View Full Version : Religion
Pages :
1
2
3
4
[
5]
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Hopper
07-24-2010, 03:37 AM
How do you know this? Have you ever taken a poll of atheists?
Would he need to?
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.
The full title of Dawin's first book is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Favoured races?
Darwin's biographers tell us that his own notebooks make it clear that imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality are naturally part of evolution and that one of Darwin's aims for his evolution was to explain human society. Darwin approved of Francis Galton's (his cousin) eugenics ideas and Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" social philosophy.
Darwin:
“At the same time the anthropological apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state … even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”’
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.
People have always observed that parents pass traits to offspring. But that is different from believing that this process results in progressive improvement of the species (i.e. toward a "super race") and beyond that to an altogether different and superior species. The normal concept of heredity does not include eugenics, The laws of heredity do not support eugenics.
Hitler's belief about traits being passed on through blood could not contradict Darwin's explanation because Darwin did not have an explanation. The discovery of genes by Mendel was not widely known until after Darwin's death and the genetic function of DNA was not discovered until 1928.
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?
Stalin also targeted Jews, and he killed Christians as well. The Nazis stated reasons for persecuting Jews was because they believed they were an inferior race and oppressors of Germans. Considering the Nazi's hatred of Christianity, another probable reason they hated Jews was that Christ was born a Jew.
What does allowing murderers going free have to do with Jesus calling people sons of the devil?
What did your verse have to do with Christ being too "judgmental".
It is possible for people with different views or beliefs to "agree to disagree" without being obnoxious to each other.
Yes, but Jack's point was that since people tend to act on their views, people of opposing convictions seem obnoxious to them. He didn't use "obnoxious" in the sense of behaving maliciously.
flickad
07-24-2010, 04:27 AM
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.
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.
You misquote me here. I said that baptised Catholics may not believe all the doctrine of the Church and still identify as Catholic. However, someone who rejects god and Jesus entirely would usually identify as atheist, not Catholic. Someone who, for instance, disagrees with the Pope's stances on matters like birth control and homosexuality but still accepts Christ is probably still a Catholic, unless they have converted to Protestantism.
It seemed to me that you were saying that atheism itself was responsible for the oppression you spoke of. Not only is that fallacious, it removes responsibility from the real perpetrators.
sananeko
07-24-2010, 04:33 AM
.... Why is it when the word religion comes in there is always a fight... Some call it a debate but if everyone leaves pissed and unhappy does it mean all sides won or lost...
flickad
07-24-2010, 04:33 AM
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
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&Vol=367&invol=488#F11
I don't read that case as standing for what you said it stood for. It upholds religious freedom, but in no way defines what a religion is or states that atheism is one.
Also, where did you pull that theory from? Atheism isn't tax exempt because it isn't a religion. If it was, you can bet that atheist organisations would be lining up to get out of taxes. The fact that it is not a religion seems to me to be self-evident. It is not organised the way a religion is, there is no central set of tenets and there is no belief in any sort of supernatural being. There is no ceremony to convert to atheism the way there is to convert in to a religion. It is, in fact, a rejection of religion.
flickad
07-24-2010, 04:40 AM
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.
So it's okay to commit genocide so long as you can find a basis in scripture? The Muslims can find a basis in scripture. Would it be okay for the Muslim world to drop nuclear weapons on Christian America tomorrow? After all, Allah commands it. What if Amalek was a interpreted to be a nation still around today, say Africans. Should Christians and Jews drop a nuclear bomb on Africa then? And if that's all fine, what is it that makes religious people any better than, say, Stalin, as you have tried to argue that they are?
Big government and socialism are very different things from slavery. To state that the two are the same is like saying that conservatism and fascism are one and the same.
Marriage of three-year-old girls is supported by the Old Testament. Rebecca married Isaac at three, for a start. I'm less familiar with the New Testament, but do know that Paul was quite the sexist. However, The Old Testament forms part of Christianity as well. The antipathy Christians have towards homosexuality comes straight from Leviticus.
My own view is that all religions were originally founded with ulterior motives in mind, not just Islam. That doesn't mean I'd like to stamp out religious freedom, but I think that they were all built on lies, Islam no more so than the others. Christianity, too, has a history of conquest, though it has been some years since the Church has killed infidels.
flickad
07-24-2010, 04:43 AM
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.
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, I could claim that there are invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden, and that if you do not believe in their existence, you are being illogical, because you can't prove that there aren't any fairies. Your argument is much the same. It is for the person asserting the existence of something to prove it, not for the doubting party.
If there is a design in the universe, in some ways it's a fairly crappy one. Why, for instance, does the appendix exist?
We know from experience that it is likely that a person left behind a watch on the beach and that humans built the pyramids because we see humans erect buildings on a regular basis, and we see that people wear watches. The analogy is flawed because we have never seen god create anything. Babies are, for example, born via their mothers. We certainly don't see them get created by an invisible hand.
flickad
07-24-2010, 05:00 AM
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.
That Wiki article again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#Religious_views
The article you linked to states that Hitler held Christian views.
For a public institution to endorse a religion is akin to the government making a law respecting the establishment of one. In fact, the case you pointed me to (at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&Vol=367&invol=488#F11) endorses this view, citing with approval another decision of the same court, Everson v Board of Education:
"The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor [367 U.S. 488, 493] the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between church and State.'"
Making a public educational institution a religious one is to aid and endorse the religion in question, as well as indirectly levying a tax to support it, since public schools are taxpayer funded.
Churches and other religious bodies are free to, and often do, establish private educational institutions that teach their particular brand of theology in addition to secular subjects. What they do not have is the right to take over the public sphere as well.
flickad
07-24-2010, 05:08 AM
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.
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.
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.
The constitution, as you are no doubt aware, is higher law. It is supposed to be timeless and hence interpretation may change over time. Hence the broad framing of the text in all constitutions. The text, not the context, is what a court will look at. Indeed, it can be dangerous to look at context, because some things were debated that were not placed in the final document, and these can end up having unwarranted influence.
The fact is, the government does not limit itself to criminal law and never has. Such a system would be untenable. Contracts, for instance, could never be enforced, and there would be no civil duty of care. Even if the government were to limit its powers to criminal law, why should the vote lie only with white men, if it's all the same? Why not limit votes to, say, non-white women? White men shouldn't mind, since everyone's interests ought to be the same.
Except that even in criminal law, everyone's interests are not the same. women, for instance, are generally the victims of sex offences, while men are usually the perpetrators. It is in the male interest, then, to decriminalise rape.
I don't blame the religion for what Hitler did, though you do not appear to extend the same logic to lack of belief. I think that Hitler himself is responsible for his actions, as are the people who allowed it to happen. In arguing that Hitler was Catholic, my intent was to expose your argument that atheism caused the Holocaust as the fallacy it is. Religion or the lack thereof did not cause the Holocaust. Evil people did.
miamia4me
07-24-2010, 05:08 AM
Do you know how long people have been fighting over religion? Look how long this post is for instance. Why so much arguing over something that is so hard to 'prove'. It is an argument that will more than likely never be won.
Every dedicated religious person I've met is too hypocritical for me to stand anyway.
Dirty Ernie
07-24-2010, 06:06 AM
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?
