Log in

View Full Version : Religion



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Hopper
07-17-2010, 07:32 AM
Jack - if atheism is a religion, why aren't atheist organisations tax exempt?

Hitler was indeed a Catholic. See:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

I didn't look through all of that but what I did see was either very vague or explainable by normal political expediency and duplicity. Many of the quotes merely contain Biblical language, which all orators use and which we use in everyday speech with no religious connotations.

Those pictures of priests with Hitler or in Nazi regalia merely show that many clergy went along with the state, often under assurances that the Nazis supported the churches. The Nazis would have to assure support for churches in order to influence the large sections of the population who were members of churches.

Remember, the Nazis were clever. They did not come out and say to Germany "We are a bunch of brutal, totalitarian, atheist psychopaths who want to control society for the perverse pleasure of telling other people what to do. Now who's with us?" No, in public they had to pay lip-service to morality and religion.

A modern parallel to this is the support the "Religious Right" churches give to the Republicans and the support which "liberal" chruches give to the Democrats. Totalitarianism insinuates itself into everything and perverts and manipulates religion with deception, incentives and a little bullying.

Dirty Ernie
07-17-2010, 10:41 AM
...Sometimes, bogus religions have been wholly fabricated for the purpose of justifying some political or criminal aim...

Like every single one, maybe?

I don't have a problem with people believing in some sort of creator, it's those fictional books claiming to be the literal (originally) or even inspired word of God I have issues with (notice how the only advances made in religion are in the areas of how to make it more palatable in a world of advancing knowledge?).

Where's the 2.0 version of the New Testament? America condemns Iran for sentencing a woman to death by stoning, yet this is the prescribed punishment for adulterers in your revered holy book. Either you follow the book or someone needs to go through and cherry-pick what they like, write something new, and start a new church or you better warm up your pitching arm, cuz in this country you're gonna be busy!


"Neither creationists or evolutionists can answer questions about what preceded the existence of the universe and God. But God probably could."


The accurate way to sate this is "Scientists have yet to discover the answer to this question, while the believers claim to know who does know". He's just not returning any calls.

God has been pretty scarce on Earth lately. He did give that guy in Utah special powers to decipher those golden plates so he could get 10% of all his friends' money, but other than the occasional appearance of the Virgin Mother on a grilled cheese sandwich or mildew stain, miracles have been hard to come by. Not much smiting (smoting?) by angels either.

Those who believe should be more accepting of those who do not.
Consider when a religious person dies. If he was wrong about the sect he chose (or was handed down to him based mostly on geography and ethnicity), isn't it in his best post-life interests if there was no God?

If I'm right you're worm food. If you're wrong and your neighbor of another religion is right, you could be in for eternal damnation and suffering. I imagine that's gonna hurt, otherwise what's the point?

Religion was just the earliest form of gov't. A way to keep social order in a community through the threat of an angry God (be it on Mt. Siani or a volcano) and enrich the status and power of those smart enough to exploit the fears of those around them.

shift_6x
07-17-2010, 11:00 AM
^^ Any group with convictions will do the same. It doesn't have to be a religion.

The most obnoxious and condescending people are "ivory tower" "distinguished" college/university professors. They are mostly liberal atheists or agnostics. They believe themselves to be highly-evolved intellects and "enlightened minds" - and everyone else to be robotic and brainwashed idiots (pick your brand of brainwashing - religion, consumerism, materialism, capitalism, western patriarchal tradition, the political left, the political right, etc.)

They shun everyone except the sycophantic ass-kissing college students that worship them.


I can see where u are coming from. I dont mean to be a hypocrit bc Im affected by many of ur examples of brainwashing that u listed. So to say Im not "convinced" by things in life would be a lie. Personally, I think I have something against "Religion", which goes back to an individual--family issue. Ive seen firsthand how many people in a few different religions--well mostly a different sect of the same religion--treat those who r part of them and those who rnt. Ive seen bad things. Ill leave it at that..

Kellydancer
07-17-2010, 11:08 AM
I can see where u are coming from. I dont mean to be a hypocrit bc Im affected by many of ur examples of brainwashing that u listed. So to say Im not "convinced" by things in life would be a lie. Personally, I think I have something against "Religion", which goes back to an individual--family issue. Ive seen firsthand how many people in a few different religions--well mostly a different sect of the same religion--treat those who r part of them and those who rnt. Ive seen bad things. Ill leave it at that..

I've seen a lot in the name of religion. I am Catholic and while there are things I dislike about Catholics, I like their views on helping the less fortunate. I bring that up because my ex belonged to a "church" who's only purpose was to judge others. They didn't have a food kitchen or anything I would consider Christian. Instead they spent time judging others, including women, gays and minorities. They would use the bible as their acceptance of discrimination. For instance, women had no power at all at their church, including no boards. Women were mothers and wives only. I don't subscribe to this view at all and not all Christian people do.

flickad
07-17-2010, 07:35 PM
The watchmaker always was... He is the "first mover"... The Alpha and the Omega. (First and last.) In atheism - this would be "matter". Scientists believe matter always existed, even before our galaxy. But, it is in constant motion.



I know its not technically a "religion" - in actuality, it is anti-religion, but for all practical purposes, it is a "religion". Its metaphysical beliefs are founded in science - quantum physics, cosmology, darwinism, etc., and it does have moral codes - humanism, existentialism, darwinism, hedonism, etc.

With regards to science, atheists will swear and die according to the "truths" of science (which are stripped of the religious "superstitions"). However, science itself is full of "paradigms" (theories), which undergo major "shifts" every few decades, i.e. - they are disproven. Also, as pointed out before, scientific "truths" lead to absurdities - e.g., spontaneous teleportation and schroeder's cat - which is both dead and alive and the same time.

As far as the "enlightened morality" of atheism, existentialism and social darwinism gave us Stalin and Hitler, amongst others. (Hitler was not a Catholic. Catholics, by definition, do not plot to kill the pope, which according to Catholic faith is the successor to Saint Peter.)

True atheism is intolerant. It is repulsed by religion. Karl Marx said religion is the Opium of the masses. An atheist only has two ways to deal with religion: (1) follow Niccolo Machievelli's advice and use it to manipulate people by adopting a radical and corrupted version of religion for ulterior motives to promote tyranny, or (2) follow Karl Marx's advice and "help people" overcome the superstition of religion by destroying everything that in any way sustains or promotes religious faith.


In Torcaso vs. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the Supreme Court recognised that a belief that God does not exist is also relgious, noting that certain religions are atheistic. So much for court decisions.

So, should we apply for tax exempt status then? If atheism, like you say, is a religion, then atheist organisations should have no problems getting tax exempt status. I wonder why none of them have it.

ETA - I'd like a link to that decision, please. I'm wanting to see if the court actually declared atheism a religion (which I doubt).

flickad
07-17-2010, 08:12 PM
Where God came from is a separate issue to whether or not God exists. The fact that we can't explain it does not invalidate the existence of God. Evolutionists can't explain where the first particle which underwent the Big Bang came from, but they are pretty sure the universe exists. Some young children don't know where babies come from, but they know babies exist.

See, we know the universe exists and that babies exist because we can perceive both with our senses. There is no way to perceive god.

flickad
07-17-2010, 08:15 PM
Religion is no guarantee against human nature. There are people who are genuinely religious and people who say they are religious just as a nominal status. Some pretend they are religious to con other people. There are genuinely religious people who fail to live up to their beliefs. Some people are just self-deluded about being religious and behave immorally.

In any case political leaders have always had to appeal to the religion of the people in their country out of necessity, regardless of whether their actions were genuinely motivated by religion. The religion itself is not necessarily to blame for what people commit in it's name. Religion is not to blame if someone abuses it. Usually, people have had to pervert a religion to commit crimes in it's name. Sometimes, bogus religions have been wholly fabricated for the purpose of justifying some political or criminal aim.

The terror perpetrated by the atheists I listed, however, were not in conflict with the philosophies and in many instances outright prescriptions of many leading atheists of the day. I listed them because people tend to characterise atheism as enlightened and beneficial and religion as oppressive, completely forgetting the massive and brutal oppression that has been perpetrated by atheists.

See, Hopper, the Old Testament, for instance, itself advocates genocide. It contains an exhortation to wipe out the entire nation of Amalek. It also supports slavery and the marriage of girls from the age of three. Similarly, the Koran exhorts Muslims to kill infidels. I could make an argument that it is religion itself that supports many of the horrors that were committed in its name.

flickad
07-17-2010, 10:17 PM
I didn't say atheists are irrational for not believing in God. I said they are irrational for believing there definitely is no God, because it cannot be proved.

You are comparing two completely different things. A theist can't believe in more than one religion simultaneously. A theist can't be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time, simply because the New Testament and the Koran contradict one another. It would be irrational to believe in two religions simultaneously.

By your logic, the existence or non-existence of gods like Baal, Vishnu and Thor are also unprovable. Is it therefore illogical that the majority of us believe they do not exist? Using your reasoning, it would be more logical to be agnostic about the existence of the gods of various religions, even if you don't believe in all religions at once.

