simplistic to the point of reducibility.
As for your contention that this was a criticism of atheism, I'm pretty sure I criticized both sides of the debate, because both sides are guilty of acting in the exact same way. After all, they're both human. If you think giving a historical account of why atheism is directly in line with the western theistic conception of the world is a criticism of atheism, then again you're attempting to 'cleanse' yourself and deluding yourself in the process.
Is Atheism driven by rigid conventions that are not questioned and group and oppositional mentality any better then religion? Of course not, but if your goal was to dissuade that, then posting a relevant and balanced critique of both sides was the way to accomplish it. Instead, your post vehemently berates some Atheists in this thread presenting flawed arguments still grounded in rationale to the pure undiluted bullshit that some theists posted early in this thread, and you do so for what I would assume to be for personal gratification.
Go back and read my first two posts. You will find that they aren't 'unbalanced'. They lightly remark upon certain things and don't offer a condemnation of a worldview, but rather a simple critique of a single post.
Your posts, however, have been ramping up in terms of their aggressive nature, so I'd ask you to use that rational mindset and think about the value of civility when it comes to having a public discourse. If you think this is a critique of one or two atheists who have presented 'flawed arguments' (who are obviously redeemed of their errors by their resort to rationale? I'm not sure of your objective in that line), you've missed the point entirely.
I'll show you how far off 'the point' you were. You think I'm asking for balance. A harmonization, perhaps. Wrong. I asked for the complete opposite. I told people to go and do research and learn as much as they could, then present arguments in a manner which is consistent with their beliefs. Neither side's tone matches the content of their rhetoric. Both attempt to claim lofty ideals, yet neither are here practicing them. That's not a balance issue. That's actually the opposite. I'm telling people to be more extreme with their views and act on them, maybe even to live them out completely when it comes to the discourse, at least, instead of settling for shit flinging.
I won't even bother touching the stream of adhominems in your post, but I'd suggest against championing yourself as a protector of rationality while making them, because its a tad hypocritical.
He was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today.
As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it.
Did those people kill in the name of Atheism? If not, then they weren't atheist extremists killing people. They were people killing people who happen to be atheists.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel.
Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel.
Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too.
Causes of Western Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things...
I imagine this is in response to the recent work of Hitchens and the four horseman. They have been working in the UK to remove the pope's diplomatic immunity so that they can prosecute him for harboring child molesters. I'm sure he is a little less than happy about all of that.
On September 20 2010 06:46 Priapus wrote: I imagine this is in response to the recent work of Hitchens and the four horseman. They have been working in the UK to remove the pope's diplomatic immunity so that they can prosecute him for harboring child molesters. I'm sure he is a little less than happy about all of that.
Nevermind this stupid arrest thing that will never work, but what about TAX DOLLARS?
The UK is spending millions of tax dollars for a visit by the Pope, the spiritual leader of a religion that is in the minority in the country. That's wasteful and plain wrong, unless they tax Catholics extra to pay for this trip.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel.
Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too.
Causes of Eastern Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things...
Case in point. Again.
I'm actually impressed people think the Saxons were fucking with the eastern Roman Empire. Like, how does that even work?
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel.
Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too.
Causes of Eastern Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things...
Case in point. Again.
I'm actually impressed people think the Saxons were fucking with the eastern Roman Empire. Like, how does that even work?
This thread has digressed an awful lot. It might be fun to give all topics that are mentioned here their own threads. Because, frankly, this isn't working. I'm off to bed now. Later guys.
He was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today.
As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it.
I like how you clearly didnt read the article you linked, and also how you have no clue what you're talking about.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel.
Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too.
Causes of Western Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things...
EDIT: woops, Western, not Eastern
Yea that's right all those wars and invasions have definitly helped the development of Science.
edit: why i'm even trying to argue on General ? :S Christianity is and has always been evil, other historical factors don't matter obviously. / case solved.
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't lose 1000 years of development. We'd probably have terraformed Mars by now or something. Maybe even developed near-light speed travel.
Yea blaming Christianity for those 1000 years without development... What about Goths ? Huns ? Vandals ? Franks ? Saxons ? Vikings ? etc .... They didn't really help too.
Causes of Western Roman Empire's collapse and Western Europe's subsequent stagnation are different things...
EDIT: woops, Western, not Eastern
Yea that's right all those wars and invasions have definitly helped the development of Science.
Similar to all those wars and invasions from the 16th Century onwards? Funnily enough, scientific progress was never hindered by THOSE wars.
One glaringly obvious correlation can be made between the beginnings of humanism and the Enlightenment, and scientific progress. To put simply, as secularism grew, science advanced. Is there a causal relationship somewhere in there? Possibly, that's for your to decide.
Actually Buddhism was and is still prominent in Japan and in Korea there are many Christians and Buddhists, while Buddhism may not be in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam it is still a religion.
Japan is 65% irreligious. Denmark is 80%. Scandinavia is 70%.
I said "mostly", not entirely. Unless your case is that the 20-35% of those societies is alone holding up the other % that is Atheist scum.
And buddhist values are not Christian values. They are not comparable. In fact, buddhism has as much in common with many non-religious philosophies as it does with Christianity.
Arguing for the primacy of a value system is pretty much the opposite of adopting relativism. You haven't made reference to subjective and cultural factors which produce a superior outcome for Atheism, but rather you pointed to absolutes.
I'm arguing for a value system within the context of our current culture and our current point in time. Atheism and its values of intelligentsia are not the best for every culture at every point in time, but they are the best for this culture at this point in time, and how Atheism has been better for some nations at some other points in time. I've never made the empirical case that Atheism is better intrinsically. Instead, I've made the cases like Atheism would not cause any sort of moral degradation in the world today. Perhaps your confusing me with some other people in this thread.
You took issue with the fact that I wasn't willing to label myself with respect to a basket of the most fundamental and primary assumptions facing humans? Well, I'll have to pardon myself, but I find these concepts a bit too important to be simplistic to the point of reducibility.
By not outlining your intentions all you've made yourself is a tool to be misinterpreted and used by people who don't understand your well formed but ill presented ideals for there own agendas.
All you have to do is look at how the Theists parroting Einsteins views concerning religion in this thread to see the process.
Go back and read my first two posts. You will find that they aren't 'unbalanced'. They lightly remark upon certain things and don't offer a condemnation of a worldview, but rather a simple critique of a single post.
Note that I didn't respond to your first two posts.
As for your contention that this was a criticism of atheism, I'm pretty sure I criticized both sides of the debate, because both sides are guilty of acting in the exact same way. After all, they're both human. If you think giving a historical account of why atheism is directly in line with the western theistic conception of the world is a criticism of atheism, then again you're attempting to 'cleanse' yourself and deluding yourself in the process.
Well, first of all, I never claimed that the facts you presented were criticisms. Actually, I was fine with that, and I liked that.
It was your subsequent opinion that made me respond.
There's quite a bit more, but pretending that the two phenomena are distinct and that there's only room for antagonism is pretty contrary to the historical account. Its kinda like pretending that Christians are conservative, whereas in the majority of the world they're more akin to progressive liberals. There's so much context and back-story lost from these little 'my belief is better than yours' threads that its almost impossible to surmount. I've always found it odd that people loudly championing atheistic beliefs as a clarion call for rationality have substantial deficits in knowledge which prevent them from making rational judgments and viewing their own inherent assumptions. On the other end, I've always found it odd how confrontational many theists get, especially catholics, given how positive a golden rule approach would be.
Oh well, go back to throwing shit at each other. That's more fun to read.
This is primarily where I took issue to your stance. Well not so much your stance as your presentation of your stance. It indiscriminately derides both "sides" of the argument with broad overarching claims that aren't even true in this thread alone. Its a blanket statement, and its one that is especially critical of Atheists. You use a broad overarching statement to generalize and marginalize Atheists and laugh at there ignorance. While your only criticism of religion is that they are too confrontational. Which is especially hilarious because if you look at this thread alone, the loudest and most ignorant voices have come from religion, not Atheism.
That alone isn't enough to make me be so critical of your post. You made that post without clear direction, without clear stance. And without one, combined with your self serving criticisms of Atheism (that are very generalizing), the end effect is that your somewhat rationale if misguided post simply becomes another tool to be flung like shit by the reflective sides.
In the end, you haven't put yourself above the shit flinging. By not presenting a coherent stance, and instead posting for intellectual fulfillment alone, you basically just made yourself the shit thats being flung around, no offense.
Your posts, however, have been ramping up in terms of their aggressive nature, so I'd ask you to use that rational mindset and think about the value of civility when it comes to having a public discourse. If you think this is a critique of one or two atheists who have presented 'flawed arguments' (who are obviously redeemed of their errors by their resort to rationale? I'm not sure of your objective in that line), you've missed the point entirely.
I'll show you how far off 'the point' you were. You think I'm asking for balance. A harmonization, perhaps. Wrong. I asked for the complete opposite. I told people to go and do research and learn as much as they could, then present arguments in a manner which is consistent with their beliefs. Neither side's tone matches the content of their rhetoric. Both attempt to claim lofty ideals, yet neither are here practicing them. That's not a balance issue. That's actually the opposite. I'm telling people to be more extreme with their views and act on them, maybe even to live them out completely when it comes to the discourse, at least, instead of settling for shit flinging.
Semantics. What you characterize as "extremism" is what most people here characterize as balance. Balance is not the lack of conviction. Balance is a careful and thoughtful analysis of your opponents ideals, and an equally careful and thoughtful refutation of them.
Extremism is when you is when you do not give rationale and fair consideration to your opponents views, but deny them out personal belief alone.
Either way, we understand each other here, you just have a funny definition of extremism. One that apparently includes rationally disproving your opponents from intellection and scholastics. Huh.
People, lets - for the sake of the discussion - differentiate between religion in the sense of individual religious beliefs and institutionalized reilgion.
The latter is the problem whereas the first is usually not. The catholic church is basically a company that is continually losing market shares. Hence, the CEO needs to pull some PR stunt. Institutionaleized religion is all about control and power. Its usually some old men claiming the have premium access to some higher power and are, therefore, allowed to tell others how to think and to act. If you don't do as they say, fine, burn in hell or be stoned to death.
Read any holy book of your choice and see what it says. Then look at what the repective religious instution does. You will, in most cases, find that the institutions give a shit about the writings if it does not suit them. Thou shalt not kill (unless the other guys is a douche). Thou shalt not give falsew testimony (unless, of course, the truth sheds a bad light on the church).
Preach water and drink wine...and then wonder why people get upset about it?
On September 20 2010 07:22 Electric.Jesus wrote: Read any holy book of your choice and see what it says. Then look at what the repective religious instution does.
Unless you're talking about those "sola scriptura" protestants, that's really not the criticism you should be making. I, for one, am glad Jews aren't shedding blood the way the Tanakh tells them to.
On September 20 2010 07:22 Electric.Jesus wrote: Read any holy book of your choice and see what it says. Then look at what the repective religious instution does. You will, in most cases, find that the institutions give a shit about the writings if it does not suit them. Thou shalt not kill (unless the other guys is a douche). Thou shalt not give falsew testimony (unless, of course, the truth sheds a bad light on the church).
Preach water and drink wine...and then wonder why people get upset about it?
And I'm very glad that Christians for the most part ignore what their holy book says. After all, I don't want to see people executed for heinous crimes such as cursing their parents, gathering wood on the wrong day or having consensual sex with the wrong person.
And I'm very glad that Christians for the most part ignore what their holy book says. After all, I don't want to see people executed for heinous crimes such as cursing their parents, gathering wood on the wrong day or having consensual sex with the wrong person.
Note that I didn't respond to your first two posts.
I don't really care, when you attack their content as 'unbalanced' and make that your entire position.
Your position vis a vis me, clearly stated in this post is "regardless of the validity of your views, please don't state them because it might give fire to my opposition". Either you aren't all that certain in your views, or you don't think you have the intellectual abilities to defend them despite your certainty.
On September 20 2010 02:02 Valikyr wrote: (agnostic) Atheism is the only intellectually honest position to take, however much the child-rapist defending Pope wants to make atheism look evil.
Pope is an evil, vicious man who just got nothing to say about other people's morals or acts done in the past. Hitler was a roman catholic, anyone that read mein kampf or other works by Hitler knows this.
Hitler was not a Catholic he was an atheist. This isn't debatable, its not about giving the other side the bad guy, it is fact. Mein Kampf was what he wrote in prison when he was trying to create a movement, whether or not he was religious at the time of the writing is debatable, however it is concluded by many historians that he used religion to gain popularity. You can use the Bible to prove anything and he used that to his advantage.
In conclusion, I think that Hitler was not an atheist, but he was not a Christian either. While he was materialist and rationalist in a lot of things, he also talked a lot about "Providence", or "Nature", as a sort of mystical force of fate, and he saw himself as somehow destined for victory even when the war was going badly for him, simply because of the purity of his purpose, his strength of will, and his feeling of destiny. I have even read that he believed in reincarnation. To me, some of his quotes and writings make it sound like he worshipped the German national identity; some make it seem like instead of God he worshipped or idealised or divinised Providence / Nature / Fate, with his glorious destiny assured no matter what; and in some ways it seems to me like he worshipped himself.
What is wrong with you?
I guess you could make that case if you define Atheism as inclusive of "Mystic Agnosticism".
He was not an Christian, he was an atheist, he used religion to gain popularity, much like many politicians do today.
As for the Pope's statement, all he's really saying that extremisms of any form are dangerous and should be avoided. I don't want to anger or start a flame war but atheist extremists have killed more people then religious extremists and in a much shorter time as well. Hell, in my country at least 6 million people died in less then a year and nobody seems to know about it.
I wouldn't call him an atheist because he believed in the supernatural and destiny, even if it wasn't exactly the Christian God. Believing in the supernatural and destiny suggests that he believed in some sort of god or gods, since it doesn't make sense to think there is a divine plan for your life if you don't believe in a diety that crafted the plan.
Not necessarily, there are a lot of people that believe in the supernatural but not or destiny but not in a deity. Albert Einstein himself believed that everything that happens is meant to happen and couldn't have happened any other way, this could be interpreted as in that everything follows a law and that is why it happened that way, however we know(and probably him as well) that the nature of the human mind would dictate otherwise
The rest of the speech is typical "without Christianity, society would crumble" BS.
Im not Christian but i believe the world would be worse off without Christianity.
Case in point.
It's a pretty big assumption to say that scientific advancement is synonymous with making the world a better place. I think I'd rather be a hunter gatherer than go to college.
Off-topic perhaps, but how come?
I think it'd be a more fulfilling way to live. I mean, in this day an age I'm not going to become Amish, but I do think the current way we live isn't necessarily better than living in a world without technology.
In conclusion, I think that Hitler was not an atheist, but he was not a Christian either. While he was materialist and rationalist in a lot of things, he also talked a lot about "Providence", or "Nature", as a sort of mystical force of fate, and he saw himself as somehow destined for victory even when the war was going badly for him, simply because of the purity of his purpose, his strength of will, and his feeling of destiny. I have even read that he believed in reincarnation. To me, some of his quotes and writings make it sound like he worshipped the German national identity; some make it seem like instead of God he worshipped or idealised or divinised Providence / Nature / Fate, with his glorious destiny assured no matter what; and in some ways it seems to me like he worshipped himself.
What is wrong with you?
I guess you could make that case if you define Atheism as inclusive of "Mystic Agnosticism".
This is the opinion of the author. He goes on to say that Hitler believed in destiny and reincarnation, Buddhists believe the something along those lines, yet many of them are atheists. In the many quotes you can see that he seems to despise religion. The author says he wasn't a theist either and attempts to find a balance. If you've read any of Hitler's works(especially Mein Kampf) you would know that anything relating to "destiny" or "purpose" was often linked to him and total control.
On September 20 2010 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: you can't prove it, I can't disprove it conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.
However, the probability of unicorns existing or not is NOT 50-50 just because there are two possibilities. You are right when you say that no one can disprove god, but similarly you can't disprove the existence of Thor, Zeus, Quezacotl. Suddenly you're not faced with either believe in god or not, you have to choose which god to believe in. Given no evidence for any of these gods, how is your god anything but an arbitrary product of your culture?
you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.
So because we can't be certain, you're advising us to assume that unicorns definitely exist?
I don't really care, when you attack their content as 'unbalanced' and make that your entire position.
I didn't attack your intrinsic viewpoints as imbalanced. In fact they are almost identical to my own. I attacked your presentation as imbalanced, and obviously, presentation can differ from one post to another.
Your position vis a vis me, clearly stated in this post is "regardless of the validity of your views, please don't state them because it might give fire to my opposition". Either you aren't all that certain in your views, or you don't think you have the intellectual abilities to defend them despite your certainty.