Calling the Bible an instruction manual would be like me trying to use a Model T repair manual to work on my truck. The Bible lacks any hint of foresight from an allegedly omniscient God. You can try to argue free will of man all you want, but if the outcome is known, there really isn't any.
Religious people gave us most of the advances in the other areas.
Because at the time of these advances the Church was the gov't. These discoveries were thought to be the path towards understanding God, but as the truth became more evident, religion moved away from science to the point of rejecting new findings in fear of it's own obsolescence and exposure as myth.
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.
The New Testament was simply the counter-culture revolution to the oppressive, vengeful God of the OT.
OT-An eye for an eye: NT-turn the other cheek
OT-genocide and mass murder of non-believers: NT- Love thy enemy as your neighbor (co-opted in the 60's as make love not war by another group of long-haired, sandal wearing, jobless nomads)
If scientists can eventually find out, why does God need to tell us?
The only ones who will know will be those who are alive at the time. Why deprive His Children of an answer they so desperately seek? Why not instill this in man like instinct found in lower animals?
I warned you about fabricated religion didn't I.
By fabricated I'll bet you mean all others but yours. If you did indeed find your's through "facts and logic", you may need to try again. Most Christian sects celebrate the Sabbath on the first day of the week, not the seventh.
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.
The universe is 13 bil years old, earth is 4 bil years old. The bible covers about 4,000 years. Not such a large time scale is it? Do you reject carbon-dating and the existence of dinosaurs too? The real "miracle" was the meteor that allowed the ascension of mammals.
And vice versa. Your own reactions here show that you are not at all accepting of theists.
I accept them. My family's full of them. Can't escape them. There's over 500 of them in Congress and one atheist (a nutty one at that). Maybe that's the problem with gov't.
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.
I would say superfluous or unnnecessary, but if you want to frame the debate like that, then I vote it is wrong.
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.
You and Jack need to reread the OT.
Kellydancer
07-24-2010, 12:39 PM
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?
No, because you are obnoxious and anti woman. I don't agree with their views on gay marriage at all, but part of it is because the Catholic Church is big on tradition.
Kellydancer
07-24-2010, 12:52 PM
You misquote me here. I said that baptised Catholics may not believe all the doctrine of the Church and still identify as Catholic. However, someone who rejects god and Jesus entirely would usually identify as atheist, not Catholic. Someone who, for instance, disagrees with the Pope's stances on matters like birth control and homosexuality but still accepts Christ is probably still a Catholic, unless they have converted to Protestantism.
It seemed to me that you were saying that atheism itself was responsible for the oppression you spoke of. Not only is that fallacious, it removes responsibility from the real perpetrators.
Yep. I am a Catholic but disagree on their views of homosexuality (I believe most gay people are born that way and should have the same rights), birth control, ordaining women as priests and abortion (I don't like it personally, but am pro choice and feel there are many cases where abortion is the best solution for a pregnancy). I also strongly disagree with their view on living together and hope to live with a guy before I marry him (because I don't believe in divorce in most cases). Ironically most Catholics I know, even the most devout also disagree on a variety of these issues. I know many Catholic families where they had a vasectomy or a tubal ligation even though the church forbids this. Almost everyone I know, including very devout Catholics who believe in every other belief have lived with their spouse befor marriage. I've been told in the past I am not a true Catholic because I disagree with these views, but I don't think that makes me less of a Catholic, just someone who lives in the present and realizes not everything will be how it was.
I don't think it works that way Kelly. You can't call yourself a vegetarian if you eat meat, you can't say you are a member of the KKK but you love black people, you can't be a pro-war pacifist, you simply can't disagree with almost every basic tenet of a group and still claim to be part of it. Being against gays and contraception and abortion and female priests and cohabitation are things the Catholic church claims come directly from god itself, you can't just dismiss it all and proclaim you are still part of their club.
Kellydancer
07-24-2010, 01:45 PM
I don't think it works that way Kelly. You can't call yourself a vegetarian if you eat meat, you can't say you are a member of the KKK but you love black people, you can't be a pro-war pacifist, you simply can't disagree with almost every basic tenet of a group and still claim to be part of it. Being against gays and contraception and abortion and female priests and cohabitation are things the Catholic church claims come directly from god itself, you can't just dismiss it all and proclaim you are still part of their club.
I think you can be a Catholic and still disagree. If everyone who claimed to be Catholic wasn't so because they disagreed with a view, then no one would be Catholic. Incidentally, in my cases I probably won't use birth control,or have an abortion so in theory I am following those tenets. Also, I understand why the church is against gay marriage, though I disagree (and since I'll never marry a woman this point isn't important to me). It's not the same thing as being a vegetarian and eat meat of loving black and being in the KKK. Things change, and the church has changed their stance on many things, including now girls can be altar servers.
flickad
07-24-2010, 09:46 PM
Yep. I am a Catholic but disagree on their views of homosexuality (I believe most gay people are born that way and should have the same rights), birth control, ordaining women as priests and abortion (I don't like it personally, but am pro choice and feel there are many cases where abortion is the best solution for a pregnancy). I also strongly disagree with their view on living together and hope to live with a guy before I marry him (because I don't believe in divorce in most cases). Ironically most Catholics I know, even the most devout also disagree on a variety of these issues. I know many Catholic families where they had a vasectomy or a tubal ligation even though the church forbids this. Almost everyone I know, including very devout Catholics who believe in every other belief have lived with their spouse befor marriage. I've been told in the past I am not a true Catholic because I disagree with these views, but I don't think that makes me less of a Catholic, just someone who lives in the present and realizes not everything will be how it was.
Also, the Church itself changes its doctrine now and again, it's just very slow.
Harleigh HellKat
07-24-2010, 09:48 PM
Yeah, I don't think you necessarily have to apply to every single belief, especially since many of them are verrrrry old.
Kellydancer
07-24-2010, 10:58 PM
They have changed views on many things, including that all masses used to be strictly in Latin. Now they are in many languages. I will admit a few of the big issues with them are strange. For instance if two Catholics marry, both have to be confirmed Catholics, but if I married a non Catholic they don't even have to be baptized. Also in Catholic weddings, brides can't have bare shoulders. Very odd considering many bridal gowns are sleeveless (though personally I think sleeveless are tacky but that's another topic entirely).
flickad
07-24-2010, 11:28 PM
^^
Also, they ditched Limbo.
Kellydancer
07-24-2010, 11:37 PM
Yes they did, and have gotten more mainstream about certain prayers (spacing out on which ones). In fact recently they have said they are changing a few of the prayers which I found odd. I personally think of all the issues of the church, the one most likely to change is ordaining women or allowing priests to marry.
flickad
07-25-2010, 09:52 AM
^^
My best friend (who's Irish-Catholic) says that he thinks the Church will change its policy on birth control eventually.
Kellydancer
07-25-2010, 11:34 AM
^^
My best friend (who's Irish-Catholic) says that he thinks the Church will change its policy on birth control eventually.
That's a possibility. I've read studies that suggest something like 80% of all Catholics use birth control and Catholics are one of the largest groups to get sterilized. I suspect the birth control forms they will allow will be things like condoms and barrier methods, because in some cases the Pill prevents a fertilized egg from developing.
eagle2
07-25-2010, 01:41 PM
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.