Believing that there definitely is a god, using your logic, is similarly illogical.

eagle2
07-17-2010, 11:07 PM
Remember, the Nazis were clever. They did not come out and say to Germany "We are a bunch of brutal, totalitarian, atheist psychopaths who want to control society for the perverse pleasure of telling other people what to do. Now who's with us?" No, in public they had to pay lip-service to morality and religion.


They pretty much did, except for the atheist part.

eagle2
07-17-2010, 11:09 PM
In Torcaso vs. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the Supreme Court recognised that a belief that God does not exist is also relgious, noting that certain religions are atheistic. So much for court decisions.

No they didn't. What they ruled is that there cannot be a religious test for office holders, which was clearly written in the Constitution.

eagle2
07-17-2010, 11:22 PM
Yes, the primordial particle which exploded into the Big Bang. How did it get there? Where did time and space come from, for that matter? The Big Bang theory says it created time and space, which would mean the first particle existed outside of time and space, just like Christians say God does. Neither creationists or evolutionists can answer questions about what preceded the existence of the universe and God. But God probably could.

No it doesn't.

God would have to exist in order to answer those questions. There is no evidence he does.



Correction: Metaphysics by definition is not founded on science. Evolution and atheism are not founded on science. They are founded on a priori metaphysical assumptions upon which they base their interpretations of scientific observation. Same goes for creationists - the difference is creationists openly admit it. Atheists say their "god" is science, but they subordinate science to their belief. Atheists assume first that there is no God (a metaphysical assumption), then they try to fit scientific knowledge into that assumption. Anything which doesn't fit is swept under the carpet or into the "too hard" basket for later or is covered up with an ad hoc hypothesis.


No they don't. I don't know of any atheist that says that. There is no evidence of God, which is why God doesn't fit into science, not because scientists don't want to believe in God.

eagle2
07-17-2010, 11:39 PM
I know its not technically a "religion" - in actuality, it is anti-religion, but for all practical purposes, it is a "religion". Its metaphysical beliefs are founded in science - quantum physics, cosmology, darwinism, etc., and it does have moral codes - humanism, existentialism, darwinism, hedonism, etc.

No it doesn't. You're distorting atheism. Atheism simply means non-belief in God or that God doesn't exist. There is no specific moral code atheists follow. Atheists have many different views and beliefs on different issues. The only thing all atheists have in common is they don't believe God exists.



With regards to science, atheists will swear and die according to the "truths" of science (which are stripped of the religious "superstitions"). However, science itself is full of "paradigms" (theories), which undergo major "shifts" every few decades, i.e. - they are disproven. Also, as pointed out before, scientific "truths" lead to absurdities - e.g., spontaneous teleportation and schroeder's cat - which is both dead and alive and the same time.

Again, atheists don't have one single set of views. You're stereotyping atheists.




As far as the "enlightened morality" of atheism, existentialism and social darwinism gave us Stalin and Hitler, amongst others. (Hitler was not a Catholic. Catholics, by definition, do not plot to kill the pope, which according to Catholic faith is the successor to Saint Peter.)


Hitler and Stalin had nothing to do with "Darwinism". Not once did Hitler even mention Darwin in his writing and Stalin reject Darwin's theories. Hitler's hatred of Jews most likely came from the Christian Church, which had been spreading hatred towards the Jews for centuries.



True atheism is intolerant. It is repulsed by religion. Karl Marx said religion is the Opium of the masses. An atheist only has two ways to deal with religion: (1) follow Niccolo Machievelli's advice and use it to manipulate people by adopting a radical and corrupted version of religion for ulterior motives to promote tyranny, or (2) follow Karl Marx's advice and "help people" overcome the superstition of religion by destroying everything that in any way sustains or promotes religious faith.

No it isn't. You are distorting what atheism is. Again, all it means is not believing God exists. It has nothing to do with tolerating or not tolerating a religion. A large percentage of people in Western European countries are atheists and there is little intolerance towards religion there.

eagle2
07-17-2010, 11:44 PM
^^ Any group with convictions will do the same. It doesn't have to be a religion.

The most obnoxious and condescending people are "ivory tower" "distinguished" college/university professors. They are mostly liberal atheists or agnostics. They believe themselves to be highly-evolved intellects and "enlightened minds" - and everyone else to be robotic and brainwashed idiots (pick your brand of brainwashing - religion, consumerism, materialism, capitalism, western patriarchal tradition, the political left, the political right, etc.)

They shun everyone except the sycophantic ass-kissing college students that worship them.

How many college/university professors do you know? Did you even go to college? Your comments sound like the typical conservative attacks on "elitists". The most obnoxious and condescending people are the conservative leaders, like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who regularly make the most condescending, hateful comments about anyone who doesn't share their views.

eagle2
07-17-2010, 11:50 PM
I was only challenging your logic, not trying to prove that God exists, so I won't provide detailed evidence here. One major type of evidence of God's existence is the evidence of design in nature. Evolutionists don't deny that there is design in the universe. They just say that it was designed by evolution. Nonetheless, design is evidence (I didn't say proof) of a designer. Evolution is supposed to be an accidental process and design is supposed to be the opposite of accident. Evolutionists recognise some of this evidence but attempt to explain it in terms of natural causes using ad hoc hypotheses. Some evolutionists have resorted to supposing there is an "intelligence" within nature which guides evolution. Sort of like a god.


No, there is no evidence of design. Creationists just say something looks designed, therefore it was designed.




The serpent in the garden? That is irrelevant to my point. You brought it up.



I didn't say atheists are irrational for not believing in God. I said they are irrational for believing there definitely is no God, because it cannot be proved.


How is that less irrational than those theists who believe there is definitely not God or Gods, other than the one they worship?

charlie61
07-18-2010, 01:18 AM
The terror perpetrated by the atheists I listed, however, were not in conflict with the philosophies and in many instances outright prescriptions of many leading atheists of the day. I listed them because people tend to characterise atheism as enlightened and beneficial and religion as oppressive, completely forgetting the massive and brutal oppression that has been perpetrated by atheists.

I don't think "massive and brutal oppression" has been perpetrated by atheists. People who intend to harm others will do so regardless of their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs). I mean, come on, do you really think those people you listed wouldn't have been so dangerous if only they'd gone to church? At the end of the day, their religion is irrelevant.

I think religion has nothing to do with this issue.

And anyway, I could argue against atheists all day (same as with theists). That's why I'm agnostic. As an apathetic agnostic (meaning no one can know either way, so I don't give a shit), I shall politely bow out now.

Kellydancer
07-18-2010, 12:35 PM
Btw, I want to state this isn't aimed at anyone here, but I am tired of people attacking my religious views.

I am Catholic and as I get older I follow more and more beliefs. I do support right to choice though I probably wouldn't do it. I also support gay marriage, but understand why they oppose it. Having said that, certain tenets I do support, such as against divorce in most cases. When I marry I want a large Catholic mass and you can't have that unless both people are not divorced (unless it got annulled). People on other forums have said that I'll be alone because of my "wacky" beliefs. Huh? Yet when I often defend my views I am called "intolerant". So I guess if one is fine with people having kids out of wedlock, having multiple divorces, etc they are tolerant but because I believe differently I am intolerant. I hate this double standard when it comes to religion.

jack0177057
07-19-2010, 08:40 AM
Jack - if atheism is a religion, why aren't atheist organisations tax exempt?

I conceded that atheism is not technically a religion, but for all practical purposes, it has all the same problems - dogma, the claim of moral superiority, intolerance, bigotry, radicalism, etc.

Atheist organisations indeed are tax exempt - they are called Universities (probably 70% of them)... and they are also called public schools. Indeed public schools are atheist institutions - they educate kids on all the atheist beliefs like the "big bang" theory, evolution, darwinism, etc. (taught as absolute truths, with no room for questioning)... and any mention of God, religion or creationism, will cause a squat team to descend. The implication is that anything dealing with God or religion is superstitious nonsense which has no place in an institution of "learning" (mom, dad and other old people may hold on to such silly stories and superstitions, but the young children will be disabused of it)... Only "scientific" atheist beliefs are appropriate in an institution of "learning". What has been completely removed from the "science" curriculum (like a big dark secret) is that (1) in Western history, scientific study was started by people of faith, particularly, the Jesuits (a Catholic order of priests) who are responsible for building many universities in Europe and they were very deep in scientific research and study, and (2) many important scientists have been men of faith and easily reconcile their religious and science beliefs.


