|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: We are the gods.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5891 days)  Posts: 3228 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6494 days)  Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Don't forget the crusades or religious fanatics involved in hate crimes...forced religion (not just christianity) is practiced today as much as at any other time in history.
TJ replies: Yes, especially in Muslim lands and I am against that. Religion must be free. Forced religion has no meaning because you can't make anybody actually believe something from their heart.I am not aware of any Christians who are forcing religion on others at this point, all though I'm sure you will find some for me. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There are certainly examples of christian forcing of religion but I would rather address the next part of the topic.... ------------------ Out of curiousity, where do you draw the line between spreading the gospel as you say and harrassment? Do you think it is ok to force small children to be taught a particular faith as fact? My point here is that force and coercing people is not only done by holding a gun to their heads.[/B][/QUOTE] TJ replies:Let me tell you what we do here in Japan. We give out tracts, have Bible studies for those who show an interest and seek to share with people through normal life and conversation about the difference Jesus has made in our lives. Many people are hurting and the god-shaped vacuum in their heart is empty and crying out for fulfillment. They haven't found fulfillment in their life so far and some are ready to consider the question of God's existence and the answers the Bible has to offer. I could quote the testimonies of numerous Japanese who came to believe in Jesus and have been greatly helped. I will only baptize someone who of their own free will comes to me and says they have believed in Jesus. Then we do some studies together to make sure they really do understand what it means to be a Christian. Then if they still want to get baptized, we allow them. I don't quite see how we force religion on anyone. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Okay, alles klar  However, I am more familiar with the sects who cruise childrens playgrounds grabbing kids and telling them they are evil and going to hell etc etc or being harrassed in front of malls, supermarkets, etc by people screaming in your face about how wonderful they are and how evil everyone else is. There are also organizations that pose as help for the needy but withold it unless those in need profess belief in their sect. I am glad that your particular faith does not include these tactics. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mammuthus continues: Do you think it is ok to force small children to be taught a particular faith as fact? My point here is that force and coercing people is not only done by holding a gun to their heads. I don't call teaching children about Jesus force. I call it education. And the Bible tells us that as parents we have a responsibility to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If I believe the Bible is true, I certainly want them to find the same joy and fulfillment I have in Jesus. We teach our children to pray, seek God's help, obey Him, and we read the Bible together. I will die for the right to teach my kids the truth. Now you may say I am forcing my religion on them. No, I am teaching them and I hope that when they are old enough to make a decision on their own that they too will choose to follow Jesus. I cannot make that decision for them though. THey must do that for themselves.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ok, I think you took my question the wrong way. I am not disagreeing with your right to teach YOUR kids. I am saying do you think it is ok to force non-christians, christians of other sects, agnostics, and athiests to learn your particular religious view at a young age without their consent? Not just you own kids.----------------------- And don't tell me that you don't teach your kids anything. By the very life you live, you are teaching your kids. They know that Daddy doesn't believe in God and that he is rather vocal about it. They know that Daddy doesn't want them to believe in God. Forgive me, I'm assuming that to be the case. I'm assuming you don't want them to believe in a fairy tale. So you are teaching your kids as well. Don't you teach your kids the fact that "God does not exist"? Even if you don't say it in those words, you are teaching that to them. It is unavoidable. We teach by example, by what we say, by our attitudes, and by what we believe.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I don't disagree with that. However, I would not tell them they are not allowed to believe if they decided on their own that it is what they wanted. Much as I rejected religion when I was 10 after being brought up catholic...my parents got out of my way. They kept their faith, I did not.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ TJ's reply: I should have said "Aren't all opinions equally valid in the atheistic worldview?" They are not equally valid in my worldview. And to tell the truth, I don't think you really think that all opinions are equally valid. That is one reason why you so vehemently disagree with me. I didn't answer my own question. Besides, even you don't believe that all opinions are equally valid because you are debating with me. You have said that you disagree with Hitler. You have said that you disagree with some of your fellow atheists on their views on spreading atheism. Obviously not all opinions are equal. But the problem is, you have no standard by which to evaluate the different views that atheists have except your own particular ideas. So these atheists are only wrong in your little opinion in the end.*****************************************+ However, that is also true of you...as below you agree with me that not all christians have the same view..and mind you, the differences between christian sects are not minor discrepancies. In the end, you hold your worldview as correct because you believe it is so from your own PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of your religion which may be completely unique from everyone elses. It boils down to your own little opinion.That mine does not involve a god/gods/alien/etc is irrelevant. "The statement you quoted" in the above response refers to what statement of mine? Sorry, I didn't follow that.