|
QFT. I have never understood why it matters to some athiests what I believe personally. I'm a Christian personally, but if you choose not to believe that is your buisness. We can still be friends, regardless of what you believe.What´s more, if atheists challenge believers and argue against their faith, this could be viewed as being not that much better than fanatics preaching to everybody about their sins.
Stefan
David, the fact is that many people act on those beliefs.
The results are often pretty horrific or damaging to entire societies.
Mass murder.
Justification of slavery.
perversion of scientific knowledge.
I really don't care what anyone believes they know about the universe, so long as they don't use that belief to justify blowing people up, or retard the learning of thosands of children.
I personally would rather people didn't take shelter in a state which is effectively indistinguishable from delusion, but they are free to, provided they don't act upon those beliefs that effect other.
As I said before religion has corrupt individuals involved who would like to push there agendas to do horrible things. But however we atheists aren't innocent either we have such winners such as Stalin among our numbers, and many of the massacres of the past century have been persecuted by communism which is a strictly atheist political belief. (Not that all atheists are communists just that most communists tend to be atheist by political mandate). The fact is most movements allow themselves to be controlled by bastards sometimes, the only thing we can do is learn from our collective mistakes and try and do better.
|
David, the fact is that many people act on those beliefs.
The results are often pretty horrific or damaging to entire societies.
Mass murder.
Justification of slavery.
perversion of scientific knowledge.
These same things occurred under the Nazis, which wasn't exactly a God-fearing society. Quit blaming human nature on religion.
Most importantly it happened under Communist Soviet rule which was anti-religion. Nazi were anti-Semetic not anti-religious...
However, another survey of scientists in general reported 40% of scientists in general believe in a personal god. That study was performed in 1997. A more recent study, performed in 2005, found that 2/3rds of scientists surveyed believe in a personal god.
Kirth has already ably addressed these, so I shall offer nothing further.
I want to begin my reply to your next post by noting that you seem to have misunderstood my point. I am not saying that I can never be friends with the religious. Indeed, I have some religious friends. (I know: 'some of my best friends...') I am only saying that I am not automatically disposed to treat all the religious as friends and do not view myself as being unfortunate for that. I gave reasons why I might not get along with the religious, in the attempt to demonstrate that this was not in fact a blind prejudice on my part but a response to things that actual religious people alive today are really doing.
However, since you can no more disprove the existence of God than I can prove it, it is intellectually dishonest to say that you are not friends with people of faith because they are not "admitting and acknowledging reality..."
For a god that never has and never shall in any way interact with reality, you're right. There's no way to disprove or to prove that. It's just an empty bit of verbiage that by definition means nothing to everybody. It's only a word plastered over ignorance.
It transpires that believers don't actually believe in that kind of deity. No, they believe in one who creates worlds, cares about their sex lives, talks to people, cooks shrubbery, raises people from the dead, inspires them to speak gibberish (although for some reason these are also encouraged to practice speaking gibberish, because apparently he's not a good teacher), hurls thunderbolts, rapes women while in animal form and otherwise, demands sacrifices, makes the Nile flood, wins football games, likes being eaten but hides inside crackers, and the list goes on. Those deities we actually can gather data on and thus we very well can come to conclusions about them. They are entirely proper subjects of science, just as much as a fruit fly, an ape, a mushroom, and a cloud are.
But again, you have misunderstood my purpose. When I refer to admitting and acknowledging reality I am not talking about a believer deconverting, but the presence of real and meaningful disagreements which militate against perfectly harmonious co-existence between believers and non-believers entirely aside the content of various religions. Which brings me to the next sentence:
It is also a very bigoted view to automatically assume that any person of faith wishes to deprive you of any rights that you may aspire to.
I'm not speaking of any religious person (I strongly dislike the term "person of faith.") but rather of specific religious people who do those things. I am deeply disinterested in getting along with them, and if you object to their activities then I think you are too.