All you're doing is making things up and repeating the anti-semitic lie that Jews control everything. The Jews did not hold control of the banks when Hitler came to power. The German government took over the major banks in 1931 as a result of the economic crisis. The Jews were not outsiders in Germany. Many Jewish families had been living in Germany for hundreds of years. Many Jews served in the German Army during World War I.
eagle2
07-25-2010, 02:29 PM
Not necessary - I know. Show me someone who doesn't have a moral system.
You said atheists have a preference for certain moral systems. How do you know this?
In that case, I'm very interested to learn your scholarly interpretation of Darwin's theory.
Here's a good definition of the principle of natural selection:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
"The principle of natural selection was discovered by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), and it is the process by which organisms become adapted to their environments. Selection occurs when some individual organisms have genes that encode physical or behavioral features that allow them to better harvest resources, avoid predators, and such relative to other individuals that do not carry the same genes. The individuals that have these useful features will tend to leave more offspring than other individuals, so the responsible genes will become more common over time, leading the population as a whole to become better adapted."
There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that states that species must evolve. There are many species that have existed millions of years while going through little or no change.
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.
Social darwinism basically means society shouldn't help the sick and poor, and they should be left to fend for themselves. This will ensure that only the fittest in society will survive and reproduce. Darwin called this evil:
"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."
First of all, the crusades and inquisition were more about power and politics than about religion.
Do you know anything at all about the Crusades and Inquisition? They were entirely 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 -
You are twisting what I said. I never said Hitler "attempted to annihilate the Jews because of the murder of Jesus 1960 years ago". My point was that the Christian Church had been teaching that Jews were evil for more than a thousand years before Hitler lived. Hitler didn't just wake up one day and decide Jews were evil. He lived in an environment where that view was common, which is where he picked up that idea.
eagle2
07-25-2010, 02:39 PM
Would he need to?
To claim atheists have a preference for certain moral systems, yes he would.
The full title of Dawin's first book is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Favoured races?
Darwin's biographers tell us that his own notebooks make it clear that imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality are naturally part of evolution and that one of Darwin's aims for his evolution was to explain human society. Darwin approved of Francis Galton's (his cousin) eugenics ideas and Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" social philosophy.
Darwin:
“At the same time the anthropological apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state … even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”’
You're repeating typical creationists lies and misinformation to try and discredit evolution. From:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
Darwin's View of Race
In contrast to the existing views on race, Darwin showed that:
* People cannot be classified as different species
* All races are related and have a common ancestry
* All people come from "savage" origins
* The different races have much more in common than was widely believed
* The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races
* Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects
* Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races
* Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together
One issue that is commonly misunderstood about Darwin is the full title of his most famous book, On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. It is important to note here that "race" was a term that was more often used to discuss plants and animals at this point in history than it was to describe people. In fact, Darwin avoided much discussion of people in The Origin of Species and only used the word "race" a few times, in each of these cases referring to plants or animals, as in the example below.
Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.
- The Origin of Species; Charles Darwin, 1858
It is often pointed out that Darwin frequently used the term "savages" when discussing the tribal people whom he wrote about. In his use of the term savages, however, Darwin was simply using the standard lexicon of his time; it was a term that everyone, from Popes to Presidents, used. It must also be remembered, of course, that the differences between different groups of people were really very extraordinary until basically the past 75 to 50 years. Many of the groups that Europeans came into contact with practiced cannibalism, self-mutilation, human sacrifice, infanticide, had no writing, and/or were very hostile towards people outside of their own family or tribe. Most also had no technology beyond stone tools. These are real substantial differences that were being encountered by many Europeans for the first time. They were seeking explanations for why this was the case.
Darwin traveled around the world on the HMS Beagle to some of the most remote and uncivilized places on the planet. Unlike his other European contemporaries, however, he lived among the tribal people that he came into contact with as an equal and observed their customs, instead of seeking to be treated like a superior.
Darwin's most extensive discussion of human race was put forward in his 1871 book The Descent of Man. This book has been greatly misused by opponents of Darwin because in The Descent of Man Darwin assesses all of the various ideas about race that existed at the time, presenting many ideas of other people, which he later goes on to refute. In The Descent of Man Darwin takes questions such as "Are people composed of different species?" and he puts forwards all of the arguments for each position. He puts forward the evidence and claims of those who argued in favor of the position that humans are in fact separate species, and then he puts forward his own position, which is that humans are all one species. It is quite easy, however, to takes quotes from The Descent of Man out of context and make it appear that Darwin held positions which were in fact the exact opposite of his beliefs, and this is what many opponents of Darwin have done.
hot4ablackchick
07-25-2010, 02:40 PM
Hopper, I could claim that there are invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden, and that if you do not believe in their existence, you are being illogical, because you can't prove that there aren't any fairies. Your argument is much the same. It is for the person asserting the existence of something to prove it, not for the doubting party.
Ding Ding! Good point! The "You can't prove god does NOT exist, so therefore he does and I win," argument is probably the silliest one of all. That and the "It takes more 'faith' to be an atheist than a theist," ::) Gotta love those!! I am an atheist and is not hard for me dismiss god, just as christians dismiss allah or zeus. Nobody can "prove" leprechauns and and freddy krueger don't exist, so is that a good basis for believing?? The burden of "proof" is not on an atheist, it would be on the theist. Just as the burden of proof would be on me if I claimed spaghetti monsters were real. I don't "win" the argument because you can't disprove my spaghetti monster and its not my fault you can't "see" his works or "feel" his presence. The "Nuh uh, you can't prove it atheist so therefore you have faith too," argument always gets on my damn nerves. Nobody says you have to faith to dismiss unicorns, or not believing in unicorns is a religion. Atheism and religion are two entirely different things.
Also, Hopper seemed to point out that atheists just don't accept certain 'evidence' of a god, that we clearly all have been shown. What is this evidence I wonder?? The fact that there are beautiful things in nature is not evidence. The fact that miracles happen is not evidence. The fact that some things are unknown is not evidence. There were plenty of things we didn't know a hundred years ago, that we understand now. There are things we once thought were true, that we know are not fact now.
You can argue we were designed, but really fucked up things happen in design too. You can be born without skin, and there are hosts of other rare diseases that people are born with that are disfiguring and extremely painful. The design doesn't always work out. When it doesn't, the excuse of it just being "meant to be," is thrown out. The design idea only works out when the design is okay or "slightly flawed." Perhaps god hit the snooze button too many times when a baby is born without skin. Because fucked up shit does happen is not the core basis of my disbelief, just as good things that happen is not the core basis of a theist belief.
Perhaps we atheists are just suppossed to believe in delusions, I mean the stories of those who spoke directly or saw god, therefore he exists. I don't 'worship' science. I don't know very much about big bang or evolution, other than its basic principles. I reject theism because it doesn't make sense, it sounds insane, and the core belief of every xian and islamic faith is cruel, and promotes an "I'm better than you," entitlement. I just use my own 'common sense' to come to the conclusion that god isn't real. I don't need anyone or anything to 'worship' to reach this conclusion.
eagle2
07-25-2010, 02:53 PM
People have always observed that parents pass traits to offspring. But that is different from believing that this process results in progressive improvement of the species (i.e. toward a "super race") and beyond that to an altogether different and superior species. The normal concept of heredity does not include eugenics, The laws of heredity do not support eugenics.
No, people have known about breeding, which improves a species, for thousands of years before Darwin.