------------------------- I probably goofed in editing my post so ignore it...I have had a parts of messages disappearing etc lately and am not sure why. ------------------------ I agree that the Catholic Church has made some grave mistakes in the past. That is why the Protestant Reformation took place. But even among Protestant Churches there are a lot of different views mostly on periferal issues. Some people hold these issues to be very important and start their own little group. It is definitely not a good thing. It shows that Christians are human and susceptible to sin just like everyone else. However there is a lot of fellowship and cooperation that goes on between churches(not all churches) and we have learned to respect each other's right to hold differing views while still maintaining our own distinctives. Yes, debate still takes place, but that is a healthy thing as it causes us all to re-examine our own beliefs and defend them and hopefully learn through it all.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This shows that each and every christians worldview is a personal opinion as variable and "bigoted" or "arrogant" as any athiests view...i.e. there is no absolute standard.----------------------------------- TJ replies:Not sure why I appear desparate here. When I said on your side, I meant that they are fellow atheists and in that sense they stand with you against my views. Can you please enlighten me on the distinctives of your personal worldview? ***************************+ I actually answered many of the questions you put to me in the post before you went offline. As for atheists standing with me against your views...first, I only personally know a few athiests and none of them give a crap about evolution and creationism debates. Second, it is mostly other christians, jews, and other believers who support my rights to my own worldview against those who would mandate religion through secular law if that is what you mean by standing against you. From your description of your activities, however, it does not appear that you are activily working against the separation of church and state so I am not actually standing against you so to say. We have yet to engage in a debate on evolution...then we will stand against each other I guess ------------------------ I keep getting reprimanded for not knowing, but you prefer to keep me in the dark it seems. I'm assuming you are an atheist.------- Please scroll back a few posts and see some answers to this.-------------------- Doesn't that mean that humans are supreme?------------------- Please elaborate as I am not entirely sure what you are asking. -------------- Doesn't that mean that there is no moral absolute to appeal to?----------------------- Yes my own...just as you have only your own moral standard to appeal to...yours is not an absolute. ----------------------- I don't think you are a naturalist since you admit to the existence of a conscience, so it seems you do believe that life is more than just an existing form of protein (arranged amino acids made up of hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen). You believe that not only material things exist it would seem - ie. conscience.++++++++++++++++++++++++ That would be an overinterpretation...I am a naturalist..and a molecular biologist working on viral evolution among other topics. And I do not find that life is trivialized by believing that it is made of chemical reactions which can also lead such things as conscience.---------------------- However, I think you do not believe in life after death or the existence of some spirit in the body that continues to exist after death.---------------------------------- Life after death...sure, my components will likely end up in other living organisms after I die...so in principle, so long as there is biological life, I am alive. As for spirit, no I do not believe that a spirit exists before, during, or after life. ----------------------- If you are an atheist, then there are certain fundamental co-existing beliefs that go along with that position.----------------------- Then list them. Where have I mis-judged you? So you don't have a missionary spirit like some atheists so you say.---------------------------- Is there a question attached to the last sentence?---------------- Mammuthus continues:I of course believe that my positions are correct..your point being? You believe yours are correct though we do not share much in common in our worldviews. Both of us are constrained by our own worldviews and the law...I don't see us shooting at each other with guns...seems to work for most people...except those who kill or abuse others to force their religions on others. ------------------ TJ REPLIES: My point being that we are both bigots because we both think we are right. You can't label only me a bigot if you are going to say that you think your views are right too. And if you don't think your views are right, then they are obviously meaningless.------------------------------- Great, then we are both bigots..but under my bigotry you are free to feel the way you want and go your own way..under yours you actively wish to deny that people with different views have the right. Jim says:So you see Ifm not just spouting off here about saying humanism is a religion. It's leaders are dedicated evangelists and they encourage others to become as such. Evidently they think their worldview is right. I guess that makes them bigotted like me. I say:"What about atheists...again, YOU are lumping everyone together including me into a specific worldview that I do not necessarily share. You are either doing that because of a conceptual limitation due to the narrowness of your own worldview or because you are insecure of your own worldview and do not wish to be exposed to what other people actually think. I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others. TJ replies:Oh, I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood your last sentence. For a minute there I thought you were trying to dictate your worldview to me. But isn't that exactly what you told me that I can't do in that last statement? Are you allowed to dictate your belief to me that you just stated above: "but you have no right to dictate them to others." In other words, I can't dictate my views, but you can yours. Nice try. ************************************* Then you are being willfully obtuse. I stated you have the right to your beliefs I have mine. YOU have not rebutted my point that you are unable to engage me in debate unless you place my worldview in the constraint of a definition that does not apply. You always quote from sources other than myself and then attempt to claim that this is my position i.e. strawman arguement. You then increase this shame by falsely claiming that I am dictating my worldview to you. I suggest you engage me in debate or concede that you cannot. If you want to engage in a debate on secular humanists or want to know what other atheists actually think I would propose you start a thread here on those topics.