If you go through life assuming the worst of people, then you end up living a very lonely life.
I was going to let this line go, but I think it's symptomatic of a larger trend in religious thinking that I wish to address. I do not actually assume the worst of people. I assume they're average until shown otherwise, which seems fair enough. But even if I did that would hardly be a particularly convincing objection. One should not base one's opinions about the universe on how good they feel. A shot of morphine can be comforting, or a tab of LSD. They are, however, poor tools for use in apprehending reality.
Lastly on the subject of the efficacy of religious imagery in provoking altruistic behavior, there's an obvious flaw in the study. The religious and non-religious alike almost surely grew up in the same religion-saturated culture. (The sample size is also small.) So we are not measuring the power of religious symbols, but the power of the associations they gained through the culture we shared. To really measure of the symbols themselves keyed into something primal and not culturally-laden, we'd have to see if the same symbols had the same effect on people who had no upbringing relating to those symbols whatsoever. All we are told by the study you cite is that culture is powerful.
Well ok, but we already knew that. It's not even news that nonbelievers sometimes hold residual sentiments in favor of the religions they've rejected. I've noticed and spent some time trying to purge myself the same in the name of clearer thinking.
I can't let science completely destroy my open mind. Science has given us a great many inventions, but at what cost? Supposedly, Aborigines in Australia can naturally divine where water is... I haven't seen this with my own eyes, but I have seen it on TV...truth? No idea, but I leave the door open to the possibility...
Gimme a stick, I'll divine water unerringly. So will you. Then again, I have an unfair advantage -- as a hydrogeologist, I'm "hip" to the fact that if there's water here, there's more than likely water 10 ft. away as well... and that if I dig deep enough anywhere, I'll pretty much ALWAYS hit water eventually. It's no surprise that many stage magicians are some of the most hard-core skeptics in the world -- they know too many tricks to believe in them.
Anyway, I've always felt that "open mindedness" requires more than a bit of skepticism to work best, or it quickly becomes close-mindedness instead. "The sun is pulled by a chariot across the sky -- I'm open-minded enough to accept that as a possibility!" That's fine at first, but when someone shows you footage from the space shuttle of the Earth rotating, do you cling to your "open-minded" chariot explanation, and reject the Earth's rotation because it's "close-minded"?
It might be a mistake to say this but... I really do believe that non-Christians will go to hell. Christians here being defined as those who are born again, and believe in Jesus Christ as they're savior. I don't hate non Christians, exactly the opposite. But I believe in the truth of God's word and try to live my life according to that. And the Bible says that everyone has sinned, the wages of sin are death and the only way to avoid this is to except Jesus's gift of eternal ife, ect. I don't want people to go to hell, and thus try to share my faith as I am doing now. But no matter how earnestly I do so, it's not that easy. There are people, like bugleyman who just don't see things like I do and thus, not just will not, but in a sense cannot choose to become a Christian.
There are two different worldviews involved. I believe in the Bible, but others have a secular worldview. I not a Christian because I just want the Bible to be true. I've looked over the evidence and believe that what the Bible says is true. In fact, I see such things as miracles occurring, healings, visions, people being risen from the dead. How do you explain someone saying "be healed," and then it actually happening scientifically? I don't believe you can. Only God can do that. But other people see it differently, offering explanations. Then I look at that and say, "What? That's ridiculous." And someones going to say that my claims of miracles are equally ridiculous. And then we discuss it back and forth for a while, but can't come to an agreement. Because we see things from two completely different perspectives. I once believed that religious belief was absurd, but then something happened that made me look at things differently. And now I believe that much of what scientists believe is wrong, and that they're beliefs come from they're own biases, just as some believe about Christians. So, I urge you to never stop questioning you're beliefs. You may through doing so reaffirm them, or you may find them in error.
Well, I think that's all I have to say. Don't expect me back here, as I don't see a protracted discussion as being productive. I've said my piece and that could occur hereafter is the back and forth argument I previously spoke of.