Sad.
Hilarious. You've literally been straw-manning this entire argument. I'd expect more from someone with such an academic demeanor.
I criticized your presentation, not your views. Are you saying that is irrelevant? Are you saying the way I present my views is not relevant to there impact?
please don't state them because it might give fire to my opposition". Either you aren't all that certain in your views, or you don't think you have the intellectual abilities to defend them despite your certainty.
So much strawmanning here I find it hard to believe your trying anymore. You said you posted your posts to encourage a greater level of dialogue on both sides. I am criticizing them because due to there imbalanced presentation, and the academic level of this thread, or rather, the lack of therof, cause a converse effect.
I don't oppose your views, in fact, I share them, and I actually reiterated them at times earlier in this thread. I just didn't do so in such a pretentious, self justifying and counterproductive way.
On September 20 2010 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: you can't prove it, I can't disprove it conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.
However, the probability of unicorns existing or not is NOT 50-50 just because there are two possibilities. You are right when you say that no one can disprove god, but similarly you can't disprove the existence of Thor, Zeus, Quezacotl. Suddenly you're not faced with either believe in god or not, you have to choose which god to believe in. Given no evidence for any of these gods, how is your god anything but an arbitrary product of your culture?
you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.
So because we can't be certain, you're advising us to assume that unicorns definitely exist?
No, you meant to say : "So because we can't be certain, you're advising us to" seriously entertain the possibility of unicorns existing. The reason why religious people often take issue with people pointing out that they don't really have a leg to stand on, is IMO that they see their beliefs are such an integral part of their identity. Everyone would like the universe to make some kind of sense from a human perspective, but I don't see that anyone besides hardcore philosophers really care passionately about the actual possibility of a god existing. The flaming and defensiveness is all about identity, way of life... I really hate it when people start nagging that atheists aren't as enlightened as they make themselves out to be. Being atheist (or at the very least agnostic) should be everyone's starting point. We don't need to be smart or enlightened. It's the people who confidently make outrageous claims who should be. Sorry about going off on a tangent.
I don't really care, when you attack their content as 'unbalanced' and make that your entire position.
I didn't attack your intrinsic viewpoints as imbalanced. In fact they are almost identical to my own. I attacked your presentation as imbalanced, and obviously, presentation can differ from one post to another.
Your position vis a vis me, clearly stated in this post is "regardless of the validity of your views, please don't state them because it might give fire to my opposition". Either you aren't all that certain in your views, or you don't think you have the intellectual abilities to defend them despite your certainty.
Sad.
Hilarious. You've literally been straw-manning this entire argument. I'd expect more from someone with such an academic demeanor.
I criticized your presentation, not your views. Are you saying that is irrelevant? Are you saying the way I present my views is not relevant to there impact?
please don't state them because it might give fire to my opposition". Either you aren't all that certain in your views, or you don't think you have the intellectual abilities to defend them despite your certainty.
So much strawmanning here I find it hard to believe your trying anymore. You said you posted your posts to encourage a greater level of dialogue on both sides. I am criticizing them because due to there imbalanced presentation, and the academic level of this thread, or rather, the lack of therof, cause a converse effect.
I don't oppose your views, in fact, I share them, and I actually reiterated them at times earlier in this thread. I just didn't do so in such a pretentious, self justifying and counterproductive way.
It would be a strawman if I substantially changed what you said, however, the most concise statement you made on your position was here:
By not outlining your intentions all you've made yourself is a tool to be misinterpreted and used by people who don't understand your well formed but ill presented ideals for there own agendas.
All you have to do is look at how the Theists parroting Einsteins views concerning religion in this thread to see the process.
You have an issue with presentation because you fear that the thoughts within will be used by people who aren't going to get them bang-on correctly.
You follow up with a derogatory mention towards theists, and have stated pretty overtly that atheism is the best option for modern states like ours. So I'm pretty sure I got the intention you had in your post, and I'm pretty sure I didn't substantially change your point, which means you're trying to use terms like strawmen without knowing what they mean.
Moreover, you criticize my presentation for a few reasons, but make inferences that you simply can't follow up on. First you say you hold the same views as I do. You're rather incorrect there. Second, because of that, I don't share the same aims as you. What was my presentation meant to do? Go read the post you originally replied to. Its pretty much a super brief historical account of the relation between western spirituality and scientific thought. Why would you fear that such neutral information would be 'misused'? Moreover, who are you to tell someone that they've misunderstood the information?
Its possible that you really just don't like the words I used, but I'd be very surprised if you got this angry and this defensive over a choice of words. Its far more likely that you viewed a contexualization and a historical account which didn't impute religion as an evil as a detrimental to your belief that modern societies should be atheist, because the should implies a moral stance.
And that's the fun part, because outburst posts like your initial reply (and I suggest you re-read it and note the tone) like that are completely against the modern atheist flavor of the old greek cult of rationalism AND against the vast majority of religious ethical frameworks. There are very few people who would consciously correct themselves or perform a kantian calculation as to whether or not they should do a certain action every time they speak or act, so don't feel bad. Its only natural.
First of all, there is one little thing I have repeatedly told you and you just don't seem to get....
Moreover, you criticize my presentation for a few reasons, but make inferences that you simply can't follow up on. First you say you hold the same views as I do. You're rather incorrect there. Second, because of that, I don't share the same aims as you. What was my presentation meant to do? Go read the post you originally replied to. Its pretty much a super brief historical account of the relation between western spirituality and scientific thought. Why would you fear that such neutral information would be 'misused'? Moreover, who are you to tell someone that they've misunderstood the information?
How many times do I have to tell you that information was fine, it was the retarded one sided commentary that followed that I took issue with? When I explicitly say that the information you disseminated was the only part of that post I liked?
It would be a strawman if I substantially changed what you said, however, the most concise statement you made on your position was here:
This is what you posted
Your position vis a vis me, clearly stated in this post is "regardless of the validity of your views, please don't state them because it might give fire to my opposition". Either you aren't all that certain in your views, or you don't think you have the intellectual abilities to defend them despite your certainty.
This is what you were basing it off of.
By not outlining your intentions all you've made yourself is a tool to be misinterpreted and used by people who don't understand your well formed but ill presented ideals for there own agendas.
All you have to do is look at how the Theists parroting Einsteins views concerning religion in this thread to see the process.
Please explain to me how you got from point A to point B. Either you are strawmanning, or have exceptionally poor reading comprehension.
You have an issue with presentation because you fear that the thoughts within will be used by people who aren't going to get them bang-on correctly.
You follow up with a derogatory mention towards theists, and have stated pretty overtly that atheism is the best option for modern states like ours. So I'm pretty sure I got the intention you had in your post, and I'm pretty sure I didn't substantially change your point, which means you're trying to use terms like strawmen without knowing what they mean.
I don't fear. I am saying it not achieving your own purported goals of creating better dialog when you just spitefully post judgements without a real purpose. (and yes, you didn't have a purpose. You later stated you did have a purpose later on, but within the context of post 3 and before, you lacked one besides "You're all wrong") Obviously disseminating neutral information is fine. Why would I fear my own ideology and facts I were already aware of would not be compatible with my own religious outlook, or lack of therof?
Its far more likely that you viewed a contexualization and a historical account which didn't impute religion as an evil as a detrimental to your belief that modern societies should be atheist, because the should implies a moral stance.
No. Sorry. You can read my posts in other threads concerning religion. I have literally made the same point you have made. In fact, you can look in this thread to see my beliefs in religion. They are all quite moderate. The only thing I've rejected is the idea that an increase in Atheism in our society can be anything but positive at our current moment in time.
And that's the fun part, because outburst posts like your initial reply (and I suggest you re-read it and note the tone) like that are completely against the modern atheist flavor of the old greek cult of rationalism AND against the vast majority of religious ethical frameworks. There are very few people who would consciously correct themselves or perform a kantian calculation as to whether or not they should do a certain action every time they speak or act, so don't feel bad. Its only natural.
So your saying my original post was flawed because the tone didn't conform to a religious ethical framework or the framework of an ancient greek cult?
I honestly take that as a compliment. So are any of my points less valid?
edit:
And when I said "we have the same beliefs", I don't mean we're arguing the same thing within the context of this thread. No, we are not. I mean your posts on how Atheists often tend to exhibit the same kind of "group thought" found in religious groups, and how they tend to ignore the value of religion in other periods of times and overemphasize its negative effects, etc, are all things I share and have posted in other threads concerning religion. Your analysis on Christian values being connected to modern scientific values is also one I have previously heard of and agree with.
I'm saying your subsequent, vindictive, pretentious, analysis on Atheists in this thread was extremely unfair and counterproductive to intelligent dialogue. And I would imagine, primarily driven just by some weird desire to intellectually "1up" every else in this thread, as opposed to contribute to the discussion.
How many times do I have to tell you that information was fine, it was the retarded one sided commentary that followed that I took issue with? When I explicitly say that the information you disseminated was the only part of that post I liked?
The retarded one sided commentary that you've stated prior derided both sides?
Excuse me if I'm confused, but you seem to be changing your story every post. I mocked the intolerance and lack of knowledge displayed by both sides, which to address a prior criticism, is VERY MUCH on display in this thread. THAT was the core of my first post, made self evident by the fact that I spent a good 500 words trying to dispel some myths with information. But this isn't the only argument you've morphed over the genesis of various posts. Prior, it was the 'unbalanced nature' of the argument. Then you went on to call 'balance' the thoughtful analysis of your opposition's point of view. If that was balance, then I did look at the foibles of both parties. Now balance has returned to its prior state, turning into 'retarded one sided'.
Yet once again you prove my point by downright demonizing not only the other side, but also someone asking people to step back. Unless calling someone retarded is civil conversation in the states, I'd ask again that you take a step back and approach this with an open mind.
Please explain to me how you got from point A to point B. Either you are strawmanning, or have exceptionally poor reading comprehension.
Point A and point B are in the exact same place when you add the tone of your posts and the admitted aim you have later on. The more aggressive your posting becomes, the more the meaning becomes evident. In your very first post, I told you to calm it down because it really wasn't needed, and still you ramp it up. Chill out. Being stressed over the internet isn't good you.
I don't fear. I am saying it not achieving your own purported goals of creating better dialog when you just spitefully post judgements without a real purpose.
I'm going to bold this because its important. In this phrase, you state that I'm not achieving my goal because I haven't stated what my purpose is. The sad part is that in this one phrase you admit I've stated my goal. If there's a reason why I'm still even bothering talking with you, its because you're such a good example of exactly what I was talking about, and you're actively trying to turn a subject which is intrinsically about a shared human exploration of the world for meaning and knowledge into something adversarial.
Why?
Why would I fear my own ideology and facts I were already aware of would not be compatible with my own religious outlook, or lack of therof?
Because you're afraid of being wrong, and its quite easy to be peripherally aware of information which is detrimental to your position and ignore it nonetheless. Same as anyone else trying to control the form or flow of information with the intention of having their side 'win'.
No. Sorry. You can read my posts in other threads concerning religion. I have literally made the same point you have made. In fact, you can look in this thread to see my beliefs in religion. They are all quite moderate. The only thing I've rejected is the idea that an increase in Atheism in our society can be anything but positive at our current moment in time.
Go back and look at your initial reply to my post. Tell me your hotblooded reaction was remotely indicative of this above statement. If it makes you feel better, I've read your posts, but the magnitude of your aggressiveness and anger indicate heavily that you aren't telling the truth here. On this point I very much hope I'm wrong because if I'm right we're both wasting our time.
But we probably are, as indicated in the next section:
So your saying my original post was flawed because the tone didn't conform to a religious ethical framework or the framework of an ancient greek cult?
No, when I include the term modern, I'm not referring to an ancient greek 'cult' but rather a cultural meme which originated in Greece which you currently identify with. Note the strawman.
Was that the reason why YOUR original post was flawed? No. I didn't comment on your post with that point. I commented on the thread, and by extension the social discussion surrounding the theist/nontheist issue. You do fall under the critique, especially in your posts towards me, but not in every single one of your posts in the thread. Some of them have been very properly reflective and informative. The scope of the criticism is far larger and far more important than you, however.
I'm so confused. I'm not privy to your conversation with whoever else in this topic, so I have no idea what case you are pointing out here.
Nony brings up a graph that attributes the early medival period's lack of development to the church. Someone notes that the plethora of invading groups which demolished social order, trade, and reverted the majority of the region to subsistence farming might have been more to blame. You then attempted to state that the invading groups weren't the right ones, unless you were trying to state that the byzantine empire was held back by Christianity, which would be an interesting and very bold statement that would probably not be made in 2 lines.
I dunno, coulda been lost in translation but I felt your point was self-defeating as soon as you edited.
We're talking about a God that killed 14,700 of his own people because they protested against his previous killing of 250 people. Only Aaron using himself as a human shield stopped God from wiping out all the Jews.
[Num 16:42] As the community gathered to protest against Moses and Aaron, they turned toward the Tabernacle and saw that the cloud had covered it, and the glorious presence of the LORD appeared.
[Num 16:43] Moses and Aaron came and stood in front of the Tabernacle,
[Num 16:44] and the LORD said to Moses,
[Num 16:45] "Get away from all these people so that I can instantly destroy them!" But Moses and Aaron fell face down on the ground.
[Num 16:46] And Moses said to Aaron, "Quick, take an incense burner and place burning coals on it from the altar. Lay incense on it, and carry it out among the people to purify them and make them right with the LORD. The LORD's anger is blazing against them--the plague has already begun."
[Num 16:47] Aaron did as Moses told him and ran out among the people. The plague had already begun to strike down the people, but Aaron burned the incense and purified the people.
[Num 16:48] He stood between the dead and the living, and the plague stopped.
[Num 16:49] But 14,700 people died in that plague, in addition to those who had died in the affair involving Korah
He's ordered the execution of women and children based on nationality.
[1Sa 15:1] One day Samuel said to Saul, "It was the LORD who told me to anoint you as king of His people, Israel. Now listen to this message from the LORD!
[1Sa 15:2] This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt.
[1Sa 15:3] Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."
I'm so confused. I'm not privy to your conversation with whoever else in this topic, so I have no idea what case you are pointing out here.
Nony brings up a graph that attributes the early medival period's lack of development to the church. Someone notes that the plethora of invading groups which demolished social order, trade, and reverted the majority of the region to subsistence farming might have been more to blame. You then attempted to state that the invading groups weren't the right ones, unless you were trying to state that the byzantine empire was held back by Christianity, which would be an interesting and very bold statement that would probably not be made in 2 lines.
I dunno, coulda been lost in translation but I felt your point was self-defeating as soon as you edited.
I was pointing out that the reason for the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the reason for the stagnation of Western Europe after the fact are different.
I'm so confused. I'm not privy to your conversation with whoever else in this topic, so I have no idea what case you are pointing out here.
Nony brings up a graph that attributes the early medival period's lack of development to the church. Someone notes that the plethora of invading groups which demolished social order, trade, and reverted the majority of the region to subsistence farming might have been more to blame. You then attempted to state that the invading groups weren't the right ones, unless you were trying to state that the byzantine empire was held back by Christianity, which would be an interesting and very bold statement that would probably not be made in 2 lines.
I dunno, coulda been lost in translation but I felt your point was self-defeating as soon as you edited.
I was pointing out that the reason for the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the reason for the stagnation of Western Europe after the fact are different.
Oh, good. What are the reasons of stagnation of Western Europe according to you?
The retarded one sided commentary that you've stated prior derided both sides?
Excuse me if I'm confused, but you seem to be changing your story every post. I mocked the intolerance and lack of knowledge displayed by both sides, which to address a prior criticism, is VERY MUCH on display in this thread. THAT was the core of my first post, made self evident by the fact that I spent a good 500 words trying to dispel some myths with information. But this isn't the only argument you've morphed over the genesis of various posts. Prior, it was the 'unbalanced nature' of the argument. Then you went on to call 'balance' the thoughtful analysis of your opposition's point of view. If that was balance, then I did look at the foibles of both parties. Now balance has returned to its prior state, turning into 'retarded one sided'.
Yet once again you prove my point by downright demonizing not only the other side, but also someone asking people to step back. Unless calling someone retarded is civil conversation in the states, I'd ask again that you take a step back and approach this with an open mind.
If you think my position is changing every post, that's only because you're selectively interpreting it differently.
My position has always been the same. That the judgments you've made in this thread, while not entirely without merit, are unfairly weighted towards the Atheists in this thread, despite the fact that we both know that those criticisms are primarily reflected amongst theists. While those trends amongst Atheists is certainly detrimental and should be avoided, it is but a glimmer of the same irrational, ignorance, and groupthink displayed by many Theists. At the same time, your judgement seems primarily poised against Atheism. This isn't to say all arguments for Theism are poor, or every Theist is incapable of constructing an argument that isn't poor.