Hitler was indeed a Catholic. See:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

The only support in that link for claiming that Hitler was a Catholic is that (a) he went to Catholic school and (b) that Catholic and Protestant Churches in Germany supported him.
But,...
(1) You don't have to be Catholic to go to Catholic school. People from different faiths and denominations are attracted to Catholic school because of the quality of the education and because they are a lot more affordable than other private schools (for many poor people wishing to give their children a "better" education, Catholic schools are the only option).
(2) Most Germans of all faiths (and atheists and agnostics) supported Hitler. His propaganda machine was among the best ever in history. He appealed to the wounded pride of Germans and made them feel they had the potential to be the best race/people in human history (i.e., the "super race"). The extermination of jews came much later (and there is debate about how much the German people knew), and by then, the people were hooked and brainwashed. This is sort of like people in the US saying - if only we secured our border and locked up (or killed) all the muslim fundamentalists (or all the illegals), this country would be strong and soar to unprecedented heights. A lot of people of all religious persuasions would agree with this sentiment. Current hostilities for muslim fundamentalists (even the non-violent non-radicals) and for Mexican illegal immigrants shows just how easy it is to target minority groups as a scapegoat and instigate public persecution. Not to mention the whole slavery and lynching of blacks episode of US history.
(3) Even if Hitler was raised Catholic - which is not supported by your authority (merely going to Catholic school does not mean you are raised Catholic) - Catholicism is not a race or culture. To be truly Catholic, you have to believe in the pillars of the Catholic church, which are inconsistent with building a super race (i.e., experimentation involving cloning and messing around with human fetuses, genes, DNA and creation); nor would a true Catholic threaten to destroy the Vatican and kill the pope, if the pope speaks against him.

jack0177057
07-19-2010, 09:15 AM
I can see where u are coming from. I dont mean to be a hypocrit bc Im affected by many of ur examples of brainwashing that u listed. So to say Im not "convinced" by things in life would be a lie. Personally, I think I have something against "Religion", which goes back to an individual--family issue. Ive seen firsthand how many people in a few different religions--well mostly a different sect of the same religion--treat those who r part of them and those who rnt. Ive seen bad things. Ill leave it at that..

No doubt, but to blame it on religion is not fair. People who like to judge and persecute will use any means to do so. Religion is just one "weapon" at their disposal. They will use anything else available to them - politics, "right and wrong", morality, "common sense", "common courtesy", the law, etc.

It is precisely because people are so judgmental, hypocritical and mean to each other that Jesus Christ said, many many times, in many many ways -- do not judge others - show mercy, compassion and forgiveness. Christianity is supposed to be about love, forgiveness and sacrifice. The fact that its followers remain ignorant, even after all that is taught by their religion, cannot be blamed on the religion.

That's like saying - if Americans are crude, obnoxious and selfish people (which we generally are) - then the principals upon which the US stand - like liberty, freedom, equality and the pursuit of happiness - are abhorrent principals and must be obliterated and our constitution must be rewritten to remove these principals. Obviously, the answer is that Americans must be better Americans, not that American principals must be smashed.

flickad
07-19-2010, 11:40 PM
Jack - nice try, but I didn't mean educational institutions. I meant specifically organisations of atheists, such as the Atheist Foundation of Australia and American Atheists. Religion has no place in public educational institutions anyway. Read your own constitution some time.

Do you have any evidence that Hitler did not believe in the Catholic Church, or god?

eagle2
07-20-2010, 12:00 AM
It is precisely because people are so judgmental, hypocritical and mean to each other that Jesus Christ said, many many times, in many many ways -- do not judge others - show mercy, compassion and forgiveness. Christianity is supposed to be about love, forgiveness and sacrifice. The fact that its followers remain ignorant, even after all that is taught by their religion, cannot be blamed on the religion.


Apparently Jesus didn't follow his own advise, since he referred to those who didn't believe him as "sons of the devil".

jack0177057
07-20-2010, 12:52 PM
Jack - nice try, but I didn't mean educational institutions. I meant specifically organisations of atheists, such as the Atheist Foundation of Australia and American Atheists. Religion has no place in public educational institutions anyway. Read your own constitution some time.

You should read your history books. Separation of state and religion and the anti-establishment clause were put in the constitution because each of the 13 colonies separately embraced their own Christian denomination, incorporated them into governmental practice and discriminated against others. We didn't want the religious prosecution of Europe to follow us here. However, these clauses were never intended to prohibit religion from being taught in public schools. This was a common practice then and did not change when the Constitution was adopted.

Until the late 19th century, creation was taught in nearly all schools in the United States, often from the position that the literal interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. With the development of the theory of evolution in the 1860s and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people, but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible. Some opposition grew against the theory of evolution and it became illegal to teach evolution in some states (the direct opposite of the current state of affairs).

The State of Tennessee vs. Scopes (informally known as the Scopes Monkey Trial)—was an American legal case in 1925 in which high school biology teacher John Scopes was accused of violating the state's law which made it unlawful to teach evolution. Here is some irony - The ACLU had originally intended to oppose the Butler Act on the grounds that it violated the teacher's individual rights and academic freedom, and was therefore unconstitutional. But, this strategy changed as the trial progressed, and the earliest argument proposed by the defense once the trial had begun was that there was actually no conflict between evolution and the creation account in the Bible (a viewpoint later called Theistic evolution). Scopes was convicted, despite having one of the best trial attorneys in American legal history (Clarence Darrow). When the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court overturned the decision on a technicality (the judge had assessed the fine when the jury had been required to). Although it overturned the conviction, the Court decided that the law was not in violation of the First Amendment. The Court held, "We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory." Scopes v. State 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927).

On a purely academic point - religion (particularly Christinanity) has had a central effect (good and bad) in the development of Western Civilization, and leaving it out of the curriculum is moronic.


Do you have any evidence that Hitler did not believe in the Catholic Church, or god?

Again, a Catholic believes that the pope is the successor to St. Peter as the leader of the Church. A Catholic would not threaten to kill the pope and destroy the Vatican, if the pope spoke out against him. - Hitler did this. I don't know about his other beliefs. He could have had a warped belief of god, but his conduct (actions speak louder than words) tend to evidence that he saw himself as the highest authority and that he was accountable to no god for his atrocities and for trying to alter the human race with science, i.e., creation of a super race.

jack0177057
07-20-2010, 01:22 PM
No it doesn't. You're distorting atheism. Atheism simply means non-belief in God or that God doesn't exist. There is no specific moral code atheists follow. Atheists have many different views and beliefs on different issues. The only thing all atheists have in common is they don't believe God exists.

My point is that an atheist will adopt a moral system (yes, there are a few to choose from) and embrace that moral system with the same conviction and fervour as any religious person.


Hitler and Stalin had nothing to do with "Darwinism". Not once did Hitler even mention Darwin in his writing and Stalin reject Darwin's theories.

I believe they were influenced by existentialism, specially Nietsche and Heidegger. In many ways, the creation of the "superman" or the "super race" is similar to "survival of the fittest".


Hitler's hatred of Jews most likely came from the Christian Church, which had been spreading hatred towards the Jews for centuries.

That's an ignorant thing to say. The tremendous wealth that he misappropriated from the Jews was just a happy coincidence? The Germans resented the Jews because the Jews held control of the banks, the art academies, the universities, etc. The Jews were learned, rich and powerful, and the common Germans felt resentment that these outsiders had taken control of every significant institution in their own country. (Not to mention that they were already hurt and resentful for losing WWI.) Its as if Muslims or Mexicans were suddenly running every important institution the US and the rednecks (forgive the term if it offends you) decided it was time to get rid of them for good. Religion might have been used in propaganda, but there were more practical objectives at play.


Apparently Jesus didn't follow his own advise, since he referred to those who didn't believe him as "sons of the devil".

You'll need to cite this verse for me and put it into context. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus sits and chats with prostitutes and sinners, to the shock and dismay of every judgmental and self-righteous person.


How many college/university professors do you know? Did you even go to college? Your comments sound like the typical conservative attacks on "elitists". The most obnoxious and condescending people are the conservative leaders, like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who regularly make the most condescending, hateful comments about anyone who doesn't share their views.

My point was that anyone (religious or not, conservative or liberal) with strong convictions will seem obnoxious to those people that don't share the same convictions. Good college professors (most of whom, but not all, happen to be very liberal) are a great example of this because they have such developed and thought-out "enlightened" convictions and criticisms. (Your community college professors don't count.)

flickad
07-20-2010, 08:30 PM
Jack - re: Hitler - genocide is not evidence of atheism. Similar atrocities have been committed specifically in the name of religion, most recently 9-11 (though on a far smaller scale). Going further back, we have things like the Inquisition.

Re - the Constitution - in law it is the text itself that matters, not the historical context. If it was context, America would still be denying votes to women and non-whites.

ETA - also, re Catholicism: there are many people who were baptised Catholic who do not agree with all the tenets of the church. They still identify as Catholic.

Kellydancer
07-20-2010, 11:49 PM
So to sum it up: Hitler was Catholic, so Catholics hate Jews. Yeah right. Incidentally, my great grandfather was Jewish and converted to Catholicism to marry my great grand mother. His family were killed at Auschwitz. I am so tired of anything about religion turning into a Catholic bashing thread.

flickad
07-21-2010, 02:12 AM
So to sum it up: Hitler was Catholic, so Catholics hate Jews. Yeah right. Incidentally, my great grandfather was Jewish and converted to Catholicism to marry my great grand mother. His family were killed at Auschwitz. I am so tired of anything about religion turning into a Catholic bashing thread.