I've looked over the evidence and believe that what the Bible says is true. How do you explain someone saying "be healed," and then it actually happening scientifically? I don't believe you can.
I had no scientific explanation for nuclear power, either, until I learned how it worked...
David, the fact is that many people act on those beliefs.
The results are often pretty horrific or damaging to entire societies.
Mass murder.
Justification of slavery.
perversion of scientific knowledge.
These same things occurred under Nazi Germany, which wasn't exactly a God-fearing society. Quit blaming human nature on religion.
Mmm... yeah, nazi germany was religious. The majority of germans involved in the war, bringing hitler to power and with membership of the nazi power where christians.
Gott mit uns, or god with us, was the slogan of the german army during the war.
Nazi ideology was inherantly religious and supernaturalist, including many elements of christianity.
I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.
|
|
I can't let science completely destroy my open mind. Science has given us a great many inventions, but at what cost? Supposedly, Aborigines in Australia can naturally divine where water is... I haven't seen this with my own eyes, but I have seen it on TV...truth? No idea, but I leave the door open to the possibility...Gimme a stick, I'll divine water unerringly. So will you. Then again, I have an unfair advantage -- as a hydrogeologist, I'm "hip" to the fact that if there's water here, there's more than likely water 10 ft. away as well... and that if I dig deep enough anywhere, I'll pretty much ALWAYS hit water eventually. It's no surprise that many stage magicians are some of the most hard-core skeptics in the world -- they know too many tricks to believe in them.
Anyway, I've always felt that "open mindedness" requires more than a bit of skepticism to work best, or it quickly becomes close-mindedness instead. "The sun is pulled by a chariot across the sky -- I'm open-minded enough to accept that as a possibility!" That's fine at first, but when someone shows you footage from the space shuttle of the Earth rotating, do you cling to your "open-minded" chariot explanation, and reject the Earth's rotation because it's "close-minded"?
Hah! great example!
I agree, a certain amount of skepticism is needed for an open mind...or more precisely "discernment."
Aborigines don't use a stick. they just walk and stop and say, "here"...I suspect they use that tiny piece of magnetite in their head to detect the EMF field of the water (or something to that effect) That was the point I was making, that with all our tools, we lose access to sense we don't use...
Lots of Soldiers supposedly have a sixth sense they develop if they live long enough...they learn to use that sense to stay alive...(again...supposedly)
I think the disagreement is whether these things are casual, or merely correlated. In other words, might not many (or all) of these things been done anyway if religion were out of the picture? I suspect some would have, and others wouldn't. Of those that would, would those outweigh the good that has been done in the name of religion? I don't know. I do know that religion doesn't have a monopoly on intolerance.
David, the fact is that many people act on those beliefs.The results are often pretty horrific or damaging to entire societies.
Mass murder.
Justification of slavery.
perversion of scientific knowledge.
I really don't care what anyone believes they know about the universe, so long as they don't use that belief to justify blowing people up, or retard the learning of thosands of children.
It may not have a monopoly, but even a fleeting glance at world history shows it is certainly a major share holder.
All of these things can be done without religion, they would be equally wrong in those cases, but there are certainly cases of both murder where religion is a major contributative factor.
In the case of attempts to prevent the teaching of science, there are a huge number of occations when this can be laid directly at the feet of religion.
I personally would rather people didn't take shelter in a state which is effectively indistinguishable from delusion, but they are free to, provided they don't act upon those beliefs that effect other.You and me both, but we'd both do well to remember that some people on the other side feel the same way about us. :)
I find it difficult to forget ;)
The thing is, that i will only ever argue. If religions which to say i should not expose their members to arguments as to why their is porbably no god, then they should equally do all they can to ensure that individual members of their faith do not prostlotise.
|
|
It might be a mistake to say this but... I really do believe that non-Christians will go to hell. Christians here being defined as those who are born again, and believe in Jesus Christ as they're savior. I don't hate non Christians, exactly the opposite. But I believe in the truth of God's word and try to live my life according to that. And the Bible says that everyone has sinned, the wages of sin are death and the only way to avoid this is to except Jesus's gift of eternal ife, ect. I don't want people to go to hell, and thus try to share my faith as I am doing now. But no matter how earnestly I do so, it's not that easy. There are people, like bugleyman who just don't see things like I do and thus, not just will not, but in a sense cannot choose to become a Christian.