Hitler's belief about traits being passed on through blood could not contradict Darwin's explanation because Darwin did not have an explanation. The discovery of genes by Mendel was not widely known until after Darwin's death and the genetic function of DNA was not discovered until 1928.
By Darwin's theory, I meant the Theory of Evolution. By the time Hitler came to power, it was widely accepted in the scientific community that traits were passed through genes, not blood.
Stalin also targeted Jews, and he killed Christians as well. The Nazis stated reasons for persecuting Jews was because they believed they were an inferior race and oppressors of Germans. Considering the Nazi's hatred of Christianity, another probable reason they hated Jews was that Christ was born a Jew.
Here's a quote from one of Hitlers' speeches:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
What did your verse have to do with Christ being too "judgmental".
Calling people "sons of the devil" isn't judging them?
hot4ablackchick
07-25-2010, 10:42 PM
I am so tired of anything about religion turning into a Catholic bashing thread.
I don't think anyone was trying to bash catholics, but from what I've read you don't even like catholics. You disagree with a lot of the core principals and disagree with other things taken directly from the bible. You disagree about women not being able to speak out in church, abortion, and other things. You have simply made up your own religion based on some catholic principles. I mean it clearly says in the bible that women are not to be in control and never speak out in church yet you disagree. Just doesn't make any sense to me and why you identify yourself as catholic is a bit baffling. Like someone else said, you sound like the vegetarian who only eats chicken.
hot4ablackchick
07-25-2010, 11:46 PM
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.
Again, you are distorting atheism. Atheism is a non belief in any god(s). That is all. Nobody ever said that atheists are not capable of evil. Evil people will be evil. Atheism has nothing to do with murder, unlike the bible. Of course not every theist believes in the god of the bible, allah, or any other "common" god. But to say that the bible isn't capable of giving someone a mixed message is a bit ignorant. After all the biggest and the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy and non belief, according to the bible. The fact that a book like the bible is valued by many christians as a good book, word of god, all about love and forgiveness, and so on is troubling. Saying that something was "in the old testament," is a weak argument. Believing in a god that ordered the genocide of others and believing that god spoke directly to these people to commit these acts, is dangerous. The fact that a lot christians cannot recognize the violent and hateful nature of their own religion, yet can clearly see the "wrong" in the islamic religion, is just ignorant.
Theres a quote that goes, "Good people will do good things. Evil people will do evil things. But when good people do evil things? Now that takes religion." I can't say I wholeheartily agree with that, but theres some truth to it. There usually takes some sort of brainwashing or delusion for someone to go against what they know is right. Sure religion has probably scared some people to "be good," and not rape or murder, but its not that great of a deterent because its widely accepted that all you have to do is believe, and your sins are forgiven. Even if this is not true, I noticed plenty of xians seem to think that its okay to sin over and over, and its okay because jesus "died for them" and knows they are sinners. The bible really isn't the great manual its held out to be, and I have NEVER met a christian who felt that anything in the bible was wrong.
If someone is capable of swallowing the bullshit of the bible, then what other kind of bullshit is this person capable of swallowing. That is the reason why some atheists view xian/islamic beliefs as problematic.
jack0177057
07-26-2010, 11:18 AM
All you're doing is making things up and repeating the anti-semitic lie that Jews control everything. The Jews did not hold control of the banks when Hitler came to power. The German government took over the major banks in 1931 as a result of the economic crisis. The Jews were not outsiders in Germany. Many Jewish families had been living in Germany for hundreds of years. Many Jews served in the German Army during World War I.
The Germans had lost WWI, and were badly punished. They were bitter, resentful and in bad shape. On the other hand, the Jews were doing very nicely... Whether the Jews controlled everything or almost everything in Germany is besides the point... You're missing my point completely... The mass killing of Jews was due to German racial and ethnic bigotry - not to wanting to punish the Jews for killing Jesus.
jack0177057
07-26-2010, 12:14 PM
There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that states that species must evolve. There are many species that have existed millions of years while going through little or no change.
Our planet is constantly changing, species have to go through change to adapt and continue to exist...
Social darwinism basically means society shouldn't help the sick and poor, and they should be left to fend for themselves. This will ensure that only the fittest in society will survive and reproduce. Darwin called this evil:
"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."
Social darwinism stands for various late nineteenth century ideologies which, while often contradictory, exploited ideas of survival of the fittest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
Darwin may have disapproved of it, but it follows naturally from his thesis. If "survival of the fittest" occurs in the animal kingdom, why shouldn't it likewise apply in the human kingdom?
Do you know anything at all about the Crusades and Inquisition? They were entirely about religion.
That's like saying every US war has been entirely about extending freedom and justice to oppressed people around the globe. You probably believe that, too.
You are twisting what I said. I never said Hitler "attempted to annihilate the Jews because of the murder of Jesus 1960 years ago". My point was that the Christian Church had been teaching that Jews were evil for more than a thousand years before Hitler lived.
Anti-semitism is not based entirely on religion. It was the Romans that killed Jesus and it was the Romans that fed the Christians to the lions, but the Christians didn't hold a grudge for long. Eventually, the Roman Empire became a Christian empire and all was forgotten. Anti-semitism is more complex than your understanding of it. There was plenty of anti-semitism even before the birth of Christ. They were oppressed time and time again by different people. I don't claim to be a scholar on this, but at least I recognize this much - throughout history the Jews have faced persecution. They have been unique, tribal, proud, self-reliant, industrious and "different" from other people. In fact, the first big debate among Christians (all of them Jews) was whether to convert Gentiles. The Jews were very proud tribal people with a tendency to be exclusive. Some of the (Christian) Jews strongly believed that only Jews should be converted into Christianity. Any Gentile seeking to become a Christian would have to be converted into a Jew first and be circumcised as a Jew, before he could become a Christian. Understand that a "Christian", was nothing more than a Jew who believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah prophesized by the Jewish holy books, and that God has sent his only son to fulfill this prophesy. The Christian (Jew) leaders finally decided (based on a vision) to allow Christianity to open up to Gentiles.
They were tribal people "without a home" until the State of Israel was given to them. But, they were extremely smart and industrious and became successful in any place they made into their home. They became bankers all over Europe - and just like today - most people who owe money grew to dislike them. Because there was no anti-usury laws in many places, they were allowed to charge usurious interest rates, and this made them very unpopular. (It is believed that the (Catholic) Knights of Templar, once the favoured charity throughout Christendom, also became unpopular and were annihilated, in part, because they established a very powerful banking system that became a threat to the political establishment.) Also, their values, customs, traditions, etc... were very different from other groups.
Just look at anti-semitism today. It is based on things like their alleged focus on wealth/industry and their very liberal leanings. Muslims despise them and the Nation of Islam blames them for all kinds of social ills. I remember growing up in poor areas of NYC and hearing Italian kids talk about throwing pennies at Hasidic Jews because they were supposedly so stingy and money-hungry (I did not partake in any of this, but I saw it). There was also derogatory comments about their body odor because some of them do not use deoderant due to religious beliefs. I heard many racists jokes (same for blacks, Hispanics, Pollacks, etc.), but none of them had anything to do with Jesus Christ. I then went to a mostly Jewish college and joined a mostly Jewish fraternity and became very close friends with many Jews. - They also make racist Jewish jokes and comments - probably as a way to cope with anti-semitism. (Like when African-Americans use the "N" word.)
flickad
07-26-2010, 08:52 PM
I don't think anyone was trying to bash catholics, but from what I've read you don't even like catholics. You disagree with a lot of the core principals and disagree with other things taken directly from the bible. You disagree about women not being able to speak out in church, abortion, and other things. You have simply made up your own religion based on some catholic principles. I mean it clearly says in the bible that women are not to be in control and never speak out in church yet you disagree. Just doesn't make any sense to me and why you identify yourself as catholic is a bit baffling. Like someone else said, you sound like the vegetarian who only eats chicken.