I didn't mean to bash Catholics - I love them and would have converted to Catholicism if I believed in god. I think it's a very pretty religion in some respects, despite not agreeing with many aspects of its doctrine. I was just pointing out that Hitler was not an atheist, as Hopper and Jack have tried to argue. That doesn't mean that Catholicism caused or sanctions genocide, just as atheism does not. Nor does it mean that all Catholics are anti-semitic.

Also, what about the fact that some people in this thread have chosen to bash those of us who don't believe in god, implying that atheism itself is responsible for crimes against humanity? That is just as intolerant as bashing those who do believe in god and subscribe to one religion or another. The only reply to that argument is that crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of religion and by people who were members of a religion. Making that argument doesn't mean that I believe all religious people are evil. It just means that I am trying to point out a fallacy.

Kellydancer
07-21-2010, 11:38 AM
I didn't mean to bash Catholics - I love them and would have converted to Catholicism if I believed in god. I think it's a very pretty religion in some respects, despite not agreeing with many aspects of its doctrine. I was just pointing out that Hitler was not an atheist, as Hopper and Jack have tried to argue. That doesn't mean that Catholicism caused or sanctions genocide, just as atheism does not. Nor does it mean that all Catholics are anti-semitic.

Also, what about the fact that some people in this thread have chosen to bash those of us who don't believe in god, implying that atheism itself is responsible for crimes against humanity? That is just as intolerant as bashing those who do believe in god and subscribe to one religion or another. The only reply to that argument is that crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of religion and by people who were members of a religion. Making that argument doesn't mean that I believe all religious people are evil. It just means that I am trying to point out a fallacy.

I think there is good and bad in all views, whether atheist, Christian, etc. Personally, my major problem with atheists are those who try to get rid of Christmas, etc. Those people are just as dangerous as religious people. Otherwise I'm not bothered by what people believe in.

jack0177057
07-21-2010, 04:45 PM
Jack - re: Hitler - genocide is not evidence of atheism. Similar atrocities have been committed specifically in the name of religion, most recently 9-11 (though on a far smaller scale). Going further back, we have things like the Inquisition.

I never said Hitler was an atheist. I don't know what he was. I just said, a true believer of the Catholic faith would not threaten to kill the pope and destroy the vatican -- these things are sacred to a Catholic, so Hitler could not have been Catholic.

Its hard to believe that a person who believes in a loving and "just" god would do the things that Hitler did,... but yes, it is possible to have a warped and distorted view of god... that is the problem with radicals.


Re - the Constitution - in law it is the text itself that matters, not the historical context. If it was context, America would still be denying votes to women and non-whites.

For a long time, the "text itself" supported indentured servants, slavery, the subjugation of woman, incarceration of homosexuals, etc. Some wise person said - "You can write any law you want, as long as I get to interpret it." That's been the case with the Constitution - whoever is on the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution will get to decide what the "text itself" says. (Of course, they have to give some deference to cases decided in the past - this is referred to as "stare decisis" - but there have decisions that completely break with the past.)


ETA - also, re Catholicism: there are many people who were baptised Catholic who do not agree with all the tenets of the church. They still identify as Catholic.

This is true of every group (dissenters who still identify with the group they are dissenting with), but there are some "core truths" or "essential pillars" of the group or the faith which define it. For example, one important belief that distinguishes Catholics from all other Christian denominations is that Catholics believe the pope to be the successor to St. Peter, who was given an important and sacred position of leadership in the church by Jesus Christ. If a "Catholic" denies that the pope has an important and sacred leadership role in the church, then he cannot Catholic. (This is not to say that a Catholic must absolutely agree with 100% of what the pope says.) Another example - an "American Patriot" either on the "right" or the "left" may complain about a lot of things (they usually do), but if he wants to eliminate the US Constitution and replace the office of the President with a military dictatorship, no one would consider him to really be an American Patriot.


Also, what about the fact that some people in this thread have chosen to bash those of us who don't believe in god, implying that atheism itself is responsible for crimes against humanity?

Its like what they say about guns - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Religion or atheism doesn't kill people, people kill people. Whether you're an atheist, Christian, Jew or Muslim, etc... if you are selfish, intolerant, greedy and/or seek power at any cost, you will use any belief system available to you to advance your psychopathic objectives.

Also, something that is overlooked by people who love to point out the inequities committed in the name of religion is that just because someone claims or pretends to be religious, doesn't mean they are true believers. Machievelli taught European kings to act devout and manipulate religion to exploit people and wipe out their enemies. He said religion was a very powerful tool to be manipulated by cunning rulers. (The implication is - don't believe the nonsense, but act like you do for political objectives.) From the middle ages up to the 20th century, priesthood has been a way for European peasants to raise their station in life and bishops or cardinals high up in the church hierarchy were extremely influential. So, many "religious" people were really non-believers seeking wealth and power. Looking at today - if you see the mansions in which some Christian televangelist live (and consider how little they give to charity), you might wonder... are they true believers?... or are they career believers?

flickad
07-21-2010, 07:20 PM
I think there is good and bad in all views, whether atheist, Christian, etc. Personally, my major problem with atheists are those who try to get rid of Christmas, etc. Those people are just as dangerous as religious people. Otherwise I'm not bothered by what people believe in.

Heh, I love Christmas.

flickad
07-21-2010, 07:29 PM
For a long time, the "text itself" supported indentured servants, slavery, the subjugation of woman, incarceration of homosexuals, etc. Some wise person said - "You can write any law you want, as long as I get to interpret it." That's been the case with the Constitution - whoever is on the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution will get to decide what the "text itself" says. (Of course, they have to give some deference to cases decided in the past - this is referred to as "stare decisis" - but there have decisions that completely break with the past.)

The text itself did not directly support these things. They were around when the constitution was written, but there's no line in the constitution that said, for instance, that gay men may be incarcerated. It was interpreted in such a way that laws we'd now find abhorrent were constitutional. There are, however, changing fashions in textual interpretation, and as you'd probably be aware, the Supreme Court isn't bound by its own decisions. I'm very much aware of stare decisis (currently in the process of seeking admission to the legal profession) but the higher courts are not necessarily bound by precedent.


This is true of every group (dissenters who still identify with the group they are dissenting with), but there are some "core truths" or "essential pillars" of the group or the faith which define it. For example, one important belief that distinguishes Catholics from all other Christian denominations is that Catholics believe the pope to be the successor to St. Peter, who was given an important and sacred position of leadership in the church by Jesus Christ. If a "Catholic" denies that the pope has an important and sacred leadership role in the church, then he cannot Catholic. (This is not to say that a Catholic must absolutely agree with 100% of what the pope says.) Another example - an "American Patriot" either on the "right" or the "left" may complain about a lot of things (they usually do), but if he wants to eliminate the US Constitution and replace the office of the President with a military dictatorship, no one would consider him to really be an American Patriot.

If you're baptised Catholic, you're Catholic, no matter what you think of the Pope. You might be a bad Catholic, though.




Its like what they say about guns - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Religion or atheism doesn't kill people, people kill people. Whether you're an atheist, Christian, Jew or Muslim, etc... if you are selfish, intolerant, greedy and/or seek power at any cost, you will use any belief system available to you to advance your psychopathic objectives.

I actually agree with this, though think that many religions contain inequities in and of themselves (Islam, for instance, oppresses women in its more extreme forms). However, if people choose to take those on (without trying to impose them on others), it's none of anyone's business.


Also, something that is overlooked by people who love to point out the inequities committed in the name of religion is that just because someone claims or pretends to be religious, doesn't mean they are true believers. Machievelli taught European kings to act devout and manipulate religion to exploit people and wipe out their enemies. He said religion was a very powerful tool to be manipulated by cunning rulers. (The implication is - don't believe the nonsense, but act like you do for political objectives.) From the middle ages up to the 20th century, priesthood has been a way for European peasants to raise their station in life and bishops or cardinals high up in the church hierarchy were extremely influential. So, many "religious" people were really non-believers seeking wealth and power. Looking at today - if you see the mansions in which some Christian televangelist live (and consider how little they give to charity), you might wonder... are they true believers?... or are they career believers?

I think that religious leaders have often used religion in this way, though whether they actually believe the things they say is an open question.

eagle2
07-21-2010, 10:45 PM
My point is that an atheist will adopt a moral system (yes, there are a few to choose from) and embrace that moral system with the same conviction and fervour as any religious person.


No, atheists don't automatically adopt a moral system. Different atheists have different views and positions on practically every issue. About the only thing they agree on is there is no god or gods. You're just trying to stereotype atheists.



I believe they were influenced by existentialism, specially Nietsche and Heidegger. In many ways, the creation of the "superman" or the "super race" is similar to "survival of the fittest".

No it isn't. I doubt very much you understand Darwin's theory.