There are two different worldviews involved. I believe in the Bible, but others have a secular worldview. I not a Christian because I just want the Bible to be true. I've looked over the evidence and believe that what the Bible says is true. In fact, I see such things as miracles occurring, healings, visions, people being risen from the dead. How do you explain someone saying "be healed," and then it actually happening scientifically? I don't believe you can. Only God can do that. But other people see it differently, offering explanations. Then I look at that and say, "What? That's ridiculous." And someones going to say that my claims of miracles are equally ridiculous. And then we discuss it back and forth for a while, but can't come to an agreement. Because we see things from two completely different perspectives. I once believed that religious belief was absurd, but then something happened that made me look at things differently. And now I believe that much of what scientists believe is wrong, and that they're beliefs come from they're own biases, just as some believe about Christians. So, I urge you to never stop questioning you're beliefs. You may through doing so reaffirm them, or you may find them in error.
Well, I think that's all I...
Again no offense intended but your "faith healing" is actually scientifically analyzed there is something called Psychosomatic response. The term means a physical response to a mental or emotional condition. Prime example is a hypocondriac someone who constantly BELIEVES they are sick and as a result they become sick. The reverse is also true if someone believes they will get better often times they do. For example those cancer patients who believe they will get better have a much higher chance of survival. So my response to you is that if it is miraculous how come not everyone who prays for healing gets it? Just like not everyone who believes they will recover do.
|
|
David, the fact is that many people act on those beliefs.
The results are often pretty horrific or damaging to entire societies.
Mass murder.
Justification of slavery.
perversion of scientific knowledge.
These same things occurred under Nazi Germany, which wasn't exactly a God-fearing society. Quit blaming human nature on religion.
Mmm... yeah, nazi germany was religious. The majority of germans involved in the war, bringing hitler to power and with membership of the nazi power where christians.
Gott mit uns, or god with us, was the slogan of the german army during the war.
Nazi ideology was inherantly religious and supernaturalist, including many elements of christianity.
I am not blaming human nature on religion, i am simply stating that religion allows men to do evil things and feel like they are good things. I know of no example where atheism has done the same.
And very centered on ancient artifacts like the Spear of Destiny...which after the Americans recaptured it, I think Hitler was dead 4 days later...
Aborigines don't use a stick. they just walk and stop and say, "here"...I suspect they use that tiny piece of magnetite in their head to detect the EMF field of the water
Pigeons actually do precipitate bits of magnitite in their skulls, adjacent to the visual cortex. They can certainly sense the Earth's magnetic field, and might even be able to see it -- how cool is that!
Lots of Soldiers supposedly have a sixth sense they develop if they live long enough...they learn to use that sense to stay alive...(again...supposedly)
I used to have a "sixth sense" that told me when to move my head, because I was about to get hit from behind. Then one day I realized that I was simply feeling the movement of air currents. I was mildly bummed that I wasn't actually psychic, but overall just glad that it worked.
Too many other similar examples have made me stop looking for magic as an explanation for things, and start looking for it a lot more in my appreciation of those things instead.
These same things occurred under Nazi Germany, which wasn't exactly a God-fearing society. Quit blaming human nature on religion.
Actually, Nazi Germany was quite religious. Hitler went out of his way to drape himself in Christian language and imagery. His paramount ideological foe was godless Communism. Just like in the previous world war, German soldiers marched into battle with the slogan God is With Us on their buckles.