Point A and point B are in the exact same place when you add the tone of your posts and the admitted aim you have later on. The more aggressive your posting becomes, the more the meaning becomes evident. In your very first post, I told you to calm it down because it really wasn't needed, and still you ramp it up. Chill out. Being stressed over the internet isn't good you.
No, they are completely irrelevant. One is concerning the information you are presenting. I really don't mind what you post. In fact, I don't even care how you portray the information. That isn't the concern of any of my posts. My criticism towards you is that your criticisms of the polarization and arguments from emotion that can be found on many Atheists and Theists alike is heavily weighted towards criticizing the behavior of Atheists, despite the fact that the same behavior is more commonly displayed amongst Theists.
I'm going to bold this because its important. In this phrase, you state that I'm not achieving my goal because I haven't stated what my purpose is. The sad part is that in this one phrase you admit I've stated my goal. If there's a reason why I'm still even bothering talking with you, its because you're such a good example of exactly what I was talking about, and you're actively trying to turn a subject which is intrinsically about a shared human exploration of the world for meaning and knowledge into something adversarial.
Why?
What? All of my posts in this thread have been more or less to clarify incredibly ignorant statements, on behalf of either side, with the exception of arguing with you.. It just so happens that the Theists have made more of them, but I've defended the merits of religion multiple times in this thread, and elsewhere.
I guess you could make a case for my argument concerning the burden of proof with that guy, but as you can see, once I realized I started posting from emotion, I stopped.
Because you're afraid of being wrong, and its quite easy to be peripherally aware of information which is detrimental to your position and ignore it nonetheless. Same as anyone else trying to control the form or flow of information with the intention of having their side 'win'.
I'm not trying to control information, or even how you portray it as long as it is remotely accurate. Why haven't you gotten this? I am not arguing against the first part of post #3, if you just posted that I would be 100% fine. I'm not even arguer against the gist of the second part. However, as it stands, the second component of your argument is something I perceive as imbalanced .
Go back and look at your initial reply to my post. Tell me your hotblooded reaction was remotely indicative of this above statement. If it makes you feel better, I've read your posts, but the magnitude of your aggressiveness and anger indicate heavily that you aren't telling the truth here. On this point I very much hope I'm wrong because if I'm right we're both wasting our time.
Any apparent aggressiveness is nothing more then anger out of the arrogant and pretentious nature of post #3. Its very annoying to have someone present information like a prick, especially when you already are fully versed in it.
No, when I include the term modern, I'm not referring to an ancient greek 'cult' but rather a cultural meme which originated in Greece which you currently identify with. Note the strawman.
Either way I don't see what the ethnics behind the tone of my response towards you has any bearing on the debate at hand.
Was that the reason why YOUR original post was flawed? No. I didn't comment on your post with that point. I commented on the thread, and by extension the social discussion surrounding the theist/nontheist issue. You do fall under the critique, especially in your posts towards me, but not in every single one of your posts in the thread. Some of them have been very properly reflective and informative. The scope of the criticism is far larger and far more important than you, however
I get your critique on the apparent conflict between Atheists and Theists, and how many Atheists often fall into the same traps as Theists do. I've literally posted similar arguments on other religious threads when everyone would just jump on the hatin religion bandwagon. However, the way you presented it just appears woefully irrelevant to the thread at hand however, especially considering the earlier eight pages. (which is why I responded so harshly, because I figured you were just figuratively intellectually masturbating all over this thread with no real point) Remember, the crux of this thread was the fucking papacy comparing Atheism to Nazism, and warning of its dangers, and the core of any argument would be that there is no danger, hardly a argument for or leading to polarization and factionalism.
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:48 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
That the judgments you've made in this thread, while not entirely without merit, are unfairly weighted towards the Atheists in this thread, despite the fact that we both know that those criticisms are primarily reflected amongst theists. While those trends amongst Atheists is certainly detrimental and should be avoided, it is but a glimmer of the same irrational, ignorance, and groupthink displayed by many Theists.
Don't make claims about unfair weighting of criticism when you post stuff like this, then claim you're sitting as a moderate. You aren't. At this point you've made an outright proclamation of moral superiority in favor of your side.
You really need to learn a bit more about non-american theists if you honestly believe the above.
No, they are completely irrelevant. One is concerning the information you are presenting. I really don't mind what you post. In fact, I don't even care how you portray the information. That isn't the concern of any of my posts. My criticism towards you is that your criticisms of the polarization and arguments from emotion that can be found on many Atheists and Theists alike is heavily weighted towards criticizing the behavior of Atheists, despite the fact that the same behavior is more commonly displayed amongst Theists.
When I see this portion of your argument, I wonder what you'd consider heavily weighted. I gave atheists slightly more attention because they dominate the thread, but any weight put towards them was in the region of a sentence of extra treatment. You've tried to play me up like I'm taking a side, when I've explicitly not done so too. I don't see why.
Once again, and for the last time, go look at your first post directed towards me and tell me the tone was even remotely proportional to your grievance. You're seriously angry over a sentence or two because they hit your sacred cow.
I guess you could make a case for my argument concerning the burden of proof with that guy, but as you can see, once I realized I started posting from emotion, I stopped.
You've been posting from emotion from your first response to me. I've asked you in every post to take a step back and reread what you've written. Regardless of if you're a theist or an atheist, exploding at someone doesn't seem to be in the code of conduct.
I mean, I'd comment on the rest of your post, but its all pretty much a rehash of what you said in the first paragraph which I already dealt with. I'd point out that you not understanding the link between greek rationalism and the worldviews currently being discussed hints that you don't actually know as much as you've been alluding towards, but I don't really think we're going to get anywhere with that.
I think we've hit a point where you think there was some bias in a statement, reacted poorly, and I've been commenting on how your reaction proves my initial point. That's been pretty standard throughout, but the replies you've been giving me as this draws on become more and representative of the things you've denied and I speculated upon. Now that my curiosity's satisfied, feel free to go back to correcting people. I'm done with you.
Don't make claims about unfair weighting of criticism when you post stuff like this, then claim you're sitting as a moderate. You aren't. At this point you've made an outright proclamation of moral superiority in favor of your side.
You really need to learn a bit more about non-american theists if you honestly believe the above
Non-American theists? You mean the entire basis of the the fucking thread, the papacy? Or is that in America too? Or French Catholics or Spanish Catholics, it doesn't matter.
I love how almost every single one of your arguments are built around your opponent not being as well informed as you and then giving deference. Its frankly quite amusing. If you have any specific examples you hack, please cite them, otherwise, please shut up. If you have any specific demographic of non-American theists who you believe is statistically more rationale then the corresponding group of atheists in a predominantly Christian country, please, elaborate. Unless of course, out of the hundreds of theist christian groups outside of America, I'm suppose to magically know which subset your referring to.
superiority in favor of your side.
You're a real fan of straw-manning aren't you. Nope, I've made a case that the average Atheist is able to make a far more collected and independent argument then the average theist, which says nothing about the intergrity of the belief system itself.
You literally made the textbook definition of a straw man.
When I see this portion of your argument, I wonder what you'd consider heavily weighted. I gave atheists slightly more attention because they dominate the thread, but any weight put towards them was in the region of a sentence of extra treatment. You've tried to play me up like I'm taking a side, when I've explicitly not done so too. I don't see why.
Once again, and for the last time, go look at your first post directed towards me and tell me the tone was even remotely proportional to your grievance. You're seriously angry over a sentence or two because they hit your sacred cow.
If theirs anger in my posts, it has literally nothing to do with beliefs and everything to do with the fact that you carry yourself like an incredibly pretentious prick all the while without contributing anything meaningful to this thread besides "you're all wrong" and commonplace modern philosophical parroting, while being unable to string together a coherent argument without using ad-homnems about my emotions contained in each post, or blatantly straw manning my positions so much its not even funny.
You've been posting from emotion from your first response to me. I've asked you in every post to take a step back and reread what you've written. Regardless of if you're a theist or an atheist, exploding at someone doesn't seem to be in the code of conduct.
I'm pretty sure all my replies to you are perfectly logically sound. I'm pretty sure every single one of your replies have either been a failure of reading comprehension, a straw man, or in this case, an ad-hominem.
I mean, I'd comment on the rest of your post, but its all pretty much a rehash of what you said in the first paragraph which I already dealt with. I'd point out that you not understanding the link between greek rationalism and the worldviews currently being discussed hints that you don't actually know as much as you've been alluding towards, but I don't really think we're going to get anywhere with that.
No, I understand what Greek Rationalism is, and the link between Rationalism and Atheist thought is exceedingly obvious. its almost like you were just hoping I didn't understand what it was. However, please explain to me what the ethics of my prose style have to do with an appeal to logic?
I think we've hit a point where you think there was some bias in a statement, reacted poorly, and I've been commenting on how your reaction proves my initial point. That's been pretty standard throughout, but the replies you've been giving me as this draws on become more and representative of the things you've denied and I speculated upon. Now that my curiosity's satisfied, feel free to go back to correcting people. I'm done with you.
I've been posting with emotion from my first response. Find me a single argument I made in our "debate" (except what I said about an ancient greek cult, I was responding facetiously because of the irrelevance of your entire comment) where I made an argument from emotion, without logical basis. And that basis of my emotion is because you simultaneously act like an eltist douche while making imbalanced appeals for moderation(lolwut). Every subsequent argument you made was either an Ad-hominem about my display of emotions without actually criticizing the logic, an argument or a blatant straw man of my intentions, and a number of other fallacies.
I can see why your presenting your philosophical arguments on an internet forum. my condolences brother.
I really wish people would not project the horrible hypocrisies associated with organized religion throughout history on honest religious people who live their beliefs. Hypocrites and crazy people have existed in all contexts throughout history and done evil things. This has no bearing on what is true, or what individuals believe to be true to the extent it compels them to do good in the world.
You don't know what ad hominems or strawmen are, but you sure enjoy employing them while accusing others of doing so.
Anyways, this last post is a pretty good example of what's lurking underneath the top of many participants in the dialog on both sides. There's a lot of anger and frustration that builds up when discussions don't seem to go anywhere productive. In the case of the theist/nontheist issue, the difficulty in discussing civilly is high because of how difficult the underlying cultural assumptions are. There's a huge amount of similarity which lulls both sides into believing that the other is ripe for conversion if powerful enough arguments are deployed, but those rarely find resonance with different axiomic bases for knowledge.
At a certain point worldviews simply won't be able to harmonize their responses to certain issues. The divergence of their respective legal systems attests to this. It is, however, important to realize that while there will be conflict at certain points, the vast majority of issues lend themselves to complimentary or harmonized responses from the two traditions. Issues like abortion and euthanasia, for example, are heavily colored by axiomatic assumptions about what life is, but there's no reason the assumptions themselves can't be weighed individually out in the open instead of being couched in demagoguery.
Well, there kinda is a reason, but its not something that I view as a particularly positive result of our culture.
Best of luck to you, though, Half. I've really got no hard feelings towards you. I understand why you feel so frustrated and its incredibly tragic that most of the contentious issues of our time are debated in this unsatisfying manner. I would, however, suggest that you do away with the labels and the need to define what someone's 'goal' is at the start of their discourse. That's a very easy way to create a huge positive selection bias in terms of the knowledge you receive. It helps to feel vindicated, but ultimately its just an illusory vindication which detracts from the joy of learning.
op is a little misleading. i feel that he's not saying that without christianity, society would crumble, but rather that with christian values in mind, society could improve.
Why are people like you so fucking arrogant? Some of the most powerful nations on earth were built upon the absence of religion, and many world powers today are mostly irreligious, like Japan and Korea, and many moderate European Nations like Sweden and Denmark.
lol yes i do believe in those words, but where did you get that at all from my post? i was giving my interpretation of his speech. stop jumping to conclusions.
oh, and i was rereading the pages, and it seems the main thing you were criticizing me for was the fact that i only made that statement without any analysis. first of all, that's my view point of the overall message of his speech. i never stated that they were my beliefs as well (though they are). this isn't english class. i shouldn't have to make an elaborate analysis to back up my thoughts unless requested.(ironically i was getting ready for church as i gave my quick response). Also. your post would be much more discussion provoking if you'd remove the question.
Also, what point are you trying to make? Communist regimes were also mostly irreligious because religion was eradicated for loyalty to the state, and most of them have fallen. world powers today have thrived in which the majority of the community is religious. Again, my (and what I believe to be the pope's) viewpoint is not that society cannot survive without religion. As the examples you've pointed out show, that's simply not true. I think that a society could grow further if christian values were more strongly implemented into society.
On September 20 2010 08:55 wadadde wrote:The reason why religious people often take issue with people pointing out that they don't really have a leg to stand on, is IMO that they see their beliefs are such an integral part of their identity.
Actually you're exactly right. I came to this exact same conclusion sitting in my psychology lecture after writing that post. Attack the core of someones identity and you get rage, a state of mind not conducive to logic or reasoning.
On September 20 2010 08:55 wadadde wrote:The reason why religious people often take issue with people pointing out that they don't really have a leg to stand on, is IMO that they see their beliefs are such an integral part of their identity.
Actually you're exactly right. I came to this exact same conclusion sitting in my psychology lecture after writing that post. Attack the core of someones identity and you get rage, a state of mind not conducive to logic or reasoning.
That, combined with the fact that neither the theist nor the atheist position can be empirically proven.
Too bad, people forgot about the existentialist view: whether god exists or not should not f***ing matter!
On September 20 2010 08:55 wadadde wrote:The reason why religious people often take issue with people pointing out that they don't really have a leg to stand on, is IMO that they see their beliefs are such an integral part of their identity.
Actually you're exactly right. I came to this exact same conclusion sitting in my psychology lecture after writing that post. Attack the core of someones identity and you get rage, a state of mind not conducive to logic or reasoning.
That, combined with the fact that neither the theist nor the atheist position can be empirically proven.
Too bad, people forgot about the existentialist view: whether god exists or not should not f***ing matter!
It should matter within people's personal lives for whatever spiritual needs they have and whatnot. But indeed when it comes to business and a generalized society it should not matter. Hence secularism is good. (end of thread imo edit: or end of derailing haha)
Let's play a game: Guess whether I am atheist, Christian, or I follow the teachings of Buddha.
- I believe every person has the right to choose what they believe. - I believe no person should push their religion, there-lack-of, or anything in between upon others. - I believe nobody should try to cause harm to another person for any reason. - I believe a person has the right to defend themselves when they are, however, hurt by another person. - I believe morals are created by your surroundings, but that every person has the right morals to start out with in life. - I do not believe there is a sure-fire way to make the world a better place, but we can try and do as much as possible to improve it.
the pope is a stupid d***f**k. i don't understand how one of the world's biggest organizations fails to put an appropriate candidate in its most imporant position. the church needs better managers.
I remember when i first fell out of "religion." Thinking that I was just born christian, all though I was never made to go to church. I went straight to atheism because frankly, organized religion for me is a more nonsensical trip I don't need to go down. I do think though, that before you decide you are atheist to consider Agnostic, in that you believe your own ideas of what life is. Atheism after all means there is absolutely nothing more, and when you look at the magnitude of the universe, it's a little hard to say "Yeah man, all on accident."
I don't even care about those religious fanatics anymore: They ARE the new terrorists that hold mankind back with their ridiculous made-up stories just cuz they're afraid of death.
You just cannot argue with fanatics - they are crazy. Thats true for ALL religious ppl by the way...
On September 20 2010 16:45 exnomendei wrote: Let's play a game: Guess whether I am atheist, Christian, or I follow the teachings of Buddha.
- I believe every person has the right to choose what they believe. - I believe no person should push their religion, there-lack-of, or anything in between upon others. - I believe nobody should try to cause harm to another person for any reason. - I believe a person has the right to defend themselves when they are, however, hurt by another person. - I believe morals are created by your surroundings, but that every person has the right morals to start out with in life. - I do not believe there is a sure-fire way to make the world a better place, but we can try and do as much as possible to improve it.
1. Not Christian. Possibly Buddhist. 2. Not Christian. Possibly Buddhist. 3. Not Christian. Possibly Buddhist. 4. Possibly Christian. Not Buddhist. 5. Not Christian. Not Buddhist. 6. Not Christian. Possibly Buddhist.
Thinking your beliefs make you important: some sort of religion?.
I dont even care he said that. It just annoys me that Vatican and/or other religious interest groups always bitch about offensive things and write letters, and here they are making retarded Nazi allusions with other people's beliefs.