That's an ignorant thing to say. The tremendous wealth that he misappropriated from the Jews was just a happy coincidence? The Germans resented the Jews because the Jews held control of the banks, the art academies, the universities, etc. The Jews were learned, rich and powerful, and the common Germans felt resentment that these outsiders had taken control of every significant institution in their own country. (Not to mention that they were already hurt and resentful for losing WWI.) Its as if Muslims or Mexicans were suddenly running every important institution the US and the rednecks (forgive the term if it offends you) decided it was time to get rid of them for good. Religion might have been used in propaganda, but there were more practical objectives at play.

Then you know nothing of history. The Christian Church has been promoting hatred towards Jews throughout most of its history. Do you know anything about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition or the pogroms in Europe? Martin Luther was a far greater influence on Hitler than Darwin ever was. In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. Have you ever read what Martin Luther said about Jews?




You'll need to cite this verse for me and put it into context. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus sits and chats with prostitutes and sinners, to the shock and dismay of every judgmental and self-righteous person.


From the book of John:

8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.



My point was that anyone (religious or not, conservative or liberal) with strong convictions will seem obnoxious to those people that don't share the same convictions. Good college professors (most of whom, but not all, happen to be very liberal) are a great example of this because they have such developed and thought-out "enlightened" convictions and criticisms. (Your community college professors don't count.)

No, one can have strong convictions without being obnoxious.

Molly123
07-21-2010, 10:49 PM
I was also having trouble with the idea of Christianity and the Bible... so I read the American Transcendentalists. They helped me find my way to my own beliefs.

jack0177057
07-22-2010, 11:33 AM
No, atheists don't automatically adopt a moral system. Different atheists have different views and positions on practically every issue. About the only thing they agree on is there is no god or gods. You're just trying to stereotype atheists.

Every individual adopts a moral system. I am not saying all atheists adopt the same one, but they do have a preference for certain moral systems. Obviously, since they don't have a god at the center, they must either choose a moral code that puts the individual at the center (i.e., existentialism, rugged individualism, anarchism, ethical relativism, etc.) or one that puts society at the center (e.g., Marxism, totalitarianism, nationalism, Hobbes' social contract, social darwinism, etc.)


No it isn't. I doubt very much you understand Darwin's theory.

Darwinism can be reduced to this - species must either evolve to adapt to physical challenges or they are weeded out of existence. The "fittest" species (i.e., those that evolve to overcome physical challenges) survive and the weak (i.e., those that fail to evolve/adapt fast enough) become extinct. In the human context, the idea of social darwinism developed. This refers more to the evolution of peoples and civilizations, as opposed to the entire human race. In social darwinism, the "fittest" are not judged solely on physical attributes, but on intellectual pursuits, such as science, technology and military might.

Creation of a German "super race" with genetical and biological improvements is Darwinism on steroids. The Nazis also pursued social darwinism with their global ambitions, technology, discipline and weapons of mass destruction.


Then you know nothing of history. The Christian Church has been promoting hatred towards Jews throughout most of its history. Do you know anything about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition or the pogroms in Europe? Martin Luther was a far greater influence on Hitler than Darwin ever was. In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. Have you ever read what Martin Luther said about Jews?

Yes, there has been Christian discrimination against Jews,... but to say that Hitler's main motivation for killing Jews was that 1960 years ago they persecuted Jesus Christ and his followers is silly. The proud Germans resented the "outsider" Jews because of their wealth, power and control over important institutions. (During his early adulthood, Hitler's greatest aspiration and passion was to be an artist, but he was rejected from the art schools he applied to - which were run by Jews. Scholars believe that this triggered the beginning of his antipathy towards Jews.) Nazis misappropriated massive amounts of wealth from the Jews, which they used to finance their military operations. In other words, the Jews were a convenient scapegoat and a source for tremendous acquisition of wealth to the Nazis. In fact, there is a widely-believed theory that Hitler himself was part Jew. His grandmother became pregnant with his mother while working as a maid in the house of a wealthy Jew family and is believed to have been the lover of the son of the head of that Jewish family. (Something like that - I read this a long time ago.)


From the book of John:

8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Not being judgmental does not mean we allow murderers to go free. If there are purely evil people hell-bent on murdering innocent victims, I think we're allowed to be a little judgmental against those people.


No, one can have strong convictions without being obnoxious.
You will be seen as obnoxious to those that disagree with you, because of what you say or because of your actions,... or even because of your inactions.

It is human nature - If you have well thought-out convictions supported by inciteful and intelligent reasons, you will want to "share" your enlightened perceptions with... those people that "need" this enlightenment .... and that's where the problem starts.

In other words, if you hear an "ignorant" person talking (i.e., someone who holds a different conviction), you will feel overwhelmed with the feeling that you must try to "educate" that person.

minniesoporno
07-22-2010, 02:05 PM
I converted to Buddhism about 2 years ago, You do not have to believe in God if that is what you do not believe in.

Religion has become a political thing for some people it seems, if you have a faith you believe then practice it and when the time is appropriate teach it to others.

eagle2
07-23-2010, 03:35 PM
Every individual adopts a moral system. I am not saying all atheists adopt the same one, but they do have a preference for certain moral systems.

How do you know this? Have you ever taken a poll of atheists?



Darwinism can be reduced to this - species must either evolve to adapt to physical challenges or they are weeded out of existence. The "fittest" species (i.e., those that evolve to overcome physical challenges) survive and the weak (i.e., those that fail to evolve/adapt fast enough) become extinct. In the human context, the idea of social darwinism developed. This refers more to the evolution of peoples and civilizations, as opposed to the entire human race. In social darwinism, the "fittest" are not judged solely on physical attributes, but on intellectual pursuits, such as science, technology and military might.

Your statement shows you don't understand Darwin's theory. I doubt that you have even read a single legitimate article on the Theory of Evolution.

"Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution and completely contradicts Darwin's writings.



Creation of a German "super race" with genetical and biological improvements is Darwinism on steroids. The Nazis also pursued social darwinism with their global ambitions, technology, discipline and weapons of mass destruction.

No it isn't. It has nothing to do with Darwin's theory. It has been know for thousands of years before Darwin lived, that parents pass certain physical traits to their children. Hitler believed these traits were passed by blood, which contradicts Darwin's theory, that traits are passed by genes. The Nazis were hardly the first people to believe they were a superior race.





Yes, there has been Christian discrimination against Jews,... but to say that Hitler's main motivation for killing Jews was that 1960 years ago they persecuted Jesus Christ and his followers is silly. The proud Germans resented the "outsider" Jews because of their wealth, power and control over important institutions. (During his early adulthood, Hitler's greatest aspiration and passion was to be an artist, but he was rejected from the art schools he applied to - which were run by Jews. Scholars believe that this triggered the beginning of his antipathy towards Jews.) Nazis misappropriated massive amounts of wealth from the Jews, which they used to finance their military operations. In other words, the Jews were a convenient scapegoat and a source for tremendous acquisition of wealth to the Nazis. In fact, there is a widely-believed theory that Hitler himself was part Jew. His grandmother became pregnant with his mother while working as a maid in the house of a wealthy Jew family and is believed to have been the lover of the son of the head of that Jewish family. (Something like that - I read this a long time ago.)

You're just making stuff up. Have you ever heard the term "Christ-killer"? Do you know what happened to Jews during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and pograms? Are you aware that before 1965, the Catholic Church held that all Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus?




Not being judgmental does not mean we allow murderers to go free. If there are purely evil people hell-bent on murdering innocent victims, I think we're allowed to be a little judgmental against those people.

What does allowing murderers going free have to do with Jesus calling people sons of the devil?





You will be seen as obnoxious to those that disagree with you, because of what you say or because of your actions,... or even because of your inactions.

It is human nature - If you have well thought-out convictions supported by inciteful and intelligent reasons, you will want to "share" your enlightened perceptions with... those people that "need" this enlightenment .... and that's where the problem starts.

In other words, if you hear an "ignorant" person talking (i.e., someone who holds a different conviction), you will feel overwhelmed with the feeling that you must try to "educate" that person.

It is possible for people with different views or beliefs to "agree to disagree" without being obnoxious to each other.

jack0177057
07-24-2010, 01:01 AM
How do you know this? Have you ever taken a poll of atheists?

Not necessary - I know. Show me someone who doesn't have a moral system.


Your statement shows you don't understand Darwin's theory. I doubt that you have even read a single legitimate article on the Theory of Evolution.

In that case, I'm very interested to learn your scholarly interpretation of Darwin's theory.


"Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution and completely contradicts Darwin's writings.

I beg to differ. In the animal world "evolution" requires physical adaptation - to survive predators and the harshness of nature, creatures must evolve physically and biologically to overcome these challenges. However, in the human world, we have come to rely more on human intellect, technology and invention for survival. When we are cold, instead of growing more fur, we buy Timberland jackets. If we want to spend more time in the ocean, instead of growing fins, we put on diving gear. If we want to fly, instead of growing wings, we fly a plane or fly on a hang glider. To attract the opposite sex, instead of making our skins turning into a handsome blue, we use corny pickup lines, drive sporty vehicles, brag about money and status and have a nice "pad" to bring the girls to (and girls use cosmetics, mini skirts and high heels). If a bigger and mightier person threatens to kill us, we do not resort to biting them or poisoning them with our spit, but rather we contact the authorities.