The chief Nazi innovations in anti-semitism had nothing to do with their being anti-religious (If they were, they had a damned funny way of showing it what with all the privileges they granted to the Pope and his church in the Concordat, which is still law today.) and everything to do with organization. Everything but the scale of the undertaking came right out of Christian Europe's past, and not all of it that distant.
I'm not saying that this makes all Christians culpable for the Holocaust. That's absurd. But to claim that Nazi Germany was somehow a secularist regime is equally absurd.
|
|
I've looked over the evidence and believe that what the Bible says is true. How do you explain someone saying "be healed," and then it actually happening scientifically? I don't believe you can.I had no scientific explanation for nuclear power, either, until I learned how it worked...
Yup, which Is why I have hope science will eventually work out everything...it's a matter of figuring out how to perceive what you're looking for...
suspect there are tiny things on your skin making you sick...great...develop a tool to find it.
develop a tool to look beyond the moon...
develop a tool to see beyond the veil, find those ghosts...
what amazes me is the ostracism that can occur in the scientific world if you don't tow the company line, if you believe in something that isn't provable RIGHT NOW! If you are on the fringe...
since a lot of science is based upon unproven theory...
(oh great I just ruined ANY chance at entering the science community)
Just remember Troy was a myth til a crazy Archaeologist bull-dozed it back into existence...
Just cuz we haven't explained it YET doesn't mean people who believe in it are necessarily crazy...they might be, but maybe that's what gives them the insight?
=D
since a lot of science is based upon unproven theory...
Don't get me started again on one of my infamous page-long rants about how EVERYTHING is "unproven," and how a "theory" is completely different from a "hypothesis" (which seems to be the word you were looking for)...
|
|
Aborigines don't use a stick. they just walk and stop and say, "here"...I suspect they use that tiny piece of magnetite in their head to detect the EMF field of the waterPigeons actually do precipitate bits of magnitite in their skulls, adjacent to the visual cortex. They can certainly sense the Earth's magnetic field, and might even be able to see it -- how cool is that!
Lots of Soldiers supposedly have a sixth sense they develop if they live long enough...they learn to use that sense to stay alive...(again...supposedly)I used to have a "sixth sense" that told me when to move my head, because I was about to get hit from behind. Then one day I realized that I was feeling the movement of air currents with the hairs on the back of my head. I was mildly bummed that I wasn't actually psychic, but overall just glad that it worked.
Too many other similar examples have made me stop looking for magic as an explanation for things, and start looking for it a lot more in my appreciation of those things instead.
Beyond that, there's that weak magnetic field that surrounds you...and when other things fields interact with yours, you can definitely feel it...I'm pretty sure not all those times you had that sense, it was the wind current...
(we're 75% water, water create fields as it moves, and our body is constantly moving a water based substance (with iron in it) around our body, in circles...)
There are two different worldviews involved. I believe in the Bible, but others have a secular worldview. I not a Christian because I just want the Bible to be true. I've looked over the evidence and believe that what the Bible says is true. In fact, I see such things as miracles occurring, healings, visions, people being risen from the dead. How do you explain someone saying "be healed," and then it actually happening scientifically? I don't believe you can. Only God can do that. But other people see it differently, offering explanations. Then I look at that and say, "What? That's ridiculous." And someones going to say that my claims of miracles are equally ridiculous. And then we discuss it back and forth for a while, but can't come to an agreement. Because we see things from two completely different perspectives. I once believed that religious belief was absurd, but then something happened that made me look at things differently. And now I believe that much of what scientists believe is wrong, and that they're beliefs come from they're own biases, just as some believe about Christians. So, I urge you to never stop questioning you're beliefs. You may through doing so reaffirm them, or you may find them in error.Well, I think that's all I...
Well, how do you know that these miricles occured at all? You have nothing more than a document that claims it occured. That is not evidence in and of itself, especially as that document is not internally consistant, has been translated many times, with only a moderate degree of accuracy and is not contempery with the events it discribes.