On September 20 2010 15:11 goldenkrnboi wrote: Also, what point are you trying to make? Communist regimes were also mostly irreligious because religion was eradicated for loyalty to the state, and most of them have fallen. world powers today have thrived in which the majority of the community is religious. Again, my (and what I believe to be the pope's) viewpoint is not that society cannot survive without religion. As the examples you've pointed out show, that's simply not true. I think that a society could grow further if christian values were more strongly implemented into society.
Strong Christian values like...
A raped virgin girl must marry her rapist. Your parking spot was God-given. Giving away all your material goods to the poor. (socialist?) Killing your children if they cheek you. Misguided obsession about reproductive organs. Slavery. Murdering non-Christians en masse. Assuming regular, organic illnesses to be supernatural possessions/marks.
On September 20 2010 15:11 goldenkrnboi wrote: Also, what point are you trying to make? Communist regimes were also mostly irreligious because religion was eradicated for loyalty to the state, and most of them have fallen. world powers today have thrived in which the majority of the community is religious. Again, my (and what I believe to be the pope's) viewpoint is not that society cannot survive without religion. As the examples you've pointed out show, that's simply not true. I think that a society could grow further if christian values were more strongly implemented into society.
Strong Christian values like...
A raped virgin girl must marry her rapist. Your parking spot was God-given. Giving away all your material goods to the poor. (socialist?) Killing your children if they cheek you. Misguided obsession about reproductive organs. Slavery. Murdering non-Christians en masse. Assuming regular, organic illnesses to be supernatural possessions/marks.
On September 20 2010 08:55 wadadde wrote:The reason why religious people often take issue with people pointing out that they don't really have a leg to stand on, is IMO that they see their beliefs are such an integral part of their identity.
Actually you're exactly right. I came to this exact same conclusion sitting in my psychology lecture after writing that post. Attack the core of someones identity and you get rage, a state of mind not conducive to logic or reasoning.
That, combined with the fact that neither the theist nor the atheist position can be empirically proven.
Too bad, people forgot about the existentialist view: whether god exists or not should not f***ing matter!
It matters when they try to teach creationism in schools.
This pope needs to dress up the alter boy in his Hitler youth uniform and molest him because he couldn't be any more of a fucking hypocrite. This is the same pope that suggested using condoms would still give HIV. The pope is worse than Hitler in the trauma he is causing for generations. At least Hitler killed most of his victims. Religion poisons everything.
On September 19 2010 16:32 hypercube wrote: It's funny how public personas can get away with statements that would get you banned on any respectable message board. Not for inflamatory language, just plain old trolling;
heh, the best post was all the way back on page one.
I think my other fav (from another board) was that 'well, you're allowed to start comparing people to nazis when you've actually been a nazi' ˙ Some other stupid shit that was said during this same tour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11325699 "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country." Asked whether Christians were discriminated against in the UK, he said: "Particularly in England, an aggressive neo-atheism is widespread. For example, if you wear a cross with British Airways, you're discriminated against."
Now an immature, yet funny, picture to complete my wonderful post:
On September 20 2010 15:11 goldenkrnboi wrote: Also, what point are you trying to make? Communist regimes were also mostly irreligious because religion was eradicated for loyalty to the state, and most of them have fallen. world powers today have thrived in which the majority of the community is religious. Again, my (and what I believe to be the pope's) viewpoint is not that society cannot survive without religion. As the examples you've pointed out show, that's simply not true. I think that a society could grow further if christian values were more strongly implemented into society.
Strong Christian values like...
A raped virgin girl must marry her rapist. Your parking spot was God-given. Giving away all your material goods to the poor. (socialist?) Killing your children if they cheek you. Misguided obsession about reproductive organs. Slavery. Murdering non-Christians en masse. Assuming regular, organic illnesses to be supernatural possessions/marks.
The good ol' days.
stop trolling.
Most of those things are in your bible. Maybe you should tell it to stop trolling.
On September 20 2010 16:45 exnomendei wrote: Let's play a game: Guess whether I am atheist, Christian, or I follow the teachings of Buddha.
- I believe every person has the right to choose what they believe. - I believe no person should push their religion, there-lack-of, or anything in between upon others. - I believe nobody should try to cause harm to another person for any reason. - I believe a person has the right to defend themselves when they are, however, hurt by another person. - I believe morals are created by your surroundings, but that every person has the right morals to start out with in life. - I do not believe there is a sure-fire way to make the world a better place, but we can try and do as much as possible to improve it.
On September 19 2010 16:32 hypercube wrote: It's funny how public personas can get away with statements that would get you banned on any respectable message board. Not for inflamatory language, just plain old trolling;
heh, the best post was all the way back on page one.
I think my other fav (from another board) was that 'well, you're allowed to start comparing people to nazis when you've actually been a nazi' ˙ Some other stupid shit that was said during this same tour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11325699 "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country." Asked whether Christians were discriminated against in the UK, he said: "Particularly in England, an aggressive neo-atheism is widespread. For example, if you wear a cross with British Airways, you're discriminated against."
Now an immature, yet funny, picture to complete my wonderful post:
Why do you Americans not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants/Christians, it's not the same thing. I really really do not understand, is it all just the same thing to you people? It makes having a discussion so much more difficult when you don't distinguish between different religious schools when having a discussion about religion.
Catholicism doesn't = Christianity and it's been posted at least 10 times in this thread.
In England which the article you quoted is about, there is a huge difference between Catholics and Christians both historically and culturally. Therefore they should not be referred to as the same thing, it makes no sense.
Edit: I just searched this on Wikipedia and realize now, that I have bugger all chance of winning this definition argument. It's still awful though, in my opinion, that so many people use the same term for things that are so incredibly different both in the way that it's practiced but also historically and culturally. *sigh*
[B] I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
Right, so you believe that during the old testament Moses came up with a set of religious constraints because his people where killing, stealing, lying and being adulterers left and right? and i suppose you support slavery? Moses supported slavery. Why arent you supporting slavery?
Because the funny thing is for all of its worth the new testament HAS 0 RULES. Thats right, during his rise and fall the only thing you can commend Jesus for saying is. "Do onto others as you would have done onto yourself"
but dont quote me directly because last i read the bible i was in my rites to manhood and 16 years of age. ATHEISM follows the laws of man set down by the UN and for all that is good those are the laws we all follow. They where not written by one man, but by many men representing the respective regions of their own worlds.
On September 19 2010 16:32 hypercube wrote: It's funny how public personas can get away with statements that would get you banned on any respectable message board. Not for inflamatory language, just plain old trolling;
heh, the best post was all the way back on page one.
I think my other fav (from another board) was that 'well, you're allowed to start comparing people to nazis when you've actually been a nazi' ˙ Some other stupid shit that was said during this same tour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11325699 "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country." Asked whether Christians were discriminated against in the UK, he said: "Particularly in England, an aggressive neo-atheism is widespread. For example, if you wear a cross with British Airways, you're discriminated against."
Now an immature, yet funny, picture to complete my wonderful post:
Why do you Americans not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants/Christians, it's not the same thing. I really really do not understand, is it all just the same thing to you people? It makes having a discussion so much more difficult when you don't distinguish between different religious schools when having a discussion about religion.
Catholicism doesn't = Christianity and it's been posted at least 10 times in this thread.
In England which the article you quoted is about, there is a huge difference between Catholics and Christians both historically and culturally. Therefore they should not be referred to as the same thing, it makes no sense.
Wrong. There is a huge difference between Catholics and Protestants and Anglicans. They are all Christians.
On September 19 2010 16:32 hypercube wrote: It's funny how public personas can get away with statements that would get you banned on any respectable message board. Not for inflamatory language, just plain old trolling;
heh, the best post was all the way back on page one.
I think my other fav (from another board) was that 'well, you're allowed to start comparing people to nazis when you've actually been a nazi' ˙ Some other stupid shit that was said during this same tour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11325699 "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country." Asked whether Christians were discriminated against in the UK, he said: "Particularly in England, an aggressive neo-atheism is widespread. For example, if you wear a cross with British Airways, you're discriminated against."
Now an immature, yet funny, picture to complete my wonderful post:
Why do you Americans not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants/Christians, it's not the same thing. I really really do not understand, is it all just the same thing to you people? It makes having a discussion so much more difficult when you don't distinguish between different religious schools when having a discussion about religion.
Catholicism doesn't = Christianity and it's been posted at least 10 times in this thread.
In England which the article you quoted is about, there is a huge difference between Catholics and Christians both historically and culturally. Therefore they should not be referred to as the same thing, it makes no sense.
Wrong. There is a huge difference between Catholics and Protestants and Anglicans. They are all Christians.
Well, in our country we do not use the same term for Catholics and Protestants. Anyway it's a hopeless discussion for me to win, it's just a difference of the usage of the word in our respective languages. I have to say i prefer ours a lot though, due to the fact that it's far easier to distinguish what is what. If in Denmark you say you're Christian it basically means, that you're a protestant of some sort, whereas if you're Catholic you say you're a Catholic. I never realized that Danish and American (English) were so different.
what is the big fuss. this is what speeches are all about... riling up civilians to talk about nothing whilst they usurp your power. this sort of comment from the pope is certainly not without precedent.
On September 19 2010 16:32 hypercube wrote: It's funny how public personas can get away with statements that would get you banned on any respectable message board. Not for inflamatory language, just plain old trolling;
heh, the best post was all the way back on page one.
I think my other fav (from another board) was that 'well, you're allowed to start comparing people to nazis when you've actually been a nazi' ˙ Some other stupid shit that was said during this same tour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11325699 "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country." Asked whether Christians were discriminated against in the UK, he said: "Particularly in England, an aggressive neo-atheism is widespread. For example, if you wear a cross with British Airways, you're discriminated against."
Now an immature, yet funny, picture to complete my wonderful post:
Why do you Americans not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants/Christians, it's not the same thing. I really really do not understand, is it all just the same thing to you people? It makes having a discussion so much more difficult when you don't distinguish between different religious schools when having a discussion about religion.
Catholicism doesn't = Christianity and it's been posted at least 10 times in this thread.
In England which the article you quoted is about, there is a huge difference between Catholics and Christians both historically and culturally. Therefore they should not be referred to as the same thing, it makes no sense.
Edit: I just searched this on Wikipedia and realize now, that I have bugger all chance of winning this definition argument. It's still awful though, in my opinion, that so many people use the same term for things that are so incredibly different both in the way that it's practiced but also historically and culturally. *sigh*
You realize that I never once made this distinction, I just quoted the source, right??
And I'm hardly some religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure what he stated was accurate. Catholics and protestants all practice some derivative of christianity, so at the very heart of the argument, they are christians in that sense.
The quote you're referencing, the guy is responding to a question where he's asked if anyone who follows the teachings of jesus is discriminated against... not once particularly sect.
On September 19 2010 16:32 hypercube wrote: It's funny how public personas can get away with statements that would get you banned on any respectable message board. Not for inflamatory language, just plain old trolling;
heh, the best post was all the way back on page one.
I think my other fav (from another board) was that 'well, you're allowed to start comparing people to nazis when you've actually been a nazi' ˙ Some other stupid shit that was said during this same tour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11325699 "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country." Asked whether Christians were discriminated against in the UK, he said: "Particularly in England, an aggressive neo-atheism is widespread. For example, if you wear a cross with British Airways, you're discriminated against."
Now an immature, yet funny, picture to complete my wonderful post:
Why do you Americans not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants/Christians, it's not the same thing. I really really do not understand, is it all just the same thing to you people? It makes having a discussion so much more difficult when you don't distinguish between different religious schools when having a discussion about religion.
Catholicism doesn't = Christianity and it's been posted at least 10 times in this thread.
In England which the article you quoted is about, there is a huge difference between Catholics and Christians both historically and culturally. Therefore they should not be referred to as the same thing, it makes no sense.
Edit: I just searched this on Wikipedia and realize now, that I have bugger all chance of winning this definition argument. It's still awful though, in my opinion, that so many people use the same term for things that are so incredibly different both in the way that it's practiced but also historically and culturally. *sigh*
You realize that I never once made this distinction, I just quoted the source, right??
And I'm hardly some religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure what he stated was accurate. Catholics and protestants all practice some derivative of christianity, so at the very heart of the argument, they are christians in that sense.
The quote you're referencing, the guy is responding to a question where he's asked if anyone who follows the teachings of jesus is discriminated against... not once particularly sect.
I made a mistake, but defining Protestants and Catholics as the same thing is just really destructive and confusing to a debate like this. For example, when I read the 'quote' that you posted. I'm assuming, that he's talking about the Church of England and protestants etc., because the word Christianity is used, when in fact he's probably only talking about The Roman Catholic Church and its members, if the same term is used about the whole lot, how are people going to be able to tell what's what and which group of people is being refered to? Using the term 'Christian' is far less accurate than using the term 'Roman Catholics' because it's a much wider term and this whole debate is about the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.
Edit: I searched for the news on this quote on Sky News and found this:
'http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Pope-Cardinal-Walter-Kasper-A-Key-Member-Of-The-Popes-Entourage-Calls-Britain-Third-World/Article/201009315729437?lid=ARTICLE_15729437_Pope:CardinalWalterKasper,AKeyMemberOfThePopesEntourageCallsBritainThirdWorld&lpos=searchresults' The interview isn't there and without having the interview I honestly don't know if he means Roman Catholics are being discrimanted against or all followers of Christianity. It's really annoying to be honest.
On September 19 2010 16:32 hypercube wrote: It's funny how public personas can get away with statements that would get you banned on any respectable message board. Not for inflamatory language, just plain old trolling;
heh, the best post was all the way back on page one.
I think my other fav (from another board) was that 'well, you're allowed to start comparing people to nazis when you've actually been a nazi' ˙ Some other stupid shit that was said during this same tour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11325699 "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country." Asked whether Christians were discriminated against in the UK, he said: "Particularly in England, an aggressive neo-atheism is widespread. For example, if you wear a cross with British Airways, you're discriminated against."
Now an immature, yet funny, picture to complete my wonderful post:
Why do you Americans not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants/Christians, it's not the same thing. I really really do not understand, is it all just the same thing to you people? It makes having a discussion so much more difficult when you don't distinguish between different religious schools when having a discussion about religion.
Catholicism doesn't = Christianity and it's been posted at least 10 times in this thread.
In England which the article you quoted is about, there is a huge difference between Catholics and Christians both historically and culturally. Therefore they should not be referred to as the same thing, it makes no sense.
Edit: I just searched this on Wikipedia and realize now, that I have bugger all chance of winning this definition argument. It's still awful though, in my opinion, that so many people use the same term for things that are so incredibly different both in the way that it's practiced but also historically and culturally. *sigh*
You realize that I never once made this distinction, I just quoted the source, right??
And I'm hardly some religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure what he stated was accurate. Catholics and protestants all practice some derivative of christianity, so at the very heart of the argument, they are christians in that sense.
The quote you're referencing, the guy is responding to a question where he's asked if anyone who follows the teachings of jesus is discriminated against... not once particularly sect.
I made a mistake, but defining Protestants and Catholics as the same thing is just really destructive and confusing to a debate like this. For example, when I read the 'quote' that you posted. I'm assuming, that he's talking about the Church of England and protestants etc., because the word Christianity is used, when in fact he's probably only talking about The Roman Catholic Church and its members, if the same term is used about the whole lot, how are people going to be able to tell what's what and which group of people is being refered to? Using the term 'Christian' is far less accurate than using the term 'Roman Catholics' because it's a much wider term and this whole debate is about the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.
I'm almost positive that he's talking about all of the christian based groups there, rc's, protestants and eastern orthodox. He mentions discriminating against anyone wearing a cross. Could be wrong, but whatever. I'm just making note that it wasn't me who said it
On September 19 2010 16:32 hypercube wrote: It's funny how public personas can get away with statements that would get you banned on any respectable message board. Not for inflamatory language, just plain old trolling;
heh, the best post was all the way back on page one.
I think my other fav (from another board) was that 'well, you're allowed to start comparing people to nazis when you've actually been a nazi' ˙ Some other stupid shit that was said during this same tour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11325699 "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country." Asked whether Christians were discriminated against in the UK, he said: "Particularly in England, an aggressive neo-atheism is widespread. For example, if you wear a cross with British Airways, you're discriminated against."
Now an immature, yet funny, picture to complete my wonderful post:
Why do you Americans not distinguish between Catholics and Protestants/Christians, it's not the same thing. I really really do not understand, is it all just the same thing to you people? It makes having a discussion so much more difficult when you don't distinguish between different religious schools when having a discussion about religion.
Catholicism doesn't = Christianity and it's been posted at least 10 times in this thread.