Human societies/cultures survive predators (the worst ones being other human societies/cultures) by their politics, innovation and technology - not biological evolution. First, a group must develop a political, educational & economical system that will provide cohesion and stability. Then, they must train soldiers and develop military machinery to protect them from other group. Social darwinism is about "evolution" and "survival of the fittest" - the only difference is that the means used for survival are social, political and technological - instead of biological.


You're just making stuff up. Have you ever heard the term "Christ-killer"? Do you know what happened to Jews during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and pograms? Are you aware that before 1965, the Catholic Church held that all Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus?

First of all, the crusades and inquisition were more about power and politics than about religion.

Second of all, Hitler was not leading a crusade or an inquisition. He was not a religious or moral fanatic. You really believe he attempted to annihilate the Jews because of the murder of Jesus 1960 years ago? Here is one source for you to get educated -

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#Antisem

Sure, there may be some religious propaganda scattered here and there to bring the religious fanatics into the mix, but the vast majority of propaganda is pure ethnic and racial bigotry.

From - Solving the Jewish Question by Dr. Achim Gercke -http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/gercke.htm

"As a result of the victory of the National Socialist revolution, the Jewish Question has become a problem for those who never before thought about solving the Jewish Question, who never fought to solve it. Everyone has seen that the current situation is intolerable. Allowing free development and equality for the Jews has led to an “unfree” situation of exploited competition, and to a handing over of important positions within the German people to those of a foreign race."

From - The End of Jewish Migration by Dr. Johann von Leers -
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/gercke.htm

"The Jewish problem is a migrating problem that has moved over the centuries from one European region to another. One can speak of a certain degree of saturation with the Jewish population in individual regions. If this degree of saturation is reached or exceeded, the affected non-Jewish peoples always take the same defensive measures. They attempt to reduce Jewish influence, to hinder Jewish corruption of their cultural and business life, or to reverse it if it has already occurred. Often, the first step is a clear realization that the Jews are a foreign element."

From - Ten Responses to Jewish Lackeys by Kurt Hilmar Eitzen
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/responses.htm

There are still Jewish lackeys today who attempt to disrupt our storm attack on the Jewish world rulers, trying to stop us or even cause us to fall. The following hints show how one can reply to these arguments by our opponents, or even turn their arguments against them.

Argument 1: “You say that religion is a private matter. But you fight against the Jewish religion!” Counterargument: “Actually, the Jewish religion is nothing other than a doctrine to preserve the Jewish race.” (Adolf Hitler). “In resisting all government attempts to nationalize them, the Jews build a state within the state (Count Helmuth von Moltke). “To call this state a ‘religion’ was one of the cleverest tricks ever invented.” (Adolf Hitler). “From this first lie that Jewry is a religion, not a race, further lies inevitably follow.” (Adolf Hitler).

Argument 2: “There are decent Jews, after all!” — Counterargument: “This little phrase ‘after all’ proves that they are rare exceptions of no significance to our battle against Jewry as a whole. But Martin Luther saw four hundred years ago that this “decency,” proven by charitable deeds done in as public a manner as possible, is nothing but a hidden cost of business, to repaid a thousand times by uneducated Germans. “Know, dear Christian, and have no doubts about it, that next to the Devil you have no more bitter, poisonous and determined enemy than a genuine Jew. . . If they do something good for you, it is not because they love you, but because they need room to live with us, so they have to do something. But their heart remains as I have said!”

Argument 3: “The Jew has better prices than the German businessman.” — Counterargument: Any crook can sell junk. Jewish crooks have driven thousands of German businessmen to bankruptcy with the glittering trash in their department store palaces. When someone does get good products more cheaply from the Jews than from Germans, it is only because the united Jewish firms force down prices from the manufacturers, which means reducing workers’ wages. He who has bought good products cheaply from the Jew should never forget that the curse of a German worker and the tears of his hungry children come with them!

Argument 4: “There are also ‘white Jews’ [i.e., Gentiles who are as bad as Jews]. — Counterargument: “That speaks against the Jews, not for them! The fact that one calls the crooks among us ‘white Jews’ is proof that being a Jew implies something bad. Otherwise, one would call crooked Jews ‘yellow Christians.’ The fact that there are so many ‘white Jews’ among us proves that the destructive Jewish spirit has already infected wide circles of our population. It is a warning to us that we have to take up the battle against the Jewish world plague everywhere.” (Joseph Goebbels). That is why Point 24 of our party program states: “The party battles the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and outside of us.”

Argument 5: “Mr. Levi is not a Jew, since he has been baptized!” — Counterargument: As we have already shown, Jewry is not a religion. The Führer pointed that out in a sarcastic manner during the period of struggle [1919-1933] when he said that it was a peculiar sort of religion when one could smell its adherents from a great distance! No, a Jew always remains a Jew. Chaim Herz Bückeberg, better known as “Heinrich Heine,” joked: “Are these long noses a kind of uniform that allows the God King Jehovah to recognize his old body guard, even if they have deserted?” “I have no desire to convert the Jews,” Martin Luther wrote, “since that is impossible.” A Jew remains a Jew. “In case of need, a dose of baptismal water saves both business and Jewry at the same time!” (Adolf Hitler).

Argument 6: “It is true that Mr. Moses Freundenstein is a Jew, but his parents and grandparents lived here. He is one of our old established citizens.” — Counterargument: Just as a goat does not become a horse, even if his father and grandfather were in the same stall, a Jew can never become a German, even if his ancestor came to Germany as a peddler in Varus’ army [during the Roman era].

Argument 7: “The Jew is a human being too!” — Counterargument: “Of course the Jew is a human being too. None of us has ever doubted it. But a flea is also an animal. But not a very pleasant one. Since a flea is not a pleasant animal, we have no duty to protect and defend it, to take care of it so that it can bite and torment and torture us. Rather, we make it harmless. It is the same with the Jews.” {Joseph Goebbels).

Argument 8: “Everything with a human face is equal.” — Counterargument: Thirteen years ago, the “Stürmer” carried a cartoon. In it, a miserable pig looked up from his sty to a royal lion. “Everything with an animal face is equal!” But what did the lion growl in reply? “That’s what you swine would like to think!”

Argument 9: “Anti-Semitism is only something for idiots!” Counterargument: One no longer hears this lie in National Socialist Germany. But one still reads it in the Jewish emigre press abroad, and Jews whisper it here and perhaps some Jewish lackeys still think that. We smile in response, and note that the Jews have never produced a single creative man, but that all great men in every country have been implacable opponents of the Jews. Some “intellectuals” may be distressed when one doubts their understanding, but we will follow the battle cry against Judah that all of the great men of our past have made!

Argument 10: “Can you live with the uproar and accept responsibility for the misery that the laws of the Third Reich bring to thousands of Jewish families?” — Counterargument: “It is almost a miracle that absolutely nothing has happened to Jews in Germany, but rather that only gradually the rights they stole from the Germans in politics and culture have been restored.” (Alfred Rosenberg). But even if a few hundred Jewish families in Germany really did have to go hungry, what is that against the many millions of German families that the Jew murdered over the course of centuries through wars, revolutions, and civil strife, not to mention those ruined through usury and fraud. “In the battle between the races, there is no truce. If you are determined finally to defend yourself, German people, then be pitiless!” (Adolf Hitler).

Hopper
07-24-2010, 02:40 AM
Like every single one, maybe?

I don't have a problem with people believing in some sort of creator, it's those fictional books claiming to be the literal (originally) or even inspired word of God I have issues with

So you don't have a problem with people believing the universe was created, you just don't think they should take the next logical step and believe that He would have left instructions for the people in it and some information about himself, maybe even talk to them once in a while?


(notice how the only advances made in religion are in the areas of how to make it more palatable in a world of advancing knowledge?).

Religious people gave us most of the advances in the other areas.


Where's the 2.0 version of the New Testament? America condemns Iran for sentencing a woman to death by stoning, yet this is the prescribed punishment for adulterers in your revered holy book. Either you follow the book or someone needs to go through and cherry-pick what they like, write something new, and start a new church or you better warm up your pitching arm, cuz in this country you're gonna be busy!

You are describing things written in the Old Testament. The New Testament was supposed to be the "2.0" version of that. There is nothing in the New Testament prescribing capital punishments.


"Neither creationists or evolutionists can answer questions about what preceded the existence of the universe and God. But God probably could."


The accurate way to sate this is "Scientists have yet to discover the answer to this question, while the believers claim to know who does know". He's just not returning any calls.

If scientists can eventually find out, why does God need to tell us?


God has been pretty scarce on Earth lately. He did give that guy in Utah special powers to decipher those golden plates so he could get 10% of all his friends' money, but other than the occasional appearance of the Virgin Mother on a grilled cheese sandwich or mildew stain, miracles have been hard to come by. Not much smiting (smoting?) by angels either.