Most religious people do not agree with or follow every last piece of doctrine of their faith. If that were the standard by which members of the faith were judged to be so, there would be no members of any faith.
Vegetarianism has a particular definition - one who does not eat any animal flesh (or use any animal products at all, for vegans). The definition of Catholic, Muslim, Protestant or Jew is not like this. Usually, you must be born into a faith or converted into it, baptised (if you're Christian) and accept that faith's particular deity. The rest of it doesn't have a bearing as to whether you're a member of that faith or not; it just has a bearing on how religious or devout you are. For instance, you can be a Muslim woman without wearing a hijab.
Kellydancer
07-26-2010, 08:58 PM
I don't think anyone was trying to bash catholics, but from what I've read you don't even like catholics. You disagree with a lot of the core principals and disagree with other things taken directly from the bible. You disagree about women not being able to speak out in church, abortion, and other things. You have simply made up your own religion based on some catholic principles. I mean it clearly says in the bible that women are not to be in control and never speak out in church yet you disagree. Just doesn't make any sense to me and why you identify yourself as catholic is a bit baffling. Like someone else said, you sound like the vegetarian who only eats chicken.
Actually women are getting more power in the church and are allowed to speak up. No it's not like being a vegetarian, it's like being a prolife Democrat or a pro choice Republican. In other words, it's the party that you feel speaks to you, you just disagree about some of the view. And no, I never said I dislike Catholics, I am Catholic! In fact I'd never date a divorced guy so I could have a Catholic wedding with mass. As for abortion, no I don't like it, I think it's wrong, but I don't feel I have the right to tell others want to do (hence, why I am pro choice).
eagle2
07-27-2010, 10:41 PM
The Germans had lost WWI, and were badly punished. They were bitter, resentful and in bad shape. On the other hand, the Jews were doing very nicely... Whether the Jews controlled everything or almost everything in Germany is besides the point... You're missing my point completely... The mass killing of Jews was due to German racial and ethnic bigotry - not to wanting to punish the Jews for killing Jesus.
Can you please stop repeating these anti-semitic lies? Jews were not doing very nicely after Word War I. Many German Jews suffered just like everyone else after World War I. Not all Jews were rich and powerful. Many weren't. There were plenty of rich and powerful Christians in Germany. Why weren't they targeted? Jews are not a different race or ethnicity.
Again, I never said the Germans killed Jews to punish them for killing Jesus. Why do you continue to argue against this?
eagle2
07-27-2010, 10:53 PM
Our planet is constantly changing, species have to go through change to adapt and continue to exist...
No they don't. Jellyfish have existed for hundreds of millions of years and have gone through little change. There are fossils of Jellyfish that existed 500 million years ago, and they were basically the same as they are today.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/071030-oldest-jellyfish.html
Social darwinism stands for various late nineteenth century ideologies which, while often contradictory, exploited ideas of survival of the fittest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
Darwin may have disapproved of it, but it follows naturally from his thesis. If "survival of the fittest" occurs in the animal kingdom, why shouldn't it likewise apply in the human kingdom?
Darwin was doing nothing more than explaining how different species came into being. He was not advocating social policies. Because certain things happen in nature doesn't make it right for humans to behave that way.
That's like saying every US war has been entirely about extending freedom and justice to oppressed people around the globe. You probably believe that, too.
Why must you twist and distort everything I say? The Crusades were Christians and Muslims fighting over who controlled the Holy Land. How is that not about religion? The Inquisition was about forcing people to follow the Catholic Religion. How is that not about religion?
Anti-semitism is not based entirely on religion. It was the Romans that killed Jesus and it was the Romans that fed the Christians to the lions, but the Christians didn't hold a grudge for long. Eventually, the Roman Empire became a Christian empire and all was forgotten. Anti-semitism is more complex than your understanding of it. There was plenty of anti-semitism even before the birth of Christ. They were oppressed time and time again by different people. I don't claim to be a scholar on this, but at least I recognize this much - throughout history the Jews have faced persecution. They have been unique, tribal, proud, self-reliant, industrious and "different" from other people. In fact, the first big debate among Christians (all of them Jews) was whether to convert Gentiles. The Jews were very proud tribal people with a tendency to be exclusive. Some of the (Christian) Jews strongly believed that only Jews should be converted into Christianity. Any Gentile seeking to become a Christian would have to be converted into a Jew first and be circumcised as a Jew, before he could become a Christian. Understand that a "Christian", was nothing more than a Jew who believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah prophesized by the Jewish holy books, and that God has sent his only son to fulfill this prophesy. The Christian (Jew) leaders finally decided (based on a vision) to allow Christianity to open up to Gentiles.
They were tribal people "without a home" until the State of Israel was given to them. But, they were extremely smart and industrious and became successful in any place they made into their home. They became bankers all over Europe - and just like today - most people who owe money grew to dislike them. Because there was no anti-usury laws in many places, they were allowed to charge usurious interest rates, and this made them very unpopular. (It is believed that the (Catholic) Knights of Templar, once the favoured charity throughout Christendom, also became unpopular and were annihilated, in part, because they established a very powerful banking system that became a threat to the political establishment.) Also, their values, customs, traditions, etc... were very different from other groups.
Just look at anti-semitism today. It is based on things like their alleged focus on wealth/industry and their very liberal leanings. Muslims despise them and the Nation of Islam blames them for all kinds of social ills. I remember growing up in poor areas of NYC and hearing Italian kids talk about throwing pennies at Hasidic Jews because they were supposedly so stingy and money-hungry (I did not partake in any of this, but I saw it). There was also derogatory comments about their body odor because some of them do not use deoderant due to religious beliefs. I heard many racists jokes (same for blacks, Hispanics, Pollacks, etc.), but none of them had anything to do with Jesus Christ. I then went to a mostly Jewish college and joined a mostly Jewish fraternity and became very close friends with many Jews. - They also make racist Jewish jokes and comments - probably as a way to cope with anti-semitism. (Like when African-Americans use the "N" word.)
I never said Christianity is the only cause of anti-semitism, only that the Christian Church inspired hatred towards Jews. That is a fact. Here's what Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism had to say about Jews:
He did not call them Abraham's children, but a "brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools...
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
...their blindness and arrogance are as solid as an iron mountain.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Learn from this, dear Christian, what you are doing if you permit the blind Jews to mislead you. Then the saying will truly apply, "When a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit" [cf. Luke 6:39]. You cannot learn anything from them except how to misunderstand the divine commandments...
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it.
But for us Christians they stand as a terrifying example of God's wrath.
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Are you going to deny these statements are anti-semitic?
hot4ablackchick
07-28-2010, 05:39 AM
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.
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.