--------------------- TJ REPLIES: Mammuthus, you said this: "I believe you have every right to your own beliefs but you have no right to dictate them to others." But in stating this opinion of yours to me you are dictating your beliefs to me - which is what you just said is not permissable to do.So the statement is meaningless. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Then you are now saying that you have the right to force people to subscribe to your worldview...not really meaningless.+++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm just pointing out a flaw in your argument. If you say I have no right to dictate my beliefs to others, how am I supposed to respond to that statement that you just made. It is a logical fallacy. Sorry, I admit I was being a bit sarcastic there.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ok...so you have no right to your worldview...better? Mammethus continues:You have a truly annoying tendency to try to link me (for example) and other peoples worldviews to examples that fit your agenda but do not represent reality. My response: And you have a truly annoying tendancy to put words in my mouth.********************* LOL! Pot calling the kettle black. I never said you agreed with these guys. In fact, I need to question your ability to read.********************+ Then I question your need to post such distractions into the conversation unless it was your intent to link me to them. TJ: Did I or did I not preface this whole thing with the following words: "You may not agree with your fellow atheists on this,..." I vaguely recall writing that, but in spite of that, you blast me. You make meaningful dialog difficult when you either don't read, don't notice, or blatantly ignore what I write.***************************+ Ditto TJ replies: Goodness me. THis is ridiculous. Give me a break here Mammuthus. It seems you have an inability to admit when you make a mistake.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Because I have not made a mistake. -------------------------- I clearly prefaced my statement in a way that I was not accusing you of agreeing, but wanted you to know about what the leaders of the atheist movement in the States are thinking since you didn't seem to be aware of it.You wanted justification for what I was saying and I gave it to you. THen you accuse me of saying I'm assuming all atheists are the same, when I just said I didn't believe that. And in your next statement you continue harping on this theme. I give up. How clear do I need to make myself? ****************************** If I were to condemn ALL christians for the fact that many catholic priests have been caught raping children but then in the next line said so how do you reconcile your worldview with that of your fellow christians..what would you assume the intent of the linkage was? You do this repeatedly. ------------------------ You are very sadly misinformed if you think that all athiests subscribe to one worldview or are actually an organization. That is like saying all christians are southern baptists. The only thing that links atheists is that we do not believe in god/gods/supreme beings etc. Your fear of a giant conspiracy would be better directed at the religious sects that forcibly indoctrinate, kill, and otherwise harrass individuals in order to establish power over them....i.e. the "scary agenda" of many missionaries. TJ replies: By the way, how many other people in the world hold the same worldview that you do? ( I haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what that is yet, it would seem.)++++++++++++++++++ Why is that important? If my worldview is unique, so be it..it has served me very well. As to what my worldview is, whenever I have answered specific questions you have posted they have been ignored and then you spam me with quotes from groups that you personally despise...no surprise then that you have no idea where I am coming from. ----------------------- And why should we think that your own particular worldview is right? What makes you think that it is right? At least my worldview is not something that I have dreamed up on my own. It is shared with many other Christians who believe the Bible to be the Word of God.+++++++++++++++++++ Which christians? Do they all believe the same thing as you. What does it mean "believe the bible is the word of god"? Are the amish correct? Mormons? each and every one of you has your own PERSONAL belief that differs from everyone elses whether you say you are all the same or not....you sound like the Monty Python character in Life of Brian where Brian says " you are all unique individuals" and a guy in the crowd shouts "I'm not" Arrogant or not, I believe in the Bible because I believe it is God's revelation to man.-------- Good for you...I don't... cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 22473 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6494 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tokyojim Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6494 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi TJ,