I warned you about fabricated religion didn't I.

You talk as if up until Christ's ascension God had been performing miracles every day all over the planet. The only reason the Bible mentions so many is that it covers a large time scale and even the ones it mentions are mostly limitted to the Hebrews, the subject of the OT, and Jesus, the subject of the NT.


Those who believe should be more accepting of those who do not.

And vice versa. Your own reactions here show that you are not at all accepting of theists.


Consider when a religious person dies. If he was wrong about the sect he chose (or was handed down to him based mostly on geography and ethnicity), isn't it in his best post-life interests if there was no God?

If I'm right you're worm food. If you're wrong and your neighbor of another religion is right, you could be in for eternal damnation and suffering. I imagine that's gonna hurt, otherwise what's the point?

What is in somebody's best interests is beside the point. Reality does not pander to our interests. Religion is either right or it is wrong. It's nothing to do with what you like or think.


Religion was just the earliest form of gov't. A way to keep social order in a community through the threat of an angry God (be it on Mt. Siani or a volcano) and enrich the status and power of those smart enough to exploit the fears of those around them.

I'm seeing a lot of angry atheists here so I don't know why they think God has no reason to be.

Yes religions were used to govern, whether God or men were behind it. Social order of any kind depends on people being obedient to some moral code and it need not be through fear of a punishing deity. We fear the natural consequences of moral codes, which is one of the reasons God would also not like us to break them. It's not like He just enjoys telling people what to do.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 02:43 AM
So, should we apply for tax exempt status then? If atheism, like you say, is a religion, then atheist organisations should have no problems getting tax exempt status. I wonder why none of them have it.

It is to organised atheism's propaganda advantage not to be recognised as a religion. To admit that they are religious would be to admit that they are basically just like their theist opponents. That would probably remove a lot of public support of atheism and it's organisations, canceling the financial benefits tax exemptions would give them. Many people have hang-ups about religion (many of which have been planted by atheist influence in the first place) and this makes it advantagous for atheists to style themselves as non-religious.

In particular, atheists push the notion that religion and science are opposed, styling their own belief as purely scientific and religious beliefs as incompatible with science.

Atheists would also like churches to not have tax exempt status. Atheists would prefer to make churches pay taxes rather than be allowed not pay taxes themselves. They know that taxes would be a huge burden on organised religion and would thereby be a step toward destroying or mitigating it. Taxes tend to destroy anything they are placed on, such as the standard of living of wage earners and the viability of businesses. Churches have the added financial disadvantage of relying entirely on donations from their congregations and other benefactors.

So the propaganda benefits of not admitting atheism is a religion outweigh the benefits of tax exemption. There are also legal imperatives on religion in many countries which atheists would naturally like to avoid. Atheis


ETA - I'd like a link to that decision, please. I'm wanting to see if the court actually declared atheism a religion (which I doubt).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&Vol=367&invol=488#F11

Hopper
07-24-2010, 02:44 AM
See, we know the universe exists and that babies exist because we can perceive both with our senses. There is no way to perceive god.

My point was that not knowing where God came from does not invalidate the possibility of His existence, whether or not we can perceive Him.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 02:46 AM
See, Hopper, the Old Testament, for instance, itself advocates genocide. It contains an exhortation to wipe out the entire nation of Amalek. It also supports slavery and the marriage of girls from the age of three. Similarly, the Koran exhorts Muslims to kill infidels. I could make an argument that it is religion itself that supports many of the horrors that were committed in its name.

To say that God commanded the genocide of a particular nation in the Old Testament is not to say that the OT commands the genocide of all other races, or all races which don't follow the Christian religion. God decided that the Amalekites had to go, probably for a reason, and commanded the Israelites to do the job. Without a specific command from God, Christians should not be wiping out whole foreign nations.

I wouldn't say the OT supports slavery, it merely does not forbid it. Slavery was a custom of the times and all the OT did was tell the Israelites how to deal with slaves. It didn't command them to use slaves. I don't remember anything in it about girls marrying at age three. Slavery is not a dead custom. It is still with us. Today it goes under the names big government and socialism.which many atheists wholeheartedly support and advocate..

Yes, the Koran commands Muslims to kill infidels. It's a pity so many people don't realise that today. Islam is an example of a religion fabricated for political aims. It has always been a religion of conquest.

I don't know all of the horrors that every religion specifically prescribes, but since Christianity is the most popular in our countries, tell me of any which you think are in the New Testament.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 02:48 AM
By your logic, the existence or non-existence of gods like Baal, Vishnu and Thor are also unprovable. Is it therefore illogical that the majority of us believe they do not exist? Using your reasoning, it would be more logical to be agnostic about the existence of the gods of various religions, even if you don't believe in all religions at once.

The atheist cannot prove there is no God. God, if He exists, is supernatural, because to have created the natural universe He would have to be separate from and not of the same material. Therefore He is indetectable by natural means. If God is physsically indetectable whether or not He exists, then you can't prove by direct observatiojn that He doesn't exist.

But one can have a reason to disbelieve in a particular religion. All that is necessary is to test the claims of the religion against facts and logic.True, there can't be absolute proof, because knowledge is always incomplete and intellect is always limited. But we don't live by proof, we live according to what is probable. Agnostics are people who don't see sufficient evidence or reasoning which indicates the existence of God. Someone who chooses a religion and rejects others does so because he does see sufficient evidence for doing so.


Believing that there definitely is a god, using your logic, is similarly illogical.

Not if there is evidence He exists, such as design in the universe. God could exist without having ever left any clues to His existence, so absence of evidence would not be proof He doesn't exist. Therefore atheists cannot prove He does not. But if there is sufficient evidence, the existence of God can be shown to be very likely, if not actually proven. At least as likely as the pyramids (we didn't see anyone build them) or a watch found on the beach.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 02:50 AM
No it doesn't. You're distorting atheism. Atheism simply means non-belief in God or that God doesn't exist. There is no specific moral code atheists follow. Atheists have many different views and beliefs on different issues. The only thing all atheists have in common is they don't believe God exists.

That is just being evasive. I understand that many people just neither know nor care whether God exists and choose to ignore Him. But atheism, whether you characterise it as an absence of belief in God or a positive disbelief in God, is still a conscious and definite stance. Some sort of ideology, however crude, naturally follows from this stance. If you merely "don't believe" in God, or merely don't know if He exists, then why are you arguing with me about it?.


Again, atheists don't have one single set of views. You're stereotyping atheists.

True, but most of them will claim science as the sole measure of truth.


Hitler and Stalin had nothing to do with "Darwinism". Not once did Hitler even mention Darwin in his writing and Stalin reject Darwin's theories.

Hitler's hatred of Jews most likely came from the Christian Church, which had been spreading hatred towards the Jews for centuries.

Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin and a supporter of his evolutionary ideas, was also the founder of eugenics, which the Nazis adopted. Darwin's own writings directly implied eugenics concepts in some places, although his main ideas were about natural selection.

The German elite had adopted a national/racial "survival of the fittest" ideology from English Darwinists a couple of decades before Hitler took power. Hiltler merely inherited that belief and adapted it to his own particular ideology. The original notion was that races in respective states purify themselves through warfare between nations and the fittlest mations dominate the less fit nations.

It was reading Darwin that converted Stalin into an atheist while at seminary. Stalin was anti-semitic too. He had organised the trains and equipment for exterminating all Jews in the Soviet Union but died before using them. Marx was also anti-semitic. He didn't get it from the Christian Church. He was an atheist and was descended from Jews himself..


“The law of the Jew, lacking all solid foundation, is only a religious caricature of morality and of law in general, but it provides the formal rites in which the world of property clothes its transactions.”

“What is the object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money. . . . The bill of exchange is the Jew's real God. . . .”

- Karl Marx, A World Without Jews


No it isn't. You are distorting what atheism is. Again, all it means is not believing God exists. It has nothing to do with tolerating or not tolerating areligion. A large percentage of people in Western European countries are atheists and there is little intolerance towards religion there.

Organised atheism militantly opposes theistic religion. In communist countries, where atheists have all the power, theistic religion is outlawed. The average atheist among less intellectual people is sometimes tolerant, sometimes not; but more serious atheists connect religion with the world's ills and believe it should be somehow eliminated. Maybe the way atheists Stalin and Hitler did it.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 02:55 AM
How many college/university professors do you know? Did you even go to college? Your comments sound like the typical conservative attacks on "elitists". The most obnoxious and condescending people are the conservative leaders, like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who regularly make the most condescending, hateful comments about anyone who doesn't share their views.

Many conservatives are elitists too and ultimately have the same ideologies as the left. They are not true American conservatives. The Republican and Democratic parties are both socialist. They are as obnoxious as each other and both elites.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 02:57 AM
No, there is no evidence of design. Creationists just say something looks designed, therefore it was designed.