When I say I am an atheist, I am not talking about 110% absolute certainty. Until I am dead, I will not know, and by then I won't be able to give you much feedback. Insufficient evidence has been given for a reason to believe, so I choose to dismiss all of it. It is not a claim to know with absolute certainty. Some prefer agnostic, but I dislike the term personally, as I would not say I'm "agnostic" about fairies, unicorns, or any other mythical creatures. If someone asked me if invisible fairies were real, I would say no. I wouldn't say, "Well its possible that somewhere in the universe there are fairies." I identify with atheist because that is what fits best. For the most part, I don't believe there is a creator, but I don't dismiss it with absolute certainy. Just as I don't believe I will be struck by lighting and die at this moment. There is of course the possibility, but I am pretty sure it ain't gonna happen. If I say "I am not going to have a deer crash through my window and attack me," it doesn't dismiss with absolute certainty, as deer have crashed through windows before. If I started living my life as if I were going to get struck by lightning at any time, that would be unreasonable. People would also call me crazy if I did that. I don't believe that a deer will crash through my window. I don't completely dismiss the possbiblity. Same goes for religion for me.
Saying one cannot identify themselves as atheist because there is a chance they are wrong is just silly. Just because I am saying that am an atheist, doesn't mean that I think that I must be right. Certainly I believe that my opinion is the most logical, but I am not claiming to "know" how we got here, or what happens when we die. Unlike most religions I can say that there are things I don't know. The term "I don't know," is not and cannot be used by religous leaders when it comes to how we got here and death. This haults rational thought. Religion teaches you to believe blindly and not to question. They ARE claiming to "know" how we got here and what happens when we die. Thats NOT arrogant??
There is also a clear difference between believing in a creator and/or afterlife, than being involved in 'mainstream' religion and/or believing in the bible, or other suppossedly 'inspired' book. There is no way for anyone to know that they have the "right" religion, yet you say athiest are arrogant, biased, and illogical for reaching that conclusion. Someone who chooses a religion, suppossedly does it based on the evidence they see, but an atheists is not capable of the same?? A religous person isn't arrogant to believe that he is worshipping the 'right' god? There have been hundreds of gods, so it is not possible for anyone to know that they are worshiping the right one. It is also not possible to know that whatever book someone subscribes to is really 'inspired by god,' or know exactly what that god does or does not want from them. There are so many different flavors of christianity, that you could never know whether they are teaching or learning the 'right' things. My common sense would tell me that if a god does in fact exist and is 'judging', that someone who was powerful enough to create the universe would NOT need constant praise and worship all the time. The god would likely care more about how we treated the planet and the inhabitants on the planet, than how much ass kissing we did.
Even if some creator did/does exist, nobody would ever know whether this creator does still exist, and whether the creator cares about our everyday lives. Evidence of a creator would not mean there is an afterlife, or that certain things we do or don't do influence whether or not we get into this afterlife. If a more deist approach is considered, then 'faith' doesnt really matter. Unless a creator revealed himself and announced his wishes or which god he was, then there is no way for anyone to know. Giving a person a logical, scientific idea about how things take place, is different than a preacher telling someone they "know" because they believe in some dated holy book.
Its funny to me that you and other people get upset if anyone criticizes or belittles your beliefs. Because something is popular, one cannot comment on it? The bible stories are far fetched at best, but if one is critical of it, they are a "closed minded meanie." You label the religous as "picked on," if anyone is critical of it. I think you are more religous than you let on. So, inserting "God did it," into things we don't know yet or understand is okay.
BTW, I'm not talking about those who believe in some sort of creator but maintain that this is just a possibility (in which one could believe to varying certainty), I am irratated with catholic, baptist, scientology, muslim, mormon, and insert other stupid claims here. Anyone claiming to know should be given critcism, yet you only call atheist unreasonable, and people who chose religion did so based on logical thought. Believeing there may be a creator, is not the same arrogant assumption that someone is 'special' and found the 'right' god, so now they are blessed with his love and are getting into heaven, while others will go to hell for thinking the 'wrong' thing. But oh I forgot, they are just unfairly picked on, boo hoo, the poor christians should be able to spread bullshit and everyone should keep their mouth shut and not say anything "mean."
I can go and talk to someone about UFO's and they can give me vivid recollection of the UFO and/or their abduction. If I choose not to believe the story, am I closed minded? If all they are offering is the story, accompanied with no or weak evidence, why should I be convinced? Am I arrogant to presume they are mistaken, crazy, or delusional? Do I have to go do extensive research to try to validate the claim? If I find nothing that debunks the story, does that mean that its true? Would I now be "irrational" for not believing it? Why is christianity granted 'immunity' from criticism or held to a different standard? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If someone wants me to believe a UFO abduction story they are required to bring the evidence to the table, not the other way around. They can't say "You can't prove I'm lying, I win!" and expect to be taken seriously. If I wasn't abducted with them, then how could they think I was "irrational" for not believing the claim?
You make similar claims that athiests dismiss evidence, but what evidence do you claim we dismiss? Do you dismiss bigfoot, loch ness, or UFO stories??
jack0177057
07-28-2010, 08:02 PM
No they don't. Jellyfish have existed for hundreds of millions of years and have gone through little change. There are fossils of Jellyfish that existed 500 million years ago, and they were basically the same as they are today.
I'm sure there's another article somewhere that says the opposite (i.e., that jellyfish have gone through subtle changes over those 500 million years), but that's not important - if there is one (or even a few) exceptions to the general rule, that doesn't change the general rule: survival = adaptability = change = evolution.
Darwin was doing nothing more than explaining how different species came into being. He was not advocating social policies. Because certain things happen in nature doesn't make it right for humans to behave that way.
Yes, but his ideas were revolutionary and caused people to think in a different way... Remember, we are all descendents of apes - therefore, it is in our base nature to act like beasts... We are only slightly superior (e.g., we walk straight) to our animal brethrens.
Why must you twist and distort everything I say? The Crusades were Christians and Muslims fighting over who controlled the Holy Land. How is that not about religion? The Inquisition was about forcing people to follow the Catholic Religion. How is that not about religion?
Yes, and everything we (the U.S.) do is to promote justice and freedom. There is never an ulterior political motive. Remember McCarthyism? That was not political either.
I never said Christianity is the only cause of anti-semitism, only that the Christian Church inspired hatred towards Jews. That is a fact. Here's what Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism had to say about Jews:
I'm not protestant and I know very little about Martin Luther. He may have been a radical and a bigot, I don't know...
We were talking about Hitler and the Nazis and the Nazi anti-semite literature clearly shows that the vast majority of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany had little, if anything, to do with religion... Like I said, a few religious references are thrown in, Machievelian style, to capture the religious radical nutjobs (who hate everyone and justify their hate with misreadings of the Bible). But, the complaint was really about the Jews having control over major institutions like banks and factories; the Germans having to pay usurious interest rates and losing business to the more efficient Jews;... and the Jews' "foreign" and "corrupting" influence.
Kellydancer
07-28-2010, 08:41 PM
I have to add this, at least the mods here (very great mods btw) aren't censoring people they disagree with. I am so tired of other message boards removing people who have Christian views. One site allows people to attack Christians all the time but if you attack an atheist or Muslim or any other religion you are banned. Talk about unfair.
eagle2
07-29-2010, 07:54 PM
I'm sure there's another article somewhere that says the opposite (i.e., that jellyfish have gone through subtle changes over those 500 million years), but that's not important - if there is one (or even a few) exceptions to the general rule, that doesn't change the general rule: survival = adaptability = change = evolution.