In England which the article you quoted is about, there is a huge difference between Catholics and Christians both historically and culturally. Therefore they should not be referred to as the same thing, it makes no sense.
Edit: I just searched this on Wikipedia and realize now, that I have bugger all chance of winning this definition argument. It's still awful though, in my opinion, that so many people use the same term for things that are so incredibly different both in the way that it's practiced but also historically and culturally. *sigh*
You realize that I never once made this distinction, I just quoted the source, right??
And I'm hardly some religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure what he stated was accurate. Catholics and protestants all practice some derivative of christianity, so at the very heart of the argument, they are christians in that sense.
The quote you're referencing, the guy is responding to a question where he's asked if anyone who follows the teachings of jesus is discriminated against... not once particularly sect.
I made a mistake, but defining Protestants and Catholics as the same thing is just really destructive and confusing to a debate like this. For example, when I read the 'quote' that you posted. I'm assuming, that he's talking about the Church of England and protestants etc., because the word Christianity is used, when in fact he's probably only talking about The Roman Catholic Church and its members, if the same term is used about the whole lot, how are people going to be able to tell what's what and which group of people is being refered to? Using the term 'Christian' is far less accurate than using the term 'Roman Catholics' because it's a much wider term and this whole debate is about the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.
I'm almost positive that he's talking about all of the christian based groups there, rc's, protestants and eastern orthodox. He mentions discriminating against anyone wearing a cross. Could be wrong, but whatever. I'm just making note that it wasn't me who said it
I would have thought it was generally about Christians, but when the cross comment comes out, you can be almost sure he's talking about The Roman Catholic Church, due to protestants here not frequently carrying crosses etc. for all to see. In addition, with the religious climate as it is in England, many Catholics feel like they're being discriminated against, recently, in the media with all the negative stories in the press. I also doubt he would make statements on behalf of other religious groups.
On September 20 2010 17:05 Wombatsavior wrote: I remember when i first fell out of "religion." Thinking that I was just born christian, all though I was never made to go to church. I went straight to atheism because frankly, organized religion for me is a more nonsensical trip I don't need to go down. I do think though, that before you decide you are atheist to consider Agnostic, in that you believe your own ideas of what life is. Atheism after all means there is absolutely nothing more, and when you look at the magnitude of the universe, it's a little hard to say "Yeah man, all on accident."
I'm going to shamelessly link to my first contribution to this thread, because I think it'll shed some light on the link between agnosticism and atheism.
Also, I'm going to add something. Atheism doesn't mean there's nothing more. Atheism just means not believing in gods. Most buddhists are atheists. What I think you intend to describe is scientific naturalism.
A lot of atheists are naturalists. However, that doesn't mean that naturalism is a part of atheism, or even that it has anything to do with it.
These are some common misconceptions. What made me write this reply, however, is the last sentence in your post. The idea that atheists believe it all 'just accidentally happened' is popular amongst evangelical christians such as Ray Comfort (look him up, he's funny). But that is not the view of the scientific community to which they attribute this idea. This phrase most often comes up in discussions about evolution. And while chance plays a role in the mechanism of evolution. The process isn't an accident. It is bound to happen. I'm not going for a thread hijack, so I'm not going into depth on this. I might open up a science thread in the near future though, if I think people will appreciate that.
On September 20 2010 22:22 goldenkrnboi wrote: stop trolling.
A) You don't know what trolling means. B) You don't read your Bible. C) All of the above.
I recommend reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
On September 20 2010 15:50 Electric.Jesus wrote: That, combined with the fact that neither the theist nor the atheist position can be empirically proven.
Too bad, people forgot about the existentialist view: whether god exists or not should not f***ing matter!
Existentialism has very little to do with religion. However, the most influential people of existential thought were very irreligious, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Nietzche.
The theist position can be disproven through basic logic. All theisms have the same amount of empirical evidence like any other supposed supernatural occurrences. Therefore, if you can believe in a god, you can probably believe in unicorns, leprechauns, Superman, Zeus, and the like. Deny the existence of unicorns? Well you can't necessarily prove or disprove that, because they probably don't exist!
Also, science has explained the natural world empirically enough that if some sort of god did exist, she/he/it would have done absolutely nothing in the creation or influence of this universe.
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:48 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
So people STILL can't admit that we are just another species of animals on this planet and when we die we most likely just vanish forever? It's better to delude yourself with fairytales that we are special, have souls and will go to a happy place up in the sky, right..
I mean, Catholic church in particular is the biggest joke ever, it's pretty scary that it has so much power even at this day.They have already shown what their agenda is, just because they don't go around killing people who don't agree with them anymore doesn't mean they suddendly became 'good'.
Also I just love when people use religion as a source for "moral values". Moral values exist because society cannot exist without them. Piranhas don't go around and kill each other either, they work as a group to achieve their goal, that doesn't exactly mean they have read the holy book though.
I honestly think that every intelligent civilization out there (yea, I do think there are a lot of other intelligent life forms in the universe, unless earth is some sort of mega-anomaly) has to go through the same phase of questioning their origins, explaining everything via some sort of divine power and then bit by bit figuring everything out. Religion is definitely a halt in achieving something more as a race.
On September 20 2010 08:55 wadadde wrote:The reason why religious people often take issue with people pointing out that they don't really have a leg to stand on, is IMO that they see their beliefs are such an integral part of their identity.
Actually you're exactly right. I came to this exact same conclusion sitting in my psychology lecture after writing that post. Attack the core of someones identity and you get rage, a state of mind not conducive to logic or reasoning.
That, combined with the fact that neither the theist nor the atheist position can be empirically proven.
Too bad, people forgot about the existentialist view: whether god exists or not should not f***ing matter!
What the hell does the atheist position have to prove? I'm not positing anything, and not putting forth any idea which requires empirical evidence to back up. I'm simply saying, "theres no evidence for the existence of any god. Until such evidence exists, it would be completely illogical and totally contradictory to live my life based on the idea that there is one."
The guy who stands there telling me that an all powerful man in the sky exists and that I should live my life by bigoted, arrogant rules in order to stay in his good graces better be showing me something to back up that claim, otherwise I'll listen to him about as much as I'll listen to that guy in the mental health facility who thinks he's napoleon.
Saw the speech, snickered, went back to business as usual. As with almost anything, you have to consider the source and its motivations.
What the hell does the atheist position have to prove? I'm not positing anything, and not putting forth any idea which requires empirical evidence to back up. I'm simply saying, "theres no evidence for the existence of any god. Until such evidence exists, it would be completely illogical and totally contradictory to live my life based on the idea that there is one."
That sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist. The atheist posits that there is no deity. The agnostic acknowledges that he doesn't know whether there is a deity, nor does he really care.
You think you guys are pissed, I am from the UK and recovering from a recession what do we do, we spend £10 million pounds on some fake, who decides whenever there is a gap in science it is due to gods creation. Science has been held back by religion so many times it is ridiculous, now they just say that god created it all rather then what they used to say. My god this man annoys me, when any pope visits africa the AIDs count sky rockets thanks to his views on condoms.
Not to mention his ridiculous speech that guy deserves a **** slap.
On September 21 2010 03:02 psychopat wrote: Saw the speech, snickered, went back to business as usual. As with almost anything, you have to consider the source and its motivations.
What the hell does the atheist position have to prove? I'm not positing anything, and not putting forth any idea which requires empirical evidence to back up. I'm simply saying, "theres no evidence for the existence of any god. Until such evidence exists, it would be completely illogical and totally contradictory to live my life based on the idea that there is one."
That sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist. The atheist posits that there is no deity. The agnostic acknowledges that he doesn't know whether there is a deity, nor does he really care.
That isn't true. The atheist isn't convinced that there is a god, and doesn't believe. That's all there is to it. You don't have to be sure there is no god to be an atheist. Being sure there is no god makes you a strong atheist, or a gnostic atheist.
An agnost is someone who believes that you cannot ultimately know whether or not there is a god.
You can be an agnostic theist, and believe there is a god, while saying you're not 100% sure.
On September 21 2010 00:10 chrisSquire wrote: what is the big fuss. this is what speeches are all about... riling up civilians to talk about nothing whilst they usurp your power. this sort of comment from the pope is certainly not without precedent.
When people start leaving your group in droves, possible because of that pedophilia thing you've been hiding for at least a century you need to do something to drum up support from the base!
What easier way then demonizing easy groups like atheists and gays?
On September 21 2010 03:11 DrN0 wrote: My god this man annoys me, when any pope visits africa the AIDs count sky rockets thanks to his views on condoms.
wow, I want to see the stats that backup this argument
maybe you overestimate the might of the pope here a little bit
"You shall not murder" is one of the christian commandments if I remember correctly. A lot africans don't seem to care much about it if you look at all the wars and crime going on on that continent.
On September 21 2010 03:11 DrN0 wrote: My god this man annoys me, when any pope visits africa the AIDs count sky rockets thanks to his views on condoms.
wow, I want to see the stats that backup this argument
maybe you overestimate the might of the pope here a little bit
"You shall not murder" is one of the christian commandments if I remember correctly. A lot africans don't seem to care much about it if you look at all the wars and crime going on on that continent.
Many areas of Africa are secluded to the point where the only contact they have with the outside world is through christian missionaries (Catholic or otherwise). The missionaries will, of course, teach their religious views to the locals.
However, abstinence-only education and the churches view of sex don't mesh well with reality. Missionaries have told Africans "condoms increase your chances of getting AIDS". They actually refuse to promote or even acknowledge that condoms lower yours chances of catching STDs or getting pregnant, simultaneously making the AIDs and overpopulation epidemics worse then they already were.
On September 21 2010 03:11 DrN0 wrote: My god this man annoys me, when any pope visits africa the AIDs count sky rockets thanks to his views on condoms.
wow, I want to see the stats that backup this argument
maybe you overestimate the might of the pope here a little bit
"You shall not murder" is one of the christian commandments if I remember correctly. A lot africans don't seem to care much about it if you look at all the wars and crime going on on that continent.
Clearly your line of reasoning is far superior to the one you replied to. If you're asserting that there are occasionally more powerful forces than religious indoctrination, then I agree. However, you just limited yourself to making a blanket statement. How the fuck does a reality reflect how much people care? War isn't like democracy. You don't need a majority approval to start it, or keep it going. So stupid.
I am in no way saying that the world suddenly would turn peaceful when everyone would be an atheist, but I do believe that it would not be worse than it is now, I think it could be even better.
I think it would too, but I think your mistaking cause with effect.
The world will not be better when Religion stops existing. Religion will stop existing once the world gets better.
History has proven this to be a trend. Secularism and Social prosperity have coincided with each other with pinpoint accuracy in the Eastern and Western world.
I'm reading through this thread largely at once, and this was a claim that sounded particularly interesting but I didn't see discussed much later. What data supports this? (was there any posted I may have missed, or do you have a supporting source) And is there a way for the data to establish which was the cause and which was the effect - like a lag in one of the variables versus the other?
But even from a purely philosophical standpoint that was interesting to think about.
you cant say what is better for the future, as long as you can decide for yourself what you want, I'm o.k. with it
also means no religion before adulthood (like porn/alcohol) because children are easy brainwashed, and that is the most stupid thing on earth, brainwashing kids. Force them YOUR thoughts, and not their own.
On September 21 2010 09:37 Mutaahh wrote: you cant say what is better for the future, as long as you can decide for yourself what you want, I'm o.k. with it
also means no religion before adulthood (like porn/alcohol) because children are easy brainwashed, and that is the most stupid thing on earth, brainwashing kids. Force them YOUR thoughts, and not their own.
In a lot of ways it's impossible to comply to your wishes. No brainwashing means not telling them anything that isn't proven beyond "reasonable doubt". You may equate religious education with brainwashing, but it's not all that different than imposing other frameworks. For instance, are people allowed to tell their children what to wear and what not to wear? Is imposing any conception of morality allowed? Is letting them watch tv allowed? Should they just live in isolation?
Parents should be allowed to raise their children the way they see fit. Obviously, there are "reasonable" boundries. The alternative is some sort of Khmer Rouge society... not really, but what you're suggesting is simply impossible and downright disgusting in practice. There's no easy fix. Educating children is about a whole lot more than providing them with facts. It's teaching them how to live. How to cope with adversity and the unknown. Indoctrination rocks! I say, indoctrinate the parents. Or just convince them that your way of living/thinking is superior to theirs. glhf
In a couple centuries religion will be a thing of the past at least in developed societies. Already the shit countries have higher percentage of religious people than developed countries.
On September 21 2010 10:05 EndlessRain wrote: In a couple centuries religion will be a thing of the past at least in developed societies. Already the shit countries have higher percentage of religious people than developed countries.
I kinda agree with you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a thing of the past" but in my opinion, developed societies or not, people tend to fall back on religion whenever a crisis occurs.
Crises have a way to make people "pray" for help when all other options seem blank. If history has taught us anything; it's that no matter how developed societies may become, shit will always hit the fan and the faith in religion starts to soar.
I don't see religion fading away. Ever.
(But of course, I do agree with you that until "shit hits the fan", that many people will basically avoid religion like it's the plague or some taboo subject. Somewhere along those lines.
On September 21 2010 10:05 EndlessRain wrote: In a couple centuries religion will be a thing of the past at least in developed societies. Already the shit countries have higher percentage of religious people than developed countries.
Yeah, even if that's a sensible statement, I think there's no reason whatsoever to just assume that current trends will persist. I do think that truely democratic nations will have less religious fanatics. The assumption being that a properly functioning democracy lessens misery and ignorance.
I love how you basically claimed that the US is more shitty than Western Europe. Or maybe I've got my stats wrong. Anyway, I'm pretty certain that christian fundamentalism is way higher in the US...
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:48 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
I love the pope, he is the western civilization most prised gambler. The only better one is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope. There will always be a market for people dealing in faith. Christianity is nowadays rather about love then hate, at least where i live. This is good in my book. I do not believe in religion, but i can see the benefits of a place where people sing & clap together or moan their dead or marry (like a church^^). If they would replace the praying, silly dresses & moral highground with barbeque & starcraft i would join.
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
That was not the purpose of the Reichskonkordat, and if there is any ambiguity on this subject, Mit brennender Sorge makes this clear.
If anything, the history of Eugenio Pacelli's relationship with the Germans is a tragic one; he never could identify the German people with the Nazi government, and he was perhaps overly-concerned with the plight of German Catholics under the Nazi regime, whereas the German Catholics were relatively safe in comparison to the Catholics of the occupied territories. On the other hand, his estimate of the extent of his global influence as Pope was sadly realistic. Nonetheless, his silent intervention indisputably saved countless lives- including Jews- during the war.
It's his silence which is a subject of continual dispute- what he could have done but didn't. I find that there is one fatal assumption in all such arguments though- that the Pope should have openly identified himself with one of the warring factions during the war- and that he could not do, not only because of traditional Vatican policy, but also because of his special sympathy the German people.
P.S. It's obvious that atheist in the context of this speech was meant attributively, hence "atheist extremism" and not "extreme atheism." Of course, it's probably not the most accurate thing he could have stated. "Rejection of traditional Catholic values," for instance, would be more accurate, but somehow I doubt that would have gone down well in England.
The enlightenment indeed had many achievements, but the most important of them- wit, erudition and what people used to call "the art of conversation" are rarely exhibited by its contemporary champions.
On the other hand, the most appalling things to be taken from the enlightenment- Jacobinism for instance- is to be found aplenty.
It's always easier to take the bad things from any movement than the good.
On September 21 2010 12:51 MoltkeWarding wrote: The enlightenment indeed had many achievements, but the most important of them- wit, erudition and what people used to call "the art of conversation" are rarely exhibited by its contemporary champions.
On the other hand, the most appalling things to be taken from the enlightenment- Jacobinism for instance- is to be found aplenty.
It's always easier to take the bad things from any movement than the good.
And who are in your opinion the current champions of the enlightenment? Those who use it as a loin cloth? As an aside, I think it's really hard to have a decent conversation on the internet. Interrupting people doesn't seem to be possible. A lot of the rich dynamic of a discussion is completely absent. Writing does allow for some deeper reflection, but that takes time and effort...
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:48 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:48 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:48 blitzkrieger wrote: [quote]
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny."
What he should have said:
"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the religious extremism of all of human history, let us never forget how the inclusion of God has led ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and this to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny.'"
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: [quote] You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
Yes yes, no worries that dudes in a position of power abuse the trust they've built with little boys and rape them. Happens all the time!
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
[quote]
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
Yes yes, no worries that dudes in a position of power abuse the trust they've built with little boys and rape them. Happens all the time!
Of course its fucked up. But is abusing and raping your son any better?