I am going to paraphrase your arguments and refer anyone who is interested back to your post 111 for the full text. I do this because to answer you point by point will make things to long and we are already getting flak for the length of our posts. If you disagree where I have paraphrased feel free to address the issue. TJ2 reply to M1:I believe I am a Christian based on the promises of Jesus. ...edited...I have recognized that I am not a perfect person and therefore am not qualified to go to heaven. I have believed that Jesus is Godfs Son who God sent from heaven to provide a way for all mankind to be saved. I believe that Jesus died for me and paid for my sins on the cross. I have repented of my sin and have asked God to forgive me. I have given him my heart and life and I am seeking to grow in love for Him and to exemplify that love in my daily life. M: The crux of your argument throughout the first part of your post is that you consider yourself a christian because you BELIEVE you are and you BELIEVE that you fullfill he criteria laid out in the bible. However, lots of christians with radically different worldviews (not just minor disagreements on procudure) also believe they qualify including people who have killed, raped, and tortured or supported those who have. Your claim that Hitler could not be a christian is false. He could have and made statements to the effect that he believed he was a christian and he had the backing of the RCC. Why are his claims any less valid than yours regarding what he believed? You have not way of testing it or knowing it. M1 continues: But since you don't think anyone is a christian other than you what difference does it make what the truth is? TJ2 REPLIES: You knew I would respond to this didnft you? This statement does not even deserve a response except to say that you seem intent on proving that Hitler was really a Christian in spite of the newly revealed evidence that shows what his real thoughts in private were. You would rather believe the ravings of a madman in Mein Kampf that was written for his propaganda purposes than believe his secret confessions. Who did you say doesnft care what the truth is? M: This entire part of the debate came up because you claimed that as an atheist that I am philosophically linked to Hitler and that no christian is capable of such crime. Both your heinous attempt to link me to Hitler and your christian apologetics demonstrate that you do not want to acknowledge that christians do horrible things feeling justified by the bible and that your so called "absolute standards of morality" are as flexible or more than those of non-believers. M1 continues: Since you claim that even believing you are a christian and saved is not evidence that you are you have no definition of a christian for Hitler or anyone else to violate. TJ2 reply: Let me explain that a bit further. Belief and public confession is the first step obviously. But if there is no fruit to back up the profession, then the Bible says it is a meaningless confession. M: So all babies that die are evil as they did no deeds bearing "fruit"? How do you define this "fruit"? Perhaps Hitler believed that he was doing gods will for the German people by trying to establish the German states hegemony over the world. I don't think this argument you are using is any more valid than a christian is a christian if he believes he is a christian. TJ2 reply: Mammethus, I am interested in knowing where and when Darwin rejected the use of eugenics. I donft doubt you, but Ifm interested in knowing. M: Read Daniel Kevles In the Name of Eugenics. If you are interested I will get the rest of the reference but I don't have it in front of me and do not remember off the top of my head the date of publication or the company that published it. It is a historical review of the origins of the eugenics movement. TJ: You are right in saying that Darwinfs COUSIN, Francis Galton was the originator of the word eugenics. I wonder where he got that idea from! From the theory of evolution of course. He hijacked the theory? Some say so, but who is to say that he is wrong? Who has final say on the right interpretation of evolution to life today? M: Where did the crusaders get the idea to rape, murder, and pillage? Christianity! I don't think you want to use this type of argument. Who is to say who is right on evolution...that is easy TJ, evolution is a science with testable hypothesis. Darwin himself knew that Galton misused his definition of fitness for a political agenda. Scientists debunked the definition of fitness by the thousands of experiments that have been done since Darwin's time. Unlike religion, one can actually find out if something is wrong or not! TJ:If certain races are more evolved than others, then they could be considered to be superior, could they not? Of course, today, science has finally caught up with the Bible on this and they recognize that all humans are related and extremely close genetically. Now science agrees that racism is foolishness and unscientific, but that was not true back then. That is a relative new discovery due to the developments made in micro-biology and gene mapping etc. M: You are sorely lacking in knowledge on this subject TJ. I suggest you read up a bit since you have no basis for your statements. Evolution has no direction so there is no more or less evolved human. And please show where the bible claims that human populations have greater among group than between group genetic diversity...that claim is really funny that the bible had any bearing on genetics..LOL! TJ:Let me back up what I am saying here a little about Darwin and then about Hitler.First of all, was Darwin racist? I cannot say that for sure. But the sub-title of his book causes one to wonder. As you know it was this: The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. M: I have to wonder if you ever even cracked the book open. If you had you would realize what "races" he was talking about. TJ:Whether it was intended or not, Darwinian evolution gave people what they thought was a scientific basis to justify their racist beliefs. Evolution is not ultimately to blame. M: Ditto for religion and in particular christianity. TJ:Our sin nature is the root of it, but evolution contributes to this wrong way of thinking. Darwin taught that Aborigine Australians were a less evolved race and closer to their ape ancestors than other races. Some even viewed them as less than human as a result. Plus, when you think about evolution being the survival of the fittest and how natural selection works, you can easily see how people could think they were helping the process along a little by getting rid of these less evolved groups. However, current day science now knows that Darwinfs teaching on this issue was a bunch of hooey. The term race is not really