No, you're just making things up. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says species must constantly change.
Yes, but his ideas were revolutionary and caused people to think in a different way... Remember, we are all descendents of apes - therefore, it is in our base nature to act like beasts... We are only slightly superior (e.g., we walk straight) to our animal brethrens.
You are twisting and distorting Darwin's findings. Darwin never said "we are only slightly superior to our animal brethens".
Yes, and everything we (the U.S.) do is to promote justice and freedom. There is never an ulterior political motive. Remember McCarthyism? That was not political either.
You are constantly using dishonest argument techniques. Before you were making straw-man arguments (distorting my position to claim Germans killed Jews because Jews killed Jesus). Now you're using faulty analogies. Whether everything the US does is to promote justice and freedom has NOTHING to do with the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition.
Is it possible for you to respond to what I actual wrote instead of going through these dishonest evasions? I said that religion was the prime factor behind the the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. If you dispute this, then explain why religion was not a factor. Your dishonest evasions like, "Yes, and everything we (the U.S.) do is to promote justice and freedom" does not prove or disprove anything.
I'm not protestant and I know very little about Martin Luther. He may have been a radical and a bigot, I don't know...
Then how can you deny the Christian Church spread hatred against the Jews when you know so little about one of the most important Christian figures in history?
We were talking about Hitler and the Nazis and the Nazi anti-semite literature clearly shows that the vast majority of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany had little, if anything, to do with religion... Like I said, a few religious references are thrown in, Machievelian style, to capture the religious radical nutjobs (who hate everyone and justify their hate with misreadings of the Bible). But, the complaint was really about the Jews having control over major institutions like banks and factories; the Germans having to pay usurious interest rates and losing business to the more efficient Jews;... and the Jews' "foreign" and "corrupting" influence.
You're lying again. Why weren't any rich and powerful Christians targeted? Why were all Jews targeted regardless of whether they were rich or poor? Why were Jews in other countries, such as Poland and Russia targeted?
If you're going to claim the Jews had control over major institutions like banks and factories, please show some references. I've already explained that the German government took over the major banks in 1931.
hot4ablackchick
07-30-2010, 02:06 AM
^^Forget it Eagle. He will continue to tap dance on every issue, and some are just hell bent on proving Hitler to be an atheist (as if it matters). Interesting that some people hate Hitler (rightfully so) for his dispicable acts, yet worship a god who also throws people into ovens. Except the god does so for eternity and for reasons just as asinine. Oh the irony.
Dirty Ernie
07-30-2010, 04:03 AM
that doesn't change the general rule: survival = adaptability = change = evolution.
... Remember, we are all descendents of apes - therefore, it is in our base nature to act like beasts... We are only slightly superior (e.g., we walk straight) to our animal brethrens.
Survival is not dependent upon change. Nor is evolution about improving a species. It's more about creating new species through adaptation to existing surroundings. It's more like niche-filling through the subtle mutations of a small percentage of successive generations and those that are able to fill such a niche reproduce to pass the beneficial characteristics on to successive generations until such characterisics and specialization lead to a species separate from their evolutionary ancestor.
Darwin observed this with the finches on Galapagos. Also evident in Australia with the evolution of the marsupials in isolation.
Also, man did not evolve from apes. At least not from gorillas or chimps. We share a common ancestor back in the evolutionary line from which we both evolved but on separate paths.
Technology will certainly impact man's evolution.
Back on Topic (sort of}:D): I believe man's need for a belief in some sort of god is borne from an attempt at quelling his primal fear of the dark/unknown.
Clearly those of us without such a need are those that have evolved beyond such nonsense and fortunately, we are mostly no longer shunned from the tribe nor burned at the stake for our non-belief.
Unfortunately though, we, the evolved, do not breed indiscriminately at the behest of a church and thusly, are doomed to remain in minority to the deluded. Stupid Evolution.:P
jack0177057
07-30-2010, 08:23 AM
No, you're just making things up. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says species must constantly change.
Last I checked in the dictionary, "evolution" relates to change.
You are twisting and distorting Darwin's findings. Darwin never said "we are only slightly superior to our animal brethens".
That is what was so revolutionary about Darwin's theories. Christianity taught us that we were created by God in God's image - that he created Adam and Eve, and that we were very special, above all other creatures on the planet. We were the central piece of the creation story. Darwin said -- um, no,... actually, humans are direct descendants of apes. So, the sacredness of humanity was lost... We're just apes that evolved to lose some of the body hair, walk straight, speak different languages and invent useless things. (I'm not directly quoting Darwin in that last sentence.)
You are constantly using dishonest argument techniques. Before you were making straw-man arguments (distorting my position to claim Germans killed Jews because Jews killed Jesus). Now you're using faulty analogies. Whether everything the US does is to promote justice and freedom has NOTHING to do with the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition.
My point is that you are taking things at face value. You know nothing about the politics and greed that were the main motivators for historic events like the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition.
At one time, most of Spain was conquered Muslim. When it was "reconquered", in the name of "Christianity", the Muslim were driven out and new powerful Spanish kings, noblemen and dynasties held power for hundreds of years. Do you think these people that profitted from driving out the Muslims cared whether the flag used to drive them out was a "Christian" flag or a "Mr. Potato Head" flag? The Spanish Inquisition was like McCarthyism - a Machievelian vehicle to destroy enemies and dissenters.
Read Machievelli's "The Prince" first, and then, we'll continue this discussion.
A good analogy is the US' wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. We try to justify them with secular lofty notions of freedom, democracy, etc. (A few hundred years ago, we might have called it another Christian Crusade, but that's not PC in this century.) On the other hand, those countries rely on religious propaganda to resist US attacks. They label it a Holy War (Jihad) of Christians against Muslims and many Muslims actually see it as another Christian Crusade.
If you're going to claim the Jews had control over major institutions like banks and factories, please show some references. I've already explained that the German government took over the major banks in 1931.
Go back to the link I gave you and read the Nazi antisemitic propaganda. You can also read this:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Hitler_and_the_Nazis_hate_the_Jews
^^Forget it Eagle. He will continue to tap dance on every issue, and some are just hell bent on proving Hitler to be an atheist (as if it matters). Interesting that some people hate Hitler (rightfully so) for his dispicable acts, yet worship a god who also throws people into ovens. Except the god does so for eternity and for reasons just as asinine. Oh the irony.
I never said Hitler was an atheist, I don't know what he (truly) was... All I am arguing against is the ridiculous notion that the Nazis put the Jews in concentration camps and killed them, because they were mad that the Jews killed Jesus Christ 1,930 years ago. (Which they didn't, it was the Romans that executed Jesus Christ.)
shaebabii
07-30-2010, 09:42 AM
WOW.....to read everything in this thread from start to finish is probably like reading a novel. PHEW....well im not really sure what EVERYBODY else said...