On September 19 2010 21:23 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: [quote] It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
Yes yes, no worries that dudes in a position of power abuse the trust they've built with little boys and rape them. Happens all the time!
Of course its fucked up. But is abusing and raping your son any better?
I didn't realize that incestual rape decreases the severity of the misdoings in the church
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:48 blitzkrieger wrote:
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
I think when you 'quote' my post, that you should at least read it, seeing as your father is not here to read it for you. I never wrote: 'I didn't know how him being a forensic pshychiatrist makes him an expert', I didn't write the other quotes you made either, please refrain from making up quotes, it furthers the level of discussion a lot, don't you think? In addition, you should not make derogatory comments in my direction about being a blind Adam Boulton fanboy, as I am simply using a statistic, that he brought up. You will see in my post, that it was made by an independent inquiry by The Catholic Church, not by Mr. Boulton. You are quoting your 'daddy' and 'yourself' and have not posted a source. Child abuse maybe lower for priests than for the general public in Germany, but you have not even told us which priests your statistics are for. Is it for all priests or just The Roman Catholic Church. The topic we're discussing is the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think you are winning many friends by implying that Americans are multiple times as likely to be peadophiles as Europeans. Especially, when you do not post any facts or sources to back up your comments. Child abuse and peadophilia has been very widespread in The Roman Catholic Church in America and Europe. I don't see why you are arguing against this fact. The scariest thing is what they must be doing in the third world where the control is even worse than in America and Europe. Anyway, life is too short for discussions like this and I can see, that I somehow made you angry with my posts, expressed mainly by how incoherent your final post was.
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: [quote] You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
"GUUUUYS, let's talk about other child molestations. I chose not to acknowledge the fact that it occurs in church and completely undermines my morality system!"
On September 19 2010 17:52 KwarK wrote: I find this hilarious, both because of the Nazi Youth connection and the fact that it was the support of the German Catholic party that brought Hitler to power. They made a pact with the Pope that gave Hitler the support of the Catholic Church in exchange for protection for German Catholics. While you can make an argument that all Germans consented to the atrocities that followed out of self interest most didn't put it in writing. The Catholic Church were the first to assure Hitler he could do whatever he liked to anyone else as long as they were protected.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
On September 19 2010 17:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: [quote] You are so blind, I'm not gonna waste any more time on you (after this). The Pope and The Catholic church has accepted a figure saying '0,05% or 1/20' of the priests have abused children. You can have your kiddy fiddler religion all for yourself mate. You're making up statistics as you go a long, not 1/20 of the general population are peadophiles and have commited crimes like this. This was broadcast on Sky News yesterday, now you go find a source for your imaginary statistics and catholic priests will hopefully be able to abuse children for many more years to come.
edit: I just realized that by your statistics I.E. the general population having 20times as high a rate of peadophelia as The Catholic Church would mean that every single person who's not a priest would be a peadophile. Do you still think your inventend statistics are correct? or do you admit that you are just slinging random stuff out and trolling in general?
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
Now you are comparing figures for how large a percentage of Roman Catholic Priests are peadophiles with a figure for how much of total Child abuse happens in the family. You have posted sources for neither of these stats and should definetly not be comparing these figures. Do you honestly think this is contributing anything constructive? By your logic, I could say that 5% of Roman Catholic Church priests in America being paedophile is an astonishingly low number, because they only account for 2% of all Child abuse in America. Fact is though, that you have to take into account how large a part of the population are actually Roman Catholic priests. Finally, I want to point out, that you have Misquoted the representative from The Roman Catholic Church in the interview I posted. The figure is 0,4% not 0,04%, this shows once more why it's important to post sources. You misquoted me, the people from the interview, you don't post sources and you compare figures for completely different things in a very misleading way. Do you honestly think you're contributing? Ask your father.
VATICAN CITY — Italian authorities seized euro23 million ($30 million) from a Vatican bank account Tuesday and said they have begun investigating top officials of the Vatican bank in connection with a money-laundering probe.
The Vatican said it was "perplexed and surprised" by the investigation.
Italian financial police seized the money as a precaution and prosecutors placed the Vatican bank's chairman and director general under investigation for alleged mistakes linked to violations of Italy's anti-laundering laws, news reports said.
The investigation is not the first trouble for the bank – formally known as the Institute for Works of Religion. In the 1980s, it was involved in a major scandal that resulted in a banker, dubbed "God's Banker" because of his close ties to the Vatican, being found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
[quote]
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
Now you are comparing figures for how large a percentage of Roman Catholic Priests are peadophiles with a figure for how much of total Child abuse happens in the family. You have posted sources for neither of these stats and should definetly not be comparing these figures. Do you honestly think this is contributing anything constructive? By your logic, I could say that 5% of Roman Catholic Church priests in America being paedophile is an astonishingly low number, because they only account for 2% of all Child abuse in America. Fact is though, that you have to take into account how large a part of the population are actually Roman Catholic priests. Finally, I want to point out, that you have Misquoted, the representative from The Roman Catholic Church in the interview I posted. The figure is 0,4% not 0,04%, this shows once more why it's important to post sources. You misquoted me, the people from the interview, you don't post sources and you compare figures for completely different things in a very misleading way. Do you honestly think you're contributing? Ask your father.
I didn't mean to make it as a direct comparison, my point was simply that crimes happen in all areas of society, and that it happes a lot and is not at all exclusive to catholic priests. I should have just mentioned that without using numbers cause it made it sound like I was doign a direct comparison, my bad.
I didnt however make it a comparison to how often it happens in family but how often it happens overall. And I said that over 50% happens in families which is indeed relevant to the discussion.
"The figure is 0,4% not 0,04%, this shows once more why it's important to post sources. " Whops guess I made the same mistake you did in the beginning. That has nothing to do with "important to post sources" though whatsoever, since its the same source as yours ^^
I think everyone knows that murders happen lots and lots more in the US, are you really saying I need to post sources for that? Of course this doesnt mean that there is any relations whatsoever to therefore being higher abuse numbers as well in the US, it was just a guess and I think I made it clear that it was nothing but that.
I think when you 'quote' my post, that you should at least read it, seeing as your father is not here to read it for you. I never wrote: 'I didn't know how him being a forensic pshychiatrist makes him an expert', I didn't write the other quotes you made either, please refrain from making up quotes, it furthers the level of discussion a lot, don't you think? In addition, you should not make derogatory comments in my direction about being a blind Adam Boulton fanboy, as I am simply using a statistic, that he brought up. You will see in my post, that it was made by an independent inquiry by The Catholic Church, not by Mr. Boulton. You are quoting your 'daddy' and 'yourself' and have not posted a source. Child abuse maybe lower for priests than for the general public in Germany, but you have not even told us which priests your statistics are for. Is it for all priests or just The Roman Catholic Church. The topic we're discussing is the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think you are winning many friends by implying that Americans are multiple times as likely to be peadophiles as Europeans. Especially, when you do not post any facts or sources to back up your comments. Child abuse and peadophilia has been very widespread in The Roman Catholic Church in America and Europe. I don't see why you are arguing against this fact. The scariest thing is what they must be doing in the third world where the control is even worse than in America and Europe. Anyway, life is too short for discussions like this and I can see, that I somehow made you angry with my posts, expressed mainly by how incoherent your final post was.
Of course, I'm just randomly making stuff up "how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church." That's your exact quote. Nice how you use my argument/complaint and turn it around on me though.
I havent told which priests the statistics are for because I thought it was pretty damn obvious we were talking about Catholics. I didn't post sources because I assumed you can't read German.
Yeah that's the first thing I thought about when I read the OP.
If anyone thinks Nazi Germany was really christian they are a bit naive (hell, some churches had the bible replaced by Mein Kampf) but other than that I disagree with about everything blitzkrieger and that other dude ( who was even wrose) wrote.
[quote]
wow massive math fail, 0.05% is not 1/20. That would be 5%.
It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
"GUUUUYS, let's talk about other child molestations. I chose not to acknowledge the fact that it occurs in church and completely undermines my morality system!"
Unlike Evil Monkey you're not even using common sense so I have nothing to say to that lol.
On September 19 2010 17:09 blitzkrieger wrote: I heard Einstein was pretty smart. Newton? A lot of people actually. In fact some monk found out how cells and basic genetics work. Even DARWIN was a priest (or monk forget) when he studied the Galapagos Islands (sp?). In fact people who are religious are people who question and see order and wonder why this is or that is. In fact SCIENCE was originally (and still) is based on the belief that there is order in the universe from God. God made laws so we must find them. .
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein
Funny considering the reason the Nazi's were "natural enemies" of the russians was because they were communist atheists which they despised (the nazi-soviet pact was through gritted teeth.)
On September 19 2010 21:23 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: [quote] It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
Now you are comparing figures for how large a percentage of Roman Catholic Priests are peadophiles with a figure for how much of total Child abuse happens in the family. You have posted sources for neither of these stats and should definetly not be comparing these figures. Do you honestly think this is contributing anything constructive? By your logic, I could say that 5% of Roman Catholic Church priests in America being paedophile is an astonishingly low number, because they only account for 2% of all Child abuse in America. Fact is though, that you have to take into account how large a part of the population are actually Roman Catholic priests. Finally, I want to point out, that you have Misquoted, the representative from The Roman Catholic Church in the interview I posted. The figure is 0,4% not 0,04%, this shows once more why it's important to post sources. You misquoted me, the people from the interview, you don't post sources and you compare figures for completely different things in a very misleading way. Do you honestly think you're contributing? Ask your father.
I didn't mean to make it as a direct comparison, my point was simply that crimes happen in all areas of society, and that it happes a lot and is not at all exclusive to catholic priests. I should have just mentioned that without using numbers cause it made it sound like I was doign a direct comparison, my bad.
I didnt however make it a comparison to how often it happens in family but how often it happens overall. And I said that over 50% happens in families which is indeed relevant to the discussion.
"The figure is 0,4% not 0,04%, this shows once more why it's important to post sources. " Whops guess I made the same mistake you did in the beginning. That has nothing to do with "important to post sources" though whatsoever, since its the same source as yours ^^
I think everyone knows that murders happen lots and lots more in the US, are you really saying I need to post sources for that? Of course this doesnt mean that there is any relations whatsoever to therefore being higher abuse numbers as well in the US, it was just a guess and I think I made it clear that it was nothing but that.
I think when you 'quote' my post, that you should at least read it, seeing as your father is not here to read it for you. I never wrote: 'I didn't know how him being a forensic pshychiatrist makes him an expert', I didn't write the other quotes you made either, please refrain from making up quotes, it furthers the level of discussion a lot, don't you think? In addition, you should not make derogatory comments in my direction about being a blind Adam Boulton fanboy, as I am simply using a statistic, that he brought up. You will see in my post, that it was made by an independent inquiry by The Catholic Church, not by Mr. Boulton. You are quoting your 'daddy' and 'yourself' and have not posted a source. Child abuse maybe lower for priests than for the general public in Germany, but you have not even told us which priests your statistics are for. Is it for all priests or just The Roman Catholic Church. The topic we're discussing is the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think you are winning many friends by implying that Americans are multiple times as likely to be peadophiles as Europeans. Especially, when you do not post any facts or sources to back up your comments. Child abuse and peadophilia has been very widespread in The Roman Catholic Church in America and Europe. I don't see why you are arguing against this fact. The scariest thing is what they must be doing in the third world where the control is even worse than in America and Europe. Anyway, life is too short for discussions like this and I can see, that I somehow made you angry with my posts, expressed mainly by how incoherent your final post was.
Of course, I'm just randomly making stuff up "how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church." That's your exact quote. Nice how you use my argument/complaint and turn it around on me though.
I havent told which priests the statistics are for because I thought it was pretty damn obvious we were talking about Catholics. I didn't post sources because I assumed you can't read German.
On September 19 2010 21:23 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: [quote] It's a typo, I guess you've never made one. 0,05 = 5% = 1/20 I've corrected it.
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
"GUUUUYS, let's talk about other child molestations. I chose not to acknowledge the fact that it occurs in church and completely undermines my morality system!"
Unlike Evil Monkey you're not even using common sense so I have nothing to say to that lol.
7mk, your dad could be a dick-sucking manwhore for all we know. This is the internet, either you find some reliable sources to backup your claims or STFU. Hell, even if your dad does what you proclaim him to do, that's just the opinion of 1 person and there's no way to judge how biased he is, thus adding nothing to your credibility. "My dad is..." I lol'ed so hard.
And Evil Monkey, you're getting your figures off a news network. Perhaps, just perhaps, you're a bit overzealous on the topic and might be just a tad blinded to remember the fact that news sensationalism sells stories, and that Skynews is part of the media conglomerate, News Corp. So until you find a better source, refrain from further posting.
Ah well, if this were any other forum I could splash my white-knight all over your face for a post of that quality, but this site being as well policed as it is I can simply sit tight in the knowledge that sooner or later, the modstick will be forced so far down your throat that you can't sit down :3
On the topic of Minchin's response, it was below his usual standard. I love Tim Minchin, and watching a few of his videos it is evident that he is far wittier than that song would suggest he is. The same old raw wit and musical talent was still evident there, but the swearing really did detract from his point -.-
As for Dawkins, eloquent as always. He is a true intellectual, unlike the dear Pope. "...as though a penis were an essential tool for pastoral duties.". Fantastic :D
"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"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."
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
"I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."
[Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."
[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]
"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]
"Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.309]
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
"Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, p. 171]
"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 1]
"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 2]
"...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]
"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger's time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 6]
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]
"The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the 'image' of God."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]
"But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture- race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'
[Adolf Hitler's prayer, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 2 Chapter 13]
"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life"
[Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]
"ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED
Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers
Wireless to the New York Times.
BERLIN, May 13. - In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.
The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members ..."
[New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree]
"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker."
[Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life...."
[Adolf Hitler, Berlin, February 1, 1933]
"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years."
[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]
who cares really, pope's just some random fuck and doesn't mean anything to me, dare i say most of us
btw, it's great britain, they have alot of religious extremists or all brands speaking unacceptably offensive shit out loud all the time and get a pat on the back from the goverment
but then, their goverment might just enjoy balls constantly bouncing off their chin, we shouldn't be so untolerant of it
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
Now you are comparing figures for how large a percentage of Roman Catholic Priests are peadophiles with a figure for how much of total Child abuse happens in the family. You have posted sources for neither of these stats and should definetly not be comparing these figures. Do you honestly think this is contributing anything constructive? By your logic, I could say that 5% of Roman Catholic Church priests in America being paedophile is an astonishingly low number, because they only account for 2% of all Child abuse in America. Fact is though, that you have to take into account how large a part of the population are actually Roman Catholic priests. Finally, I want to point out, that you have Misquoted, the representative from The Roman Catholic Church in the interview I posted. The figure is 0,4% not 0,04%, this shows once more why it's important to post sources. You misquoted me, the people from the interview, you don't post sources and you compare figures for completely different things in a very misleading way. Do you honestly think you're contributing? Ask your father.
I didn't mean to make it as a direct comparison, my point was simply that crimes happen in all areas of society, and that it happes a lot and is not at all exclusive to catholic priests. I should have just mentioned that without using numbers cause it made it sound like I was doign a direct comparison, my bad.
I didnt however make it a comparison to how often it happens in family but how often it happens overall. And I said that over 50% happens in families which is indeed relevant to the discussion.
"The figure is 0,4% not 0,04%, this shows once more why it's important to post sources. " Whops guess I made the same mistake you did in the beginning. That has nothing to do with "important to post sources" though whatsoever, since its the same source as yours ^^
I think everyone knows that murders happen lots and lots more in the US, are you really saying I need to post sources for that? Of course this doesnt mean that there is any relations whatsoever to therefore being higher abuse numbers as well in the US, it was just a guess and I think I made it clear that it was nothing but that.
I think when you 'quote' my post, that you should at least read it, seeing as your father is not here to read it for you. I never wrote: 'I didn't know how him being a forensic pshychiatrist makes him an expert', I didn't write the other quotes you made either, please refrain from making up quotes, it furthers the level of discussion a lot, don't you think? In addition, you should not make derogatory comments in my direction about being a blind Adam Boulton fanboy, as I am simply using a statistic, that he brought up. You will see in my post, that it was made by an independent inquiry by The Catholic Church, not by Mr. Boulton. You are quoting your 'daddy' and 'yourself' and have not posted a source. Child abuse maybe lower for priests than for the general public in Germany, but you have not even told us which priests your statistics are for. Is it for all priests or just The Roman Catholic Church. The topic we're discussing is the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think you are winning many friends by implying that Americans are multiple times as likely to be peadophiles as Europeans. Especially, when you do not post any facts or sources to back up your comments. Child abuse and peadophilia has been very widespread in The Roman Catholic Church in America and Europe. I don't see why you are arguing against this fact. The scariest thing is what they must be doing in the third world where the control is even worse than in America and Europe. Anyway, life is too short for discussions like this and I can see, that I somehow made you angry with my posts, expressed mainly by how incoherent your final post was.