scientific at all, but Darwin did not know that. He made clear distinctions that have been clearly disproved today. This idea of favored races can cause big problems. Hitler thought the Aryans were the favored race and tried to ensure that it worked out to be so. Australians used to think that the aborigines were the missing link between an ape—like ancestor and the rest of mankind. (Missing Links with mankind in early dawn of history – NY Tribune Feb. 10, 1924, pg. 11) This idea led to terrible abuses and sins against these people. Plus, thousands of their bones were shipped to museums around the world as evidence of this missing link. False deductions based on in vogue science of that time! M: Guess who the practictioners of these abuses were? Christian scientists like Galton. And on the one hand you argue that "who knows who is right about evolution?" and then in this paragraph argue that scientists debunked Galton...you are really inconsistent TJ. TJ:Even Stephen J. Gould himself admits this. He says gBiological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.h(Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977. pg. 127-128) They were wrong you say. They interpreted evolution and applied it to life in a misguided way. M: They did not "interpret" it. They redefined Darwin's terms to suit their agenda. Physicists and physics itself are also guilty then because it is a science lead to the development of weapons of mass destruction. TJ:Again, who is to really say what is right or wrong application of Darwinism? Plus, back then they didnft think it was wrong. M: The beauty of science is it is constantly under attack and scrutiny of scientists and Galton was debunked in Darwin's time by Darwin. Relgion forces you to cling to beliefs even when they are demonstrably false. TJ:Even scientists thought this was a right application of evolution theory. M: Scientists studied alchemy and astrology as well, what is the point? TJ:Unfortunately they didnft listen to the voice of God, but only when science finally proved this to them did they change their views. M: LOL! Galton and many other eugenicists were christians who believed that evolution confirmed their superiority in the christian gods eyes. They had religion and used it to abuse others with fabricated science to add secular justification to their religious inspired misanthropy. TJ:Imagine how much evil, abuse, and suffering could have been avoided in they would have just listened to God in the first place? MAYBE even WWII itself would have been avoided if Hitler had not been so deceived by evolutionary thought. No, Ifm not saying it is all the fault of evolution, but it was a factor in Hitlerfs actions, no doubt. M: Maybe if Hitler had been a jew instead of a christian he would not have found so many justifications that could be used to sway all those god fearing people to kill mercilessly. You are truly self deluded again that you wish to push off the blame for what christians do on everyone else..but I can understand it considering how many atrocities have been committed by people of your worldview. TJ:Why do I say that? Was Hitler influenced by evolutionary thought? M: TJ, your quotes from your post only show that you are dishonest. You claim that Hitler was influenced by evolutionary thought though eugenics was not based on the principles of evolution even as they were understood at the time. You have such weak arguments that you constantly have to fabricate links between what evolution actually is (which you clearly do not know) and what atheists think (which you clearly do not know either) build up your strawman arguement and let fly. Truly pathetic. TJ:Have you ever heard of the bad blood theory? This was ANOTHER unscientific view that Darwin and other evolution advocates used to hold to. M: Show that Darwin held this view...by the way Darwin was a christian to TJ:They used to think that bad blood was responsible for inferior characteristics of certain people so eventually, not only were the Jews seen as an inferior race, but also other certain segments of society who were thought to have bad blood that might therefore pollute the Aryan race and hinder itfs evolution. So, mentally handicapped people were targeted for elimination after a while with the justification being that they had bad blood that they could pass on - or - that they might also have had some Jewish or other non-Aryan blood in them. Poliakov notes that many intellectuals in the early 1900s accepted telegony, the idea that ebad bloodf would contaminate a race line forever, or that ebad blood drives out good, just as bad money displaces good moneyf. Poliakov, L., The Aryan Myth (translated by E Howard), Basic Books, New York, 1974, pg. 282. M: The radical Basques still hold this view and they are majority christian and supported by the RCC...what is your point? TJMammethus, I suggest that if you are interested in really knowing the full influence that evolutionary beliefs played in Hitlerfs thinking that you read such books as the ones listed above. And here is an article that is much more thorough on this subject than I have been. I took the above quotes from this paper. M: And I suggest you 1. actually read what Darwin wrote 2. learn what current evolutionary theory states (post modern sythesis) 3. learn the history of eugenics.That people can use psuedoscience to fullfil and agenda is exactly and example of creationism TJ...you guys are philosphically linked with the eugenics movement and considering it was started and propageted by christians it has little bearing on evolution. M1 continues:Then define the theory of evolution. If you think that Hitler was following evolutionary biological principles (even those set out by Darwin) show it with references. Your cluelessness is striking...here read this book before you open your mouth again and stick your foot in it....In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity -- by Daniel J. Kevles You will find more quotes linking Hitler and Nazi Germany to christianity by the way. __________________________________________ TJ2 reply: Maybe saying that he was following evolutionary biological principles is unfair. Letfs say he was applying the idea of survival of the fittest to society and trying to aid evolution along in creating a superior race. Evolutionary biological principles themselves do not advocate eugenics, but