But im really not sure what i believe in...i guess the major belief..is that i DO believe in God and i do think he is coming back to get the believers when the time comes for the world to end. I believe there is a Heaven and Hell and a devil. Just not exactly sure on the rest of it all. I pray alot and will continue to pray from now til i die. I dont push my beliefs on ppl nor do i want ppl to push theirs on me. but i will debate any day if i feel the need.
flickad
07-30-2010, 11:17 AM
Jack - Darwin's theory was not that we evolved from apes. As it happens, humans and other primates simply share a common ancestor. There was an evolutionary split somewhere along the line.
We're a hell of a lot smarter than other primates, if that counts for anything.
hot4ablackchick
07-30-2010, 03:29 PM
Back on Topic (sort of}:D): I believe man's need for a belief in some sort of god is borne from an attempt at quelling his primal fear of the dark/unknown.
Clearly those of us without such a need are those that have evolved beyond such nonsense and fortunately, we are mostly no longer shunned from the tribe nor burned at the stake for our non-belief.
Unfortunately though, we, the evolved, do not breed indiscriminately at the behest of a church and thusly, are doomed to remain in minority to the deluded. Stupid Evolution.:P
Yes. Fear of death is a bitch. I think thats why I held onto "faith" for so long myself. It can be sad (and even terrifying) to think that there is 'nothing else' after you die. Humans have a need to feel special and we know that despite our best efforts, we will die someday. Thinking we have an imaginary, invisible sky daddy somewhere waiting for us after we die is comforting to some. But it is delusional. I don't know what makes someone believe it with all their heart and soul, let alone pick up the bible, book of mormon, or koran, read it and go, "Oh this sounds right, what great stories!" The capacity to process and swallow bullshit must be marvelous and when that is combined with years of indoctrination, we have trouble.
And hey, I'm an atheist (my hubby is too) and I have 4 kids and 2 stepkids!! There's a possibility I may like to have 1 or 2 more, so here's one atheist breeder for ya :) !
jack0177057
07-30-2010, 06:23 PM
Yes. Fear of death is a bitch. I think thats why I held onto "faith" for so long myself. It can be sad (and even terrifying) to think that there is 'nothing else' after you die.
You're making the argument is that people only believe in religion because they are afraid of death, but does atheism necessarily mean no belief in an after-life?
If, from the atheist POV, a God is not required to create life, then why do you need a God in the picture to create life-after-death? I think you can be a atheist and still believe that death is a mere transition from one phase of existence into another (like the proverbial cacoon and butterfly).
Parapsychology is the science (although some call it a "pseudo-science") that investigates the after-life. It is not affiliated with any religion or religious belief. It is the subject of study in many non-religious prestigious universities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
So, I'm curious about this - do all atheists believe "there is 'nothing else' after you die." None of you believe in ghosts?
hot4ablackchick
07-30-2010, 09:51 PM
You're making the argument is that people only believe in religion because they are afraid of death, but does atheism necessarily mean no belief in an after-life?
If, from the atheist POV, a God is not required to create life, then why do you need a God in the picture to create life-after-death? I think you can be a atheist and still believe that death is a mere transition from one phase of existence into another (like the proverbial cacoon and butterfly).
Parapsychology is the science (although some call it a "pseudo-science") that investigates the after-life. It is not affiliated with any religion or religious belief. It is the subject of study in many non-religious prestigious universities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
So, I'm curious about this - do all atheists believe "there is 'nothing else' after you die." None of you believe in ghosts?
I don't think that the only reason religous people are religous, is because they are scared of death, but that can certainly be a consideration. A belief in any sort of heaven, could definetely lessen those fears. I believed because thats what I thought people did, it made me feel comfortable, and nobody ever challenged me about it. I didn't have much of clue what I was worshipping and why(other than what people told me and the common 'feel good' bible stories). Once I found out and did my own research, well that became the end of that. I believed because I never actually thought about my beliefs on a deep level. My parents certainly were 'believers' but we were not very religous. I think a combination of things makes people believers, and it still baffles me.
Well I don't want to speak for every atheist but for the most part, I would say that atheists do not believe in any sort of 'afterlife' whatsoever. Sure there may be people who don't believe in any sort god(s), but may think that there is some sort of transition after death. Atheist don't generally believe in any supernatural phenonamon.
Dirty Ernie
07-30-2010, 10:33 PM
Parapsychology is the science (although some call it a "pseudo-science") that investigates the after-life. It is not affiliated with any religion or religious belief. It is the subject of study in many non-religious prestigious universities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
So, I'm curious about this - do all atheists believe "there is 'nothing else' after you die." None of you believe in ghosts?
I only know what this athiest believes. No ghosties for me. BOO!
If ghosts are able to move objects as some claim, why doesn't one pick up a crayon and scribble his story on the wall. Instead you run to a psychic who robs you of your money while claimimg to hold the key to removing your ghost.
Wouldn't it be easier if you came home to this:
"Hey there, my name is Bob and I'm stuck in limbo until my murderer is brought to justice and I throw a few pots with my girlfriend Demi. Wanna help? I can even clean your house while you're at work. Starting with this wall. Sorry bout that.
Love,
Bob
As for parapsychology, James Randi's $1 mil prize for anyone able to demonstrate any paranormal ability under scientific conditions remains uncollected, while millions of dollars are swindled from the desperate and grieving by fakes, some of whom end up with their own tv show. Kinda like televangelists.
flickad
07-30-2010, 10:52 PM
You're making the argument is that people only believe in religion because they are afraid of death, but does atheism necessarily mean no belief in an after-life?
If, from the atheist POV, a God is not required to create life, then why do you need a God in the picture to create life-after-death? I think you can be a atheist and still believe that death is a mere transition from one phase of existence into another (like the proverbial cacoon and butterfly).
Parapsychology is the science (although some call it a "pseudo-science") that investigates the after-life. It is not affiliated with any religion or religious belief. It is the subject of study in many non-religious prestigious universities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
So, I'm curious about this - do all atheists believe "there is 'nothing else' after you die." None of you believe in ghosts?
I personally don't believe in an afterlife but am unsure about ghosts. That seems contradictory but is based on my own experience - I am unsure whether or not what I saw several years ago were, for lack of a better word, ghosts. It is also reconcilable by the possibility that, if ghosts exist, they are not the souls of dead people.
I do think that psychics and mediums are generally charlatans.
Kellydancer
07-30-2010, 11:46 PM
^^Forget it Eagle. He will continue to tap dance on every issue, and some are just hell bent on proving Hitler to be an atheist (as if it matters). Interesting that some people hate Hitler (rightfully so) for his dispicable acts, yet worship a god who also throws people into ovens. Except the god does so for eternity and for reasons just as asinine. Oh the irony.
It's things like that where I question it all. I question why good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good person. I am a good person, always donating time/money to every cause, always there to help, etc. Yet right now I am in a terrible turmoil, because I have been unemployed a long time and the guy I love is being a jerk by not calling or visiting me. I am a good person and this is all happening. Meanwhile my parents have ex friends where nothing bad happens in their life. Their son barely graduated college but got a job in his field and is now a manager at the company. His wife is also a manager. They are all people where they think they are the best people and very judgemental. I've been told that I'm suffering now so that I'll have a terrific afterlife, but I want a good life now! It's very unfair that my life sucks though theirs doesn't. That's just one example, but we've all known people with bad lives who were good and evil people who had a terrific life.
flickad
07-31-2010, 02:47 AM
^^
I've come to realise that life can be pretty random, and that bad things happen to everyone.