Of course, I'm just randomly making stuff up "how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church." That's your exact quote. Nice how you use my argument/complaint and turn it around on me though.
I havent told which priests the statistics are for because I thought it was pretty damn obvious we were talking about Catholics. I didn't post sources because I assumed you can't read German.
You were the one being derogatory, making me look like a dumb little daddy's boy and any aggressiveness in my tone is only a reaction to that.
On September 22 2010 03:10 Offhand wrote:
On September 22 2010 02:22 7mk wrote:
On September 22 2010 01:45 Offhand wrote:
On September 22 2010 01:42 7mk wrote:
On September 21 2010 10:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 21 2010 02:10 7mk wrote:
On September 20 2010 12:12 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 20 2010 01:47 7mk wrote: [quote]
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
"GUUUUYS, let's talk about other child molestations. I chose not to acknowledge the fact that it occurs in church and completely undermines my morality system!"
Unlike Evil Monkey you're not even using common sense so I have nothing to say to that lol.
7mk, your dad could be a dick-sucking manwhore for all we know. This is the internet, either you find some reliable sources to backup your claims or STFU. Hell, even if your dad does what you proclaim him to do, that's just the opinion of 1 person and there's no way to judge how biased he is, thus adding nothing to your credibility. "My dad is..." I lol'ed so hard.
And Evil Monkey, you're getting your figures off a news network. Perhaps, just perhaps, you're a bit overzealous on the topic and might be just a tad blinded to remember the fact that news sensationalism sells stories, and that Skynews is part of the media conglomerate, News Corp. So until you find a better source, refrain from further posting.
Quality flame is always entertainment.
So I cannot quote inquiries funded by the Catholic Church itself +______________________+. I am well aware that Sky News is a very sensationalist news site, but honestly sensationalist or none-sensationalist the people on that panel (in the interview) know a lot about the topic and that's why they are there. A hell of a lot more than you or me. They've done research and worked with it for many years, if the people in the interview are not very very qualified to make comments on the subject, then I don't know who the hell is. I doubt you even saw the interview and are just latching on to the opportunity of acting pompous for no reason. If you want to talk about the reliability and validity of their sources, maybe you should look into it Mr. Internet Scholar.
Edit: Btw, who all of a sudden gave you the right to come in and flame in a vulgar manner and act all pompous with no basis for it.
I dont think you'll stay around for very long on this site if you keep posting like that while telling others to stfu and stop posting.
Hmmm, so we can conclude the American and British Catholic priests are worse than the German ones or that the cases simply haven't been reported in Germany. Anyway, it's really great to finally have a source for your comments, it really helps to have a source and a fairly good one at that.
On September 23 2010 23:22 soultwister wrote: who cares really, pope's just some random fuck and doesn't mean anything to me, dare i say most of us
btw, it's great britain, they have alot of religious extremists or all brands speaking unacceptably offensive shit out loud all the time and get a pat on the back from the goverment
but then, their goverment might just enjoy balls constantly bouncing off their chin, we shouldn't be so untolerant of it
I think you'll find that religious extremism is not widespread at all in GB, especially in comparison with Poland where there are so many people that follow and love the pope.
Edit: I made a triple post, it was unintentional, just read three different comment I wanted to reply to 1by1.
On September 23 2010 22:37 Hawk wrote: though he's a bit crass, he's completely right
er, what? That's some pretty insightful posting there.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You provide the former but none of the latter. Burden is on you, if you want to claim that I am a Nazi, go for it. But you better have some strong proof and solid ground to stand on, or you're just a dunce. Come on, take your best shot. How are secularist people (myself included as a hard atheist) Nazis?
I love the range of responses in here, from fairly intelligent to incredibly ignorant and crass.
It's infuriating that he can say this and it's both infuriating and mind-boggling that this guy still has all the support he does after it came out a few years ago that he actively participated in the sex-abuse scandal cover-up. In today's political culture this kind of inflammatory speech is unfortunately very effective. We Americans have mainstream politicians that spew this kind of nonsense, frightening and making your base angry at the other side is a very effective way to drum up support against them whether the claims have foundation or not.
"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"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."
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
"I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."
[Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."
[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]
"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]
"Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.309]
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
"Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, p. 171]
"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 1]
"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 2]
"...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]
"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger's time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 6]
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]
"The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the 'image' of God."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]
"But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture- race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'
[Adolf Hitler's prayer, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 2 Chapter 13]
"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life"
[Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]
"ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED
Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers
Wireless to the New York Times.
BERLIN, May 13. - In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.
The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members ..."
[New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree]
"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker."
[Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life...."
[Adolf Hitler, Berlin, February 1, 1933]
"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years."
[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]
"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"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."
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
"I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."
[Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."
[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]
"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]
"Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.309]
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
"Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, p. 171]
"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 1]
"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 2]
"...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]
"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger's time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 6]
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]
"The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the 'image' of God."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]
"But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture- race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'
[Adolf Hitler's prayer, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 2 Chapter 13]
"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life"
[Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]
"ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED
Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers
Wireless to the New York Times.
BERLIN, May 13. - In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.
The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members ..."
[New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree]
"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker."
[Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life...."
[Adolf Hitler, Berlin, February 1, 1933]
"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years."
[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]
So what is this hitlerquotepedia telling us? That hitler was a nutty dictator/mass murder who thought he was a christian? You should not put too much faith into the fuhrers words. At last the things you do show who you are including hitler.
There is an interesting wiki site discussing hitlers religious views only where you can see that this topic is a little more complex than you thought it would be.
Derek Hastings sees Hitler's commitment to Christianity as more tenuous. He considers it "eminently plausible" that Hitler was a believing Catholic as late as his trial in 1924, but writes that "there is little doubt that Hitler was a staunch opponent of Christianity throughout the duration of the Third Reich."
Hitler also said, "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity."
On September 24 2010 05:04 TOloseGT wrote: And "opponent of Christianity" automatically becomes "extremist Atheist"?
I don't think so.
The Pope is obviously wrong in this regard. His statement isn't backed up by facts.
Why should it be impossible that nazis can be atheists? Is every atheist a humanist that doesnt kill people?
Maybe that's what the pope was thinking: an atheist extremist beeing someone who doesn't believe in god and doesn't have any moral restrictions on top of that ...
On September 24 2010 05:04 TOloseGT wrote: And "opponent of Christianity" automatically becomes "extremist Atheist"?
I don't think so.
The Pope is obviously wrong in this regard. His statement isn't backed up by facts.
Why should it be impossible that nazis can be atheists? Is every atheist a humanist that doesnt kill people?
Maybe that's what the pope was thinking: an atheist extremist beeing someone who doesn't believe in god and doesn't have any moral restrictions on top of that ...
Every extremist has moral restrictions. I think atheist extremists have some of the best moral restrictions of any kind. You don't see them molesting children or strapping bombs to their chest. You don't see extremist atheists preaching destruction on their fellow man, no matter what religion he is. Every modern extremist atheist (hitchens, harris, dawkins) wages a purely intellectual war. They use words -- and words ALONE -- to convey their ideas, and more importantly the ideas they convey are directed almost entirely at healthy-minded adults, not at weak minded and easily persuaded children like most religions are guilty of.
The whole hitler argument is complete bullshit and everybody who's put any amount of thought into it knows it's complete bullshit. Who cares if he was christian, atheist or otherwise? There are horrible, evil people of all belief systems. It speaks nothing to christianity if hitler was a christian, and it speaks nothing to militant atheism if he was a militant atheist. I have no doubt there were atheists in his regime, just as there were christians. It's just a waste of time and it completely dodges the whole point of an intellectual religious debate to throw out these filthy, ridiculous arguments.
The fact that the pope stooped to this new low shows me only that he's scared. He's scared of moral retribution for the horrible deeds he's committed in hiding child rapists from secular law. He's scared that his opinions on the natural and the supernatural alike are being proven wrong - convincingly I might add - on an exponentially increasing level that has never before been done in the history of mankind. He's scared that his power is waning, through the growth and increasing popularity of secular humanism. And, perhaps, he's also influenced by the extremist terrorism that more ballsy religions are now resorting to in response to the explosion of atheistic moral rhetoric that seems to be gripping the younger generation of this planet more and more every day.
"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"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."
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
"I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."
[Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."
[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]
"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]
"Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.309]
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
"Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, p. 171]
"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 1]
"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 2]
"...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]
"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger's time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 6]
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]
"The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the 'image' of God."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]
"But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture- race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'
[Adolf Hitler's prayer, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 2 Chapter 13]
"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life"
[Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]
"ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED
Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers
Wireless to the New York Times.
BERLIN, May 13. - In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.
The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members ..."
[New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree]
"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker."
[Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life...."
[Adolf Hitler, Berlin, February 1, 1933]
"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years."
[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]
So what is this hitlerquotepedia telling us? That hitler was a nutty dictator/mass murder who thought he was a christian? You should not put too much faith into the fuhrers words. At last the things you do show who you are including hitler.
There is an interesting wiki site discussing hitlers religious views only where you can see that this topic is a little more complex than you thought it would be.
Derek Hastings sees Hitler's commitment to Christianity as more tenuous. He considers it "eminently plausible" that Hitler was a believing Catholic as late as his trial in 1924, but writes that "there is little doubt that Hitler was a staunch opponent of Christianity throughout the duration of the Third Reich."
Hitler also said, "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity."
Hitler believed in God, he even saw himself as acting out God's own will. If you're trying to establish otherwise, you're debating the wrong thing.
Now you're missing the point. The pope's own words were that "extreme atheism" (anyone want to try to define that?) was the root cause of the worlds major atrocities and moral failings. But since most people slept through history class, you forgot what the two most destructive forces in civilization were.
"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."
Hitler said that about communist Russia.
The pope is an embarassment, and in an enlightened society, he'd be long gone.
Source: Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 240.
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
There are actually way more rapists, drugdealers, cannibals, thieves, and tax auditors in the Church then the general population by quite some amount (1000x more?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. That's because I made that shit right the fuck up.
On September 19 2010 16:41 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: If atheists abused 1000's of innocent children like they have, I would listen to what this old troll has to say. Fact is though, that it's him and his followers that have done so.
There are actually much less pedophiles in the Church than the general population by quite some amount (20x less?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. And I don't excuse them for trying to have "damage control" for it either. I'm not even Catholic.
There are actually way more rapists, drugdealers, cannibals, thieves, and tax auditors in the Church then the general population by quite some amount (1000x more?). Again I wish I had a source but I don't. That's because I made that shit right the fuck up.
There was a study that provided evidence that there are actually LESS pedohiles in the catholic church in germany compared to the average ov the population.
Problem is, however, that those that are in the church have more opportunities to molest children and that they are also systematically protected by the church.
THat is, the proportion of pedophiles is smaller but they engage in criminal sexual actiuvities far more often, basically, because they can do so without having to fear severe consequences (worst thing to happen is that you are sent to another city and have to find some new children to molest).
"atheist extremism"? Um... 45-80% of Sweden are atheist/agnostic atheists. The way I see it, religion in general is pretty useless. The only good thing that religion has ever given us is hope, and someone to turn to when you´re.. depressed maybe. But religion holds us back so much, think of all the people that has died in the name of their religion. What a waste. This is my opinion, haters gonna hate(?)
On September 24 2010 19:46 lundell100 wrote: "atheist extremism"? Um... 45-80% of Sweden are atheist/agnostic atheists. The way I see it, religion in general is pretty useless. The only good thing that religion has ever given us is hope, and someone to turn to when you´re.. depressed maybe. But religion holds us back so much, think of all the people that has died in the name of their religion. What a waste. This is my opinion, haters gonna hate(?)
For as many people that have died in the name of religion, many people (as well as many deaths) have been saved/(caused) because of religion.
Imagine how many people would've killed themselves, or others, had they not believed in hell? Or God?
you take away God and replace him with what?. i mean its pretty obvious that ppl used to the whole god idea will need smth else to replace it with. Or, you wait for them to die then hope that the next generation will be "cured"?. Even if you prove there is no god its really unrealistic to expect ppl to follow atheistic/agnostic or /we views right of the bat.
When people talk about change they always fail to see the big picture which sometimes gets them in even more trouble.
On September 24 2010 22:16 xM(Z wrote: you take away God and replace him with what?. i mean its pretty obvious that ppl used to the whole god idea will need smth else to replace it with. Or, you wait for them to die then hope that the next generation will be "cured"?. Even if you prove there is no god its really unrealistic to expect ppl to follow atheistic/agnostic or /we views right of the bat.
When people talk about change they always fail to see the big picture which sometimes gets them in even more trouble.
Lenin wanted to replace the people's faith in the church with faith in the state, a lateral move as far as logic is concerned.
Removing religion would force debate into a more intellectually even battlefield. At least when forced to justify a horrible belief (like anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, or anti-sex ed) they'd need things like facts and logic to defend their argument.
How many times have you heard someone end an argument just by saying "Well that's just MY belief, I was raised that way."? It's a baseless defense, you both know it is, but it's a decision that millions of people blindly follow.
For instance, you can boil any anti-homosexuality argument down to "buttsex is icky" but that doesn't stop us from trying to discriminate against a whole 5% of the population because of it.
the church knows its losing the battle against the relentless march of progress in science. As we explain more and more of the universe in terms of scientific facts rather than conjecture and faith, less and less people see a need for god.
I studied physics at uni, and though i do not believe in god the more i learn about the universe the more i see that there is room for god in a scientific world. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive, alot of very smart people who dedicate their lives to science also have some form of "spiritual" belief that the universe has some form of design... even tho they do not know what that is.
Anyone who claims to have the answers to everything, be it scientists or religious leaders are lying to both themselves and everyone else..... no one can ever know everything, particle physics proved that many years ago....
Personally everyone on this planet has the right to believe whatever they choose, however they do not have the right to try to impose those beliefs on anyone else. This is my main problem with organised religion, they are always trying to convert you.
I think of it like this....
If my gf says "no" when i want to, well you know, then I have no right to push her or pester her. No means no. Trying to force myself on her is against the law.
So when a relgious person asks me if i would like to hear about god, and i say no, they should respect that as much as if it were the above example and if i were in charge of the country, I would make going door to door jobbing for god illegal. though that would mean i wouldn't get to have fun asking some very arkward questions to the people who knock at my door once a month!
On September 24 2010 22:16 xM(Z wrote: you take away God and replace him with what?. i mean its pretty obvious that ppl used to the whole god idea will need smth else to replace it with. Or, you wait for them to die then hope that the next generation will be "cured"?. Even if you prove there is no god its really unrealistic to expect ppl to follow atheistic/agnostic or /we views right of the bat.
When people talk about change they always fail to see the big picture which sometimes gets them in even more trouble.
I don't understand this at all. God is redundant, except for those who are so invested in the idea (addicted), that they can't change very easily. God is not so very important. Religion does need a replacement. I think humanism is probably the most advanced among the non-barbaric options, but it's not asif people don't automatically and autonomously generate their own values, insights and rules. Actually, former religious people can keep their bastardized 'religious values' and norms and just not worry about the objective correctness of their ways. Problem fixed. EZ
Maybe it's somehow just because I live in Western Europe, but it's very clear that there's absolutely nothing special about religion. Once we accept that it can teach us nothing whatsoever, it loses its power. Moreover, the uselessness of religion becomes virtually self-evident once educated people allow themselves to explore the matter. I don't care that we're essentially irrational in nature. This does not need to translate into religiousity. It's probably far more difficult to end dictatorship on this planet, than to end the popularity of current religions.
First of all, it should be noted that actually having dug into Christianities sources and beliefs, I can say with certainty, that there is as much or more ignorance masked by arrogance towards the faith as there is in the majority's ideas about starcraft on this forum.
That being said. Many of you are right. The church is full of hipocrites. How great is God that he would love us dispite this.
Religion is a boring hobby. But at it's base Christianity is not a religion. Religions will give you a set of rules in order to gain right standing with God. Christianity is at it's core the practice of following christ because he has given us right standing with God through no act of our own.
And for those of you who have not been in church and think that it only gives hope to those when bad times come, I'd say you're right. For those who have fed off religion and not pursued him, that is probably all you'll find. But for those you do chase after him there is exceeding joy.
This will likely get swallowed by the void of the forums, but I thought I'd share.
"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."
Hitler said that about communist Russia.
The pope is an embarassment, and in an enlightened society, he'd be long gone.