if one accepts evolutionary biological principles as true, you can sure see how easy it would be to come to that conclusion. Many many SCIENTISTS at that time made that misguided conclusion. M: So, now you admit that it was unfair? You are again inconsistent. Many people believe they were abducted by UFOs...basically all ancient Greek biological science was wrong....and? Science is a process of unrelenting questioning and probing for cracks in a theory..when found the theory is revised or ditched for one that better fits the data. Religion on the other hand is in a constant state of denial by its proponents as they must unquestioningly stick to dogma and when confronted with inconsistency sit dumbfounded with no recourse but to deny reality. TJ: Define evolution: OK. Evolution is the process by which life is said to have come into existence and evolved into the form we see today. The means for this change are said to be mutations and natural selection which takes place over long periods of time during which small beneficial changes(a result of copying mistakes in the genes – mutations) provide survival advantage to the organism which then passes that on to its offspring. These beneficial changes begin to pile up over time and slowly new species come into being and life moves up the evolutionary scale by creating its own genetic information totally unguided by any outside force or intelligence.What kind of evolution do you believe in? Would you agree with my novice definition? It is lacking I am sure. Please help me out here. TJ: At the beginning you confuse abiogenesis and evolution. You also ignore the contribution of genetic drift and neutral evolution to the development of species. There is also no "moving up" an evolutionary scale. You admit that your knowledge is lacking. Would you be willing to read up if I made some literature suggestions? I can find some that would not be so overly technical if you are interested. TJ 2 interjection: Here is more evidence of that since you still seem unconvinced: During the trial, Justice Jackson stated that eThe Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideologyf, and ecarried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.f He cited a decree of leading Nazi, Martin Bormann: eMore and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors.f (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2, The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School Page Not Found | Yale University) Jackson cited another defendant, the viciously anti-Jewish propagandist and pornographer Julius Streicher, who ecomplained that Christian teachings have stood in the way of gracial solution of the Jewish question in Europe.hf (Same source as above) M: Actually this does not sound anti-christian but anti-church which was a powerful organization competing with the dictatorship as it did throughout history even prior to the 3rd Reich. Napoleon also tried to destroy the church..not christianity. Martin Luther esentially rebelled against the church to...not christianity. TJ:But in spite of all this, I am sure that you are right Mammuthus. Hitler must have been a Christian because he said so. I mean Hitler wouldnft lie, Ifm sure. He is one of the most trustworthy people I can think of. M: Why should I not believe what he said about his beliefs? Why should I not believe you when you state yours? How do you know? How do you know with anybody? I am only addressing the point that by your own definition, a christian is one who believes he or she is christian and thus even mass murderers like Hitler could be christians. That you wish to use the common arguement among religious groups (not just christian mind you) that anyone who does evil was not a "true christian" is false. You also fall back on another oft used premise that if they did bad things and you believe they were christians...that they sinned and will be forgiven. Thus the ethics and "morality" of christianity is just as variable and flexible as that of atheists. Your worldview is actually more dangerous as you can justify anything you do by claiming your god supports it and thus religious fundamentalists are infinitely more dangerous and more TJ: I am sorry, but I still can not believe that you actually think that Goerring would have been correct – morally justified - if the Nazis had won. Where is your brain? Do you know what you are saying? You are saying that power determines what is morally acceptable and inacceptable.You are advocating the use of force to force your own moral ideas on others and make them conform to your standards or your culturefs standards. Not very tolerant if you ask me. Yet you seem to support this! M: Where did I state that I support this? Another strawman argument of yours TJ...you seem to be getting desperate. The victor writes history. If the Nazis had won WWII they would have written and taught that they had done a great thing and nobody would be able to contradict it. As to the LEGALITY of their actions, they wrote their own laws for their country just as any other does. That the laws were unethical does not make it illegal. We have the death penalty in the US which is unethical yet it is legal. TJ:And yet you criticize me for being vocal about morality! Hmmc Something is not right here. M: Yes, what is not right is your twisting what I am saying around because you cannot counter the points I am ACTUALLY making! TJ: The Nazis were not wrong because they lost! Come on. That idea is a hard sell I think, but unfortunately you are not the only one who actually believes such nonsense. Many atheists and intellectual elite today find themselves stuck having to try and defend this ridiculous idea. Why? Simply because they refuse to consider the possibility of a Supreme Moral Lawgiver. Well, if they are right, then maybe we better launch pre-emptive strikes against China, N.Korea, and Iran before they do something to us and our impose their morality on us. We do not want our morality to be proven incorrect just because we lose a war. M: Actually the US has an official doctrine of pre emtive strikes so there you go. You claim that I and others have to defend this idea when I never freaking stated it. I stated that what they did was legal by their own countries definition. I made no statement as to whether it was correct. And please explain to me how if they had won that they would not have