So you don't think the human body has design? Funny, most biologists and physicians think it does. This is a good example of where biases based on erronious ideas in science (evolution in this instance) lead to erroneous science. Your evolutionary thinking led you to overlook a common observation. Evolution goes against science, not creationism.

Here is another example, from a non-creationist source: the anthropic principle. Evolutionists have hypothesised an infinite number of universes to remove the improbability of our universe being finely tuned to support human and other life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Anthropic_principle

There is nothing scientific about this hypothesis and if a creationist did it, it would be taken by evolutionists as an admission of failure. But for atheists, any lengths are justified in holding on to evolution. Just think up an ad hoc hypothesis, no matter how science fictional it is.


How is that less irrational than those theists who believe there is definitely not God or Gods, other than the one they worship?

We can't see God, because He is supernatural and therefore beyond detection by natural means. Therefore His existence cannot be proven or disproved by direct observation. He may exist but not have left evidence of His existence in creation, so lack of evidence would not be proof He does not exist. It would just mean there is no reason to believe he does exist.

That is different to choosing which religion to believe. This choice is properly made on the basis of which religion has claims which are supported by facts and logic. Religions are tested on this basis and either accepted or rejected. It would be illogical to believe them all simultaneously, since their claims conflict.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 03:07 AM
I don't think "massive and brutal oppression" has been perpetrated by atheists.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro and Guevarra, Ho Chi Minh, Idi Amin. You don't think they were atheists or you don't think they were brutal?


People who intend to harm others will do so regardless of their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs). I mean, come on, do you really think those people you listed wouldn't have been so dangerous if only they'd gone to church? At the end of the day, their religion is irrelevant. I think religion has nothing to do with this issue.

Had he been brought up with genuine and correct beliefs, Hitler may well not have become a psychopath in the first place, But I originally only brought up Hitler and the rest because somebody here was vilifying religion.


And anyway, I could argue against atheists all day (same as with theists). That's why I'm agnostic. As an apathetic agnostic (meaning no one can know either way, so I don't give a shit), I shall politely bow out now.

Well maybe you can argue with the atheists another day.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 03:13 AM
Btw, I want to state this isn't aimed at anyone here, but I am tired of people attacking my religious views.

I am Catholic and as I get older I follow more and more beliefs. I do support right to choice though I probably wouldn't do it. I also support gay marriage, but understand why they oppose it. Having said that, certain tenets I do support, such as against divorce in most cases. When I marry I want a large Catholic mass and you can't have that unless both people are not divorced (unless it got annulled). People on other forums have said that I'll be alone because of my "wacky" beliefs. Huh? Yet when I often defend my views I am called "intolerant". So I guess if one is fine with people having kids out of wedlock, having multiple divorces, etc they are tolerant but because I believe differently I am intolerant. I hate this double standard when it comes to religion.

You'll join a church which opposes gay marriage but you won't talk to me because I disagree with homosexuality? Is this a double standard?

Hopper
07-24-2010, 03:18 AM
Jack - nice try, but I didn't mean educational institutions. I meant specifically organisations of atheists, such as the Atheist Foundation of Australia and American Atheists. Religion has no place in public educational institutions anyway. Read your own constitution some time.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about barring religion from schools and universities. The only mention of religion in the Constitution is in the First Ammendment in the Bill Of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

What that means is that the federal government may not make laws favouring any particular established church or religion (i.e. sect or denomination) or restrict any individual's observance of religion. That's all.


Do you have any evidence that Hitler did not believe in the Catholic Church, or god?

That Wiki article again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#Religious_views

Hopper
07-24-2010, 03:20 AM
Apparently Jesus didn't follow his own advise, since he referred to those who didn't believe him as "sons of the devil".

Jesus told us humans not to judge. If Jesus was God, then He is in a place to judge. People are not. As Jack pointed out, Jesus associated with prostitutes, tax collectors and other sinners. He saved an adulteress from stoning under Jewish law by telling those without sin to cast the first stone.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 03:22 AM
Jack - re: Hitler - genocide is not evidence of atheism. Similar atrocities have been committed specifically in the name of religion, most recently 9-11 (though on a far smaller scale). Going further back, we have things like the Inquisition.

Jack was not using genocide as evidence that Hitler was atheist, he was saying that there were non-religious reasons for why Hitler committed genocide. Judaism is a religion; therefore would it not be as much in the interests of an atheist as a person of a rival religion (Roman Catholicism) to exterminate them?

Anti-semitism, for whatever reason, has been popular at various points in history and it was popular in Germany after WW1. Therefore the Jews would be a convenient scapegoat and lever for any demogogue to use. A common demogogue tactic is to divide and rule - to set one group against another group and run the conflict to his advantage. This is why Marx based his ideas on class conflict - it enables Communists to create and use class conflict to advance their political agenda.


Re - the Constitution - in law it is the text itself that matters, not the historical context. If it was context, America would still be denying votes to women and non-whites.

The letter of the law alone is not properly the only thing which should be considered in interpreting a law. The speech and writing about the law of its framers is taken into consideration also. The historical context does matter. The context of legislation is as much part of the law as the letter of the law itself. The writers of the Constitution made it very clear that it was based on Christian principles and stated that the concept of liberty itself is meaningless without a belief in a deity. That is what the Declaration of Independence means by "inalienable rights" - they are rights given to each individual by God, which can therefore not be either given or taken by government.

Suffrage has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of the government and protects people's inalienable rights. That has nothing to do with voting to elect government representatives. In a system where the government has only the power to protect people from crimes, and no other power, it is not in the interests of women and blacks, or any other special group, to vote, because white males have the same self-interests as women and blacks as far as protection of life, liberty and property are concerned. Therefore, whatever white makes vote for cannot conflict with the interests of women and blacks. It is only when the government takes on powers beyond protection of citizens from crime that special groups have an interest in the vote, because the government can (and now does) use such powers to favour or penalise special groups. Adopting and using such powers is itself a criminal act, because in doing so the government itself violates life, liberty and property.

These are fundamental principles upon which the U.S. Constitution is based and today they are ignored and largely forgetten - or never learned. As far as I know, atheists are not campaigning to rectify this important failing in our learning institutions.


ETA - also, re Catholicism: there are many people who were baptised Catholic who do not agree with all the tenets of the church. They still identify as Catholic.

So Hitler oppressed people just because he was baptised a Catholic or because he sincerely believed in its tenets? If he didn't agree with the tenets, you can't blame the religion for what he did. They couldn't have known before he was baptised that he would be a dictator in adulthood.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 03:26 AM
I didn't mean to bash Catholics - I love them and would have converted to Catholicism if I believed in god. I think it's a very pretty religion in some respects, despite not agreeing with many aspects of its doctrine. I was just pointing out that Hitler was not an atheist, as Hopper and Jack have tried to argue. That doesn't mean that Catholicism caused or sanctions genocide, just as atheism does not. Nor does it mean that all Catholics are anti-semitic.

You said that people are Catholics even if they are just baptised as Catholics and don't believe its tenets. So in your definition, Hitler could be an atheist and still be a Catholic, as long as he was baptised a Catholic.


Also, what about the fact that some people in this thread have chosen to bash those of us who don't believe in god, implying that atheism itself is responsible for crimes against humanity? That is just as intolerant as bashing those who do believe in god and subscribe to one religion or another. The only reply to that argument is that crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of religion and by people who were members of a religion. Making that argument doesn't mean that I believe all religious people are evil. It just means that I am trying to point out a fallacy.

It's not about bashing or intolerance, it's about facts. I brought up atheist oppressors because somebody said something about religion being responsible for oppression. I already knew that religion has been responsible for oppression and someone said it before you did, because that is why I responded about atheist oppressors. I was responding to the same kind of fallacy you say you responded to.

Hopper
07-24-2010, 03:33 AM
No, atheists don't automatically adopt a moral system. Different atheists have different views and positions on practically every issue. About the only thing they agree on is there is no god or gods. You're just trying to stereotype atheists.

You could say the same thing about theists. The point is that a certain chain of logic natrually follows from the premise of athesm. What any given individual atheist actually thinks depends on many other things, but the logic itself is still there.


No it isn't. I doubt very much you understand Darwin's theory.

Anyone who say's evolution is a theory doesn't understand it. A theory fits with previous observation and correctly predicts future observations. Evolution does neither.


Then you know nothing of history. The Christian Church has been promoting hatred towards Jews throughout most of its history. Do you know anything about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition or the pogroms in Europe? Martin Luther was a far greater influence on Hitler than Darwin ever was.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. Have you ever read what Martin Luther said about Jews?

That doesn't necessarily mean Luther was a major influence on Hitler. It just means that Luther, and certain other historical figures, happen to agree with Hitler about the Jews on some points. In writing his propaganda, Hitler would use any popular historical figure to support his views, whether they were an influence on him or not.


From the book of John:

8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


In that verse Jesus was just making a clear statement about the basic sinfulness of human nature in general. It was a judgment, yes, but primarily a statement of fact.


No, one can have strong convictions without being obnoxious.

Jack said some people's convictions seem obnoxious to others with opposing convictions.