Source: Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 240.
Amid all the ideological ranting, it's necessary to establish something else that needs to be said:
Hitler was not supportive of Christianity. This needs to be qualified, since many of his public speeches and even political acts express his conformity to Christian culture, even in opposition to the anti-Christian sentiment amidst the radicals of his party.
Hitler's own religious outlook is difficult to qualify. He was dismissive of Rosenberg and Himmler's neo-pagan mysticism as well as traditional Christianity. He would consistently speak of his "mission" guided by "providence," and he probably had a strong sense of his own destiny. References to God in private conversation (that is, apart from those references in public speeches designed to placate German conservatives and Catholics) are seldom, although in his table talk there are several references to Christianity being an unsuitable religion to the new Germany, with its pacifist ethos. On yet another occasion he expressed the necessity of dealing with the churches after the war.
After Hitler's failed putsch of 1923 he reformulated his strategy: from being a nationalist revolutionary, he sought to become a statesman. Entailed in this change was the increasing marriage of religious respectability to his anti-Bolshevik rhetoric, a combination he knew would appeal to the German conservatives. Publicly he would never make an open statement against Christianity, and would occasionally take steps to protect Christian institutions (he refused to allow Goebbels or Goering to resign their memberships in the Catholic church, or allow the Gauleiter of Bavaria to remove crosses from schoolrooms.) Privately, he disliked Christian influences on Germany, but the facade of his religious respectability, even of his anti-Bolshevism (he respected Stalin, and even respected communism more than the liberal-capitalism of the West) were subordinated to his main political goal, which was the unity of the German people.
Under the Third Reich, old religious divisions must be put in the past; there must be no second Kulturkampf in Germany. As long as religiosity did not impede this internal unity, or would occasionally even aid it, he was happy to maintain it as it was. Also, although Hitler detested some of the values of Christianity, he did not underestimate their social force, as Napoleon, the Bolsheviks or the radicals in his own party did. He knew that being openly anti-Christian would have caused him problems in the long-run.
"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"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."
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
"I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it."
[Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."
[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]
"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]
"Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.309]
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
"Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, p. 171]
"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 1]
"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 2]
"...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
"If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]
"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
"I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger's time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 6]
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]
"The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
"The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the 'image' of God."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]
"But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
"Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
"....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
"Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture- race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'
[Adolf Hitler's prayer, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 2 Chapter 13]
"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life"
[Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]
"ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED
Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers
Wireless to the New York Times.
BERLIN, May 13. - In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.
The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members ..."
[New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree]
"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker."
[Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life...."
[Adolf Hitler, Berlin, February 1, 1933]
"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years."
[The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
Now you are comparing figures for how large a percentage of Roman Catholic Priests are peadophiles with a figure for how much of total Child abuse happens in the family. You have posted sources for neither of these stats and should definetly not be comparing these figures. Do you honestly think this is contributing anything constructive? By your logic, I could say that 5% of Roman Catholic Church priests in America being paedophile is an astonishingly low number, because they only account for 2% of all Child abuse in America. Fact is though, that you have to take into account how large a part of the population are actually Roman Catholic priests. Finally, I want to point out, that you have Misquoted, the representative from The Roman Catholic Church in the interview I posted. The figure is 0,4% not 0,04%, this shows once more why it's important to post sources. You misquoted me, the people from the interview, you don't post sources and you compare figures for completely different things in a very misleading way. Do you honestly think you're contributing? Ask your father.
I didn't mean to make it as a direct comparison, my point was simply that crimes happen in all areas of society, and that it happes a lot and is not at all exclusive to catholic priests. I should have just mentioned that without using numbers cause it made it sound like I was doign a direct comparison, my bad.
I didnt however make it a comparison to how often it happens in family but how often it happens overall. And I said that over 50% happens in families which is indeed relevant to the discussion.
"The figure is 0,4% not 0,04%, this shows once more why it's important to post sources. " Whops guess I made the same mistake you did in the beginning. That has nothing to do with "important to post sources" though whatsoever, since its the same source as yours ^^
I think everyone knows that murders happen lots and lots more in the US, are you really saying I need to post sources for that? Of course this doesnt mean that there is any relations whatsoever to therefore being higher abuse numbers as well in the US, it was just a guess and I think I made it clear that it was nothing but that.
I think when you 'quote' my post, that you should at least read it, seeing as your father is not here to read it for you. I never wrote: 'I didn't know how him being a forensic pshychiatrist makes him an expert', I didn't write the other quotes you made either, please refrain from making up quotes, it furthers the level of discussion a lot, don't you think? In addition, you should not make derogatory comments in my direction about being a blind Adam Boulton fanboy, as I am simply using a statistic, that he brought up. You will see in my post, that it was made by an independent inquiry by The Catholic Church, not by Mr. Boulton. You are quoting your 'daddy' and 'yourself' and have not posted a source. Child abuse maybe lower for priests than for the general public in Germany, but you have not even told us which priests your statistics are for. Is it for all priests or just The Roman Catholic Church. The topic we're discussing is the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think you are winning many friends by implying that Americans are multiple times as likely to be peadophiles as Europeans. Especially, when you do not post any facts or sources to back up your comments. Child abuse and peadophilia has been very widespread in The Roman Catholic Church in America and Europe. I don't see why you are arguing against this fact. The scariest thing is what they must be doing in the third world where the control is even worse than in America and Europe. Anyway, life is too short for discussions like this and I can see, that I somehow made you angry with my posts, expressed mainly by how incoherent your final post was.
Of course, I'm just randomly making stuff up "how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church." That's your exact quote. Nice how you use my argument/complaint and turn it around on me though.
I havent told which priests the statistics are for because I thought it was pretty damn obvious we were talking about Catholics. I didn't post sources because I assumed you can't read German.
You were the one being derogatory, making me look like a dumb little daddy's boy and any aggressiveness in my tone is only a reaction to that.
On September 22 2010 03:10 Offhand wrote:
On September 22 2010 02:22 7mk wrote:
On September 22 2010 01:45 Offhand wrote:
On September 22 2010 01:42 7mk wrote:
On September 21 2010 10:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 21 2010 02:10 7mk wrote:
On September 20 2010 12:12 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
On September 20 2010 01:47 7mk wrote: [quote]
Well if you really meant 5% then I'd like to know what source Sky News has because my father is a forensic psychiatrist and he has very different numbers.
Just go on their webpage skynews.com, how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church.
Check the Adam Boulton panel where they discuss Child abuse by the Catholic Church, but I'm sure your daddy knows much better than them.
I saw it on Sky News, I'm not sure these sources are 100% the same as what I watched on the news, but can't really verify it seeing as I'm in China and Chinese internet is ever worse than the Pope.
The stats metioned '5%' is introduced by Adam Boulton is for America and it's a stat found by an independent inquiry funded by The Catholic Church.
l"how on earth would your father being a forensic psychiatrist have anything to do with him knowing the numbers for abuse by priests from the Catholic Church."
?? Because his job makes him a specialist on the subject of paedophilia and he knows more about it than pretty much any other person in this country ?(besides that he has direct connections to most important figures in our judiciary system). Either way I dont get how you can even ask that question if you know what a forensic psychiatrist does. It's like asking why a archaeologist would know anything about dinosaurs.
That being said if I recall correctly my father was talking about statistics in germany, and those statistics said that overall child abuse among priests was overall just very slightly lower than average. And in the news report you posted that british guy says the stats for UK are 0.04%. So when one single project brings up hugely different numbers than any other researches I would dare argue that it's likely that that single project is wrong. Or maybe it's just US priests that are fucked up, who knows.
Nope, they're not '0,04%' those are the stats represented by the damage control guy from The Catholic Church. Surprised your father didn't tell you, that you cannot always trust representatives from an institution that has always attempted to do 'damage control' and who have knowingly covered up wide spread abuse in many circumstances. I still do not think your father being a forensic psychiatrist has anything to do with you having a vast knowledge of paedophilia, if you had done some research yourself or looked into the matter, it would be different. Most people, when they reach a certain age, will pass playing the 'My father is a really smart guy and knows a lot about this' - card. Your father being a forensic psychiatrist doesn't make you a figure of authority on this subject, you need to realize that.
lol.. Did I say I'm a figure of authority? Did I say I had a vast knowledge of paedophilia? Of course I didn't but what you post makes me sound like an idiot and makes you feel superior so why not post it, right? Funny how you drift from "I didnt know how him being a forensic psychiatrist makes him an expert" to "I still dont know how it makes you an expert" though fail xD. At least you must have realised how wrong you were about the former.
Basically all you're saying is "Only listen to this one research my sexy Mr. Boulton quoted and ignore any other statistics because they are wrong" and other than that you're just bashing me for having mentioned my father. When the truth is I could have mentioned him even if I didnt even know him personally because he's more of a person to listen to about that subject than Mr. Boulton.
"Nope theyre not 0,04%" ... do you have any sort of actual proof thats true or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Overall I still wouldn't be surprised though if US priests did in average commit these crimes a lot more often than European/German ones since crimes are in general just way more frequent over there. But hey, let's not drift off into reasonable discussions and just keep on bashing each other cause that's the way to do a proper discussion, right?
0.04% is still thousands and thousands of children molested...
There's 15000 cases of child abuse in germany every single year. 0,04% is not that much. Over 50% of cases of child abuse are within families. Ye it's still thousands of children molested, just like tons of people are murdered every day.
"GUUUUYS, let's talk about other child molestations. I chose not to acknowledge the fact that it occurs in church and completely undermines my morality system!"
Unlike Evil Monkey you're not even using common sense so I have nothing to say to that lol.
7mk, your dad could be a dick-sucking manwhore for all we know. This is the internet, either you find some reliable sources to backup your claims or STFU. Hell, even if your dad does what you proclaim him to do, that's just the opinion of 1 person and there's no way to judge how biased he is, thus adding nothing to your credibility. "My dad is..." I lol'ed so hard.
How the hell did I get confused for calling people nazis, or even mixed in the debate about whether hitler hated christians or not???
On September 24 2010 23:26 MarioMD wrote: First of all, it should be noted that actually having dug into Christianities sources and beliefs, I can say with certainty, that there is as much or more ignorance masked by arrogance towards the faith as there is in the majority's ideas about starcraft on this forum.
That being said. Many of you are right. The church is full of hipocrites. How great is God that he would love us dispite this.
Religion is a boring hobby. But at it's base Christianity is not a religion. Religions will give you a set of rules in order to gain right standing with God. Christianity is at it's core the practice of following christ because he has given us right standing with God through no act of our own.
And for those of you who have not been in church and think that it only gives hope to those when bad times come, I'd say you're right. For those who have fed off religion and not pursued him, that is probably all you'll find. But for those you do chase after him there is exceeding joy.
This will likely get swallowed by the void of the forums, but I thought I'd share.
I don't accept your definition of religion at all ! and I don't accept that 'real' christianity exists. Every religious person thinks his church/understanding/way is the right one. What is "following Christ"? I have an aunt who's absolutely rabid when it comes to christianity. She loves her "hobby" and she certainly doesn't act out of fear, but the threat of hell is one that's probably most useful to the thought control of the young ones. Doubt is the temptation of the devil and all that sweet crap... I tell you, if the churches start abandoning the fear mongering, then christianity will all but die completely in a few decades.
The threat of hell is a tool to control children through abusing their gullibility and threatening the most horrible torture imaginable when, if they were exposed to it only a few years later, they would realize how absolutely ridiculous it is.
I think teaching the concept of hell to children and really forcing it down their throats to the point where they actually have nightmares about it (this happens more often than you'd think), is undeniably child abuse. But then, catholics have a weird concept of child abuse all together so it's understandable that our views would differ on that topic.
The fact that religions HAVE to use fear to sustain themselves should be one of the most obvious tips that maybe it's complete and utter bullshit. Unfortunately the people that should be receiving that tip are too scared to think about it.
Hmm, I would argue that the primary purpose of religion is the teaching of hope, a positive ideal. However, a religion would not be philosophically complete without teaching of the opposite.
You know, if we didn't have a doctrine of hell, we'd have to substitute something similar for the sake of moral education. Theologically, hell is a state of eternal damnation, but the truly scary thing about it is not the negative feature, but its negation of the positive. Damnation is a state of existence without hope.
At its foundation, morality concerns itself with the prevention of suffering. The notion that in the course of one's life choices, the transitory good ought to be avoided if it leads to ultimate evils is not a doctrine of religion, but of common sense. The trick of all moral teaching is to convince a person that what looks good in the short-run has evil consequences in the long-run. This applies to all particulars of moral doctrines, from stealing to sex. Teaching morality is concerned with letting people know the potential evils as well as goods of a course of action. The knowledge of potential good we call hope, the knowledge of potential evil we call fear.
Teaching fear or whatever you call it in practice is not lying, but telling a kind of potential truth, of the opposite kind from hope. It is a practical way for parents to explain these lessons to their offspring, whether these lessons are delivered through Grimm's fairy tales, or through crude warnings of going to prison where they'll never get fed cookies. It also happens to be a practical way of deterring rational adults from committing crimes, for fear alerts us to the witch within the gingerbread house, and once one opens the door, one may never be able to leave.
Hell then is simply finding oneself irretrievably within that house with all exits barred. In hell there is neither fear nor hope, for both are dependent on a knowledge of potentialities, but an ignorance of actualities. Hell is a state of final actuality, and that is what is so frightening about it. It is walking eternally on a road with only one possible course, one possible conclusion. It is walking without a perfect destination, but in perfect knowledge. Indeed, there, knowledge of the eternal future becomes so perfect and so clear that even the potential of any future reprieve is annihilated.
In other words, it's where you're going when your mistakes go beyond redemption.
I'm not going to bother with the main discussion, but what the fuck is 'atheist extremism'? People keeps saying stuff about Dawkins or whatever. Dawkins wrote a fucking book. He participates in debates, throws around snarky comments, whatever. That's nothing, if that's extremism what the hell are actual terrorists? When atheists bomb a church people can come back and talk about 'atheist extremism'.
Teaching fear or whatever you call it in practice is not lying, but telling a kind of potential truth, of the opposite kind from hope. It is a practical way for parents to explain these lessons to their offspring, whether these lessons are delivered through Grimm's fairy tales, or through crude warnings of going to prison where they'll never get fed cookies. It also happens to be a practical way of deterring rational adults from committing crimes, for fear alerts us to the witch within the gingerbread house, and once one opens the door, one may never be able to leave.
Hell then is simply finding oneself irretrievably within that house with all exits barred. In hell there is neither fear nor hope, for both are dependent on a knowledge of potentialities, but an ignorance of actualities. Hell is a state of final actuality, and that is what is so frightening about it. It is walking eternally on a road with only one possible course, one possible conclusion. It is walking without a perfect destination, but in perfect knowledge. Indeed, there, knowledge of the eternal future becomes so perfect and so clear that even the potential of any future reprieve is annihilated.
In other words, it's where you're going when your mistakes go beyond redemption.
Interesting, but we have prisons for that, no? I'd say that having 'even the potential of any future reprieve' being annihilated would be way too harsh for any crime lol. An eternity is a long time.
On September 24 2010 19:57 KamuL wrote: Imagine how many people would've killed themselves, or others, had they not believed in hell? Or God?
The stupid, it hurts. You sir, should get out more.
So, all really religious people are stupid by your definition? If we look at this historically and currently, you are describing soooooooooooooo many people as stupid. You are just the one who should get out more. You are clearly prejudiced. Christian morals are still a fundament for how many Dutch people think and has influenced your way of thinking a lot. Does this make all Dutch people stupid? I think not.
On September 24 2010 19:09 Electric.Jesus wrote: There was a study that provided evidence that there are actually LESS pedohiles in the catholic church in germany compared to the average ov the population.
Problem is, however, that those that are in the church have more opportunities to molest children and that they are also systematically protected by the church.
THat is, the proportion of pedophiles is smaller but they engage in criminal sexual actiuvities far more often, basically, because they can do so without having to fear severe consequences (worst thing to happen is that you are sent to another city and have to find some new children to molest).
Bullshit.
Where is this imaginary study.
Who commissioned it?
Was it some made up garbage?
Was it entirely funded and performed by members of the catholic church?
Show me a link to a nonpartisan study that has this information in it, because I am calling you out on this nonsense right here.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/hitler%26bishop.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/Hitler-with-Muller.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/hitler_cardinal4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/concordat.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png)
![[image loading]](http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif)
![[image loading]](http://images.loqu.com/photos/481/334/the-bullets-are-real-your-god-is-not.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://coltmonday.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/just-plain-creepy-pope.jpg?w=288)
![[image loading]](http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2913/lackoffaith5yd2.jpg)