written history to reflect that they had acted morally? Did the USSR after killing and taking over countries and forcing communism on them then teach that they had behaved immorally? No, all the DDR people I have met talk about how they were indoctrinated with the great deeds of the USSR. Thus the victor dictates history. If you don't get this that is your own mental failure. M1 reply: That you wish to link me with Nazi's (again!) says more about your character than mine. By your definition I guess you are no longer a christian or would this be the debate tactic of jesus to TJ2 reply: I am sorry for the unintended inference. I am just trying to show you and the Nazis have the same idea in this idea of morality. They have simply applied that idea to their life in a different way than you have. You have chosen for matters of conscience to live a more moral life than they have, but they have taken the idea to its logical extreme. If there is no god, if I am accountable to no one, if there is no absolute moral code to which I must submit, then lets make the best of it and make sure our own race comes out on top. And atheism has no absolute standard to appeal to to say that is wrong.By the way, lets say I was trying to be nasty there. Lets say that I did sin against you in what I said. Are you trying to say that then I am no longer a Christian? No, that is not it at all. No one is perfect or ever will be until heaven so you are misunderstanding something somewhere. A Christian will still sin and probably do so every day in attitude, word, deed, or thought. But when we realize it, we should repent and make things right with the other person if necessary. You have to look at the general overall direction of a personfs life. Individual actions may or may not bear out his faith, but they should do so more consistently than not and they should do so more and more each year as we grow in the faith. When your son does something wrong and you punish him, he does not cease being your son, does he? No. Your relationship is strained until the appropriate party confesses and apologizes. Same with our relationship with God. TJ: So if a nazi committs crimes and then later decides that it was a sin an repents they are still good christians by your definition. Thus there is no inconsistency with christianity and nazism. Your own logic used. And as I pointed out earlier...your morality and ethical standards are both more flexible than mine and further supported by your delusion that a mystical being supports your every act. TJ1 - old post continues: He said that what they did was in accordance with their own morality. M1 reply: He said that what they did was in accordance with their own LAWS...you are a revisionist...maybe you are one of those types that think the holocaust did not happen? Hitler from his own quotes demonstrates how their actions were in accordance with christianity TJ2 replies: OK, yes, if you quote the article verbatim, you are right technically, but come on, Mammethus, the meaning is almost the same. Your powers of induction seem to be failing you here. Goerring would have felt that their laws were not only in accordance with their law, but consequently also in accordance with their views on morality, would he not? If the Nazis did not believe so, I think they would have had a hard time going through with all they did. At least that is how I see it. Admitted assumptions are involved here. M: Ah, so now you have to make assumptions to support your case rather than taking the articles meaning at face value? Flexible arent you TJ1 post continues: If no, how can you condemn Hitler for what he did? M1 reply: What he did violates MY standard...(or are you claiming again that I am a nazi?) (An unnecessary addition Mammuthus) Nazism certainly did not violate the "moral" standards of millions of other Germans and their allies including millions of christians. Christianity provided absolutely no buffer against horrid acts as you claim it would. Your worldview is entirely consistent with mass murder...you just have to justify it in the name of your god. TJ2 replies to M1 reply: Since when does YOUR standard become the basis on which to condemn others? M: I could ask you the same thing. TJ: Are you implying that everyone has to follow your own particular standards? M: EVERYONE DOES FOLLOW THEIR OWN PARTICULAR STANDARDS!!!! They don't follow mine. But for humans and all other organisms on the planet it works as no species would survive if its life history traits involved inability to work as a group or to rampantly kill all other organisms. You just do not see that in nature. TJ:That is being a little bigoted is it not? Sorry, Mammethus, you cannot pass off the blame of WWII on Christians. M: Your denials not withstanding, I can very well blame the christians for a large part of what occurred during WWII. TJ:I do agree that the Roman Catholic Church blew it big time though. They should have stood up to these idiots when it became clear what was happening. M: I agree in part, not only did they not stand up but they supported and actively participated thus christianity cannot shove away the blame for what happened on others. TJ: In that sense, they must share some of the blame, but the main blame has to be laid at the feet of the corrupt leaders of this war and even though Hitler was a Christian by name, he certainly was not a true believer as my above quotes so clearly show. Rather he was a crazy indoctrinated evolutionist gone wild. M: I pity you TJ, you are so dishonest you have to blame evolution (which you do not even understand by your own admission) for the crimes of your religion. It is very sad that you cannot live up to the responsibility and try to do better in the future but rather persist in your denial. TJ:And, I am sorry, but no, you cannot make room for mass murder, eugenics, or genocide in a Biblical worldview. Gods Word is absolute and it cannot be twisted to justify sin even if some people may try and do that. This is where correct interpretation is so important. M: As that "correct interpretation" is subjective it means there is no absolute. TJ2 reply: Oh, so now majority rules when it comes to deciding morality. That is scary too because over time, the liberals just keep chipping away at the current moral laws that are in vogue and pretty soon cloning for organs etc. will be seen to be morally OK - either because the vast majority of people will be persuaded by the scientists that it is good or those in power who make the laws will be persuaded by them to give it the OK. TJ: Surprise surprise, you don't know what therapeutic cloning is either or what is being proposed. LOL!If it was majority rules the US would be a theocracy where nobody had any freedom whatsover......Taliban style. TJ:Either way, we are in for a dismal future if we allow popular opinion and political power to determine morality. But then, that is what Jesus predicted is it not – that things will get worse in the end times. Why am I not surprised that this is happening? M: Oh boy, now end of the world fears per biblical prophecy I suppose? TJ: Now you would think that with all the scientific achievements and progress that has been made, with all the educated people in the world today, with all the new knowledge and possibilities for communication that are available today, you would think that we humans would have overcome some of these primitive sins and problems that were common 2000 years ago. M: We would if the fundamentalists did not keep a large number of people stuck 2000 years behind the rest of the world with their love of war against all those who are different. TJ:........Without God and His absolute moral law, both of which so many scientists have dismissed from the start, we humans are left to argue and fight it out to see whose values will end up being accepted and judged grighth. M: You fight it out with true believers...fundamentalists Islamists are identical to you in ideaology with the only difference being the name of the god they worship...you all have your "absolute" moral laws that are all absolutely in conflict with one another...thus war and crime of the religios zealots...and then denial that you have done anything wrong after committing the crime since after all, god told you it was ok.... TJ: If you can somehow influence many people to accept your views, then you have an advantage. Or if that does not work, political or military power might. What a great world we live in! Where can we find hope? M: We can find hope in a world where diversity is maintained and different worldviews can co-exist as for the most part does exist. If guys like you were not so power hungry like the nazi's to control the entire world and subjugate it to your worldview then the world would be a lot more peaceful and full of hope. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2783 days)  Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tokyojim Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6494 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
quote: quote: TJ, it doesn't matter if Hitler was a Christian or not. He used the idea of Christianity for his own purposes whether sincerely or deceitfully. This is exactly what people have done with the ToE. The idea has been used to draw unwarranted conclusions. You feel perfectly comfortable criticising the ToE because it has been mis-used, but you do not want Christianity criticised because it has been mis-used. This is a double standard.
quote: It is a double standard, as I have explained. I find that funny Sorry, strange since of humor.
quote: You may as well say it. This is the teeth of your argument. Without this inference, what is left of the criticism of Darwin? "Darwin was wrong" hmmmm..... not terribly wicked.
quote: First, you need to support the claim that his ideas were unscientific. Secondly, most anything can lead to unpleasant consequences. You could blaim Einstein for the atomic bomb, or Spanish ship builders in the 1400s for the deaths of countless American Indians, or Chinese fireworks makers for the death and destruction caused by firearms, or Jung for new-age pop psychology.....
quote: Didn't say I was concerned actually.
[quote][b]There is no ultimate right and wrong, so you cannot say it is wrong.[/quote] [/b] And you, TJ, is there an ultimate right and wrong? I dare you to find one.
quote: I could say that it makes no sense. This is a rational decision and one I could defend, but for the sake of the topic, I won't.
quote: Did I now? I don't remember saying anything of the sort. That makes your statement an unwarranted conclusion whether I believe the statement or not.
quote: God has been in the equation since the dawn of recorded history and the tale is pretty bloody.
quote: Try reading the Old Testament, TJ.
quote: Again, try reading the Bible. Racism is part and parcel of what it meant to be an Isrealite.
quote: You have completely missed the point. Science is based on evidence. That evidence is interpretted by thousands of researchers, not by one. The consensus of opinion determines the corect interpretation-- always tentatively and dependant upon current knowledge.
quote: Struck a nerve? What is this outburst about? You don't need to believe evolution to understand how it is supposed to work. Yeah, Hitler believed in higher and lower races. That isn't the point. Evolution does not work that way, hence Hitler WAS NOT USING EVOLUTION. Why is that so hard to grasp?
quote: Some scientists.... Besides, you have your causality wrong. Racism existed long before Darwin and was quite widely accepted as fact. The scientists were not converted by Darwin, they just went on believing what they had always believed. Some used Darwin's theory to justify that belief.
quote: This is a mis-representation of the process. The organisms that cannot survive don't survive, they don't mate with "less specialized creature to regain genetic information" The organisms that can survive, move in and take over. Simple.
quote: umm..... what about all of that "thou shalt not mate with foreigners stuff...?"
quote: gee.... that isn't racist? It seems to fit the definition.
quote: quote: Right. And God did the punishing himself? Nope. Hordes of sword wielding Isrealites killed, raped and pillaged in the name of God. How do we know God told them? We don't. And neither did they. A priest or a King told them it was God's will. Hi ho! hi ho! its off to war we go. Just like in the case of Adolf.
quote: Verify the Bible as a source first, then I'll listen. You guys always seem to forget this necessary logical step. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tokyojim Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tokyojim Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