[sidetrack]kirth: You still think that individuals should always be free to make decisions for themselves on matters relating to complex issues like science and economics, even when we are 'still' getting comments like 'unproven theory' ;).
These guys make my argument for me :P[/sidetrack]
|
|
Everyone should be able to make their own decisions, unless they're mentally unfit...
My apologies, Theories are derived from scientific data compiled while gathering data for a hypothesis...
HAH! and don't get me started on economics...this economy almost ruined me last year...luckily I saw it coming and had just enough to get me through while I was unemployed for a third of the year...
edit: (typoed- corrected in italics)
|
|
Okay, since someone brought up Nazi Germany, I would like to clear up some mythconceptions. Religious people point to Nazi Germany and say it was athiest. Athiests point to Nazi Germany and say it was religious. The truth is that it was both.
Hitler and the majority of the leading Nazis were decidedly anti-religious. This is established by their private writings and many speeches that they gave. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that Nazi ideology and Christianity were incompatable. However, he also knew that the majority of Germans were religious people and so he used religious iconography to draw the German people in.
However, after Hitler came to power, he established three policies in dealing with the German churches. The first was to try and incorporate all the churches into a single unified German Church. The second was to create a nature cult to try and draw Germans away from Christianity, and a campaign of intimidation and terrorism against churches which did not toe the line.
Hitler knew that abolishing religion altogether in Germany, as many of his associates were pushing for, would lead to widespread rebellion in Germany. Instead he favored , and ultimately took, a middle of the road approach in which he slowly chipped away at the power and public image of the churches while appearing to co-operate with them. However, as the Nazis grew more popular, Hitler became more daring. By 1937 over 700 ministers had been arrested, many of them being sent to Buchenwald and Dachau. By the end of the war, nearly 17,000 priests and ministers had been sent to the camps.
So, Nazi Germany presents an interesting challenge for historians, particularly religious historians. It was a deeply religious nation that willingly openned it's arms to athiest leaders who then turned around and used the symbols and language of religion to inexorably drive the nation towards athiesm. Therefore, when all is said and done, both sides that have been expressed here are acurate. Much of the actions of the Nazis were instigated by by athiests who then turned around and used religion to achieve their goals.
I'm teaching a summer school class on Nazi Germany. That's how I know this stuff. My source is Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History 4th Edition.
|
|
These same things occurred under Nazi Germany, which wasn't exactly a God-fearing society. Quit blaming human nature on religion.Actually, Nazi Germany was quite religious. Hitler went out of his way to drape himself in Christian language and imagery. His paramount ideological foe was godless Communism. Just like in the previous world war, German soldiers marched into battle with the slogan God is With Us on their buckles.
Hitler actually refered to Christianity as the bastard offspring of Bolshivism and Jewry in private, according to Goebbels.
It's true about Nazi germany
"I believe that I am in the will of the almighty creator to defend against the Jew and his predations" -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf
We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."- Adolph Hitler
What Hitler had to say in his rise to power(and get people's support) and what he really felt are two different things. Martin Bormann, Hitler's private secretary, said this of Christianity "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable" In 1942 he also declared in a confidential memo to Gauleiters that the Christian Churches "must absolutely and finally be broken." He believed Nazism, based as it was on a 'scientific' world-view, to be completely incompatible with Christianity.
Another statement made by Martin Boorman. Spoiler due to length
When we [National Socialists] speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest."
Another statement made by Martin Boorman. Spoiler due to length
** spoiler omitted **
That's deism or even pantheism, not atheism.
Well, how do you know that these miricles occured at all? You have nothing more than a document that claims it occured. That is not evidence in and of itself, especially as that document is not internally consistant, has been translated many times, with only a moderate degree of accuracy and is not contempery with the events it discribes.
You misunderstand. I'm talking about miracles happening in modern times.
As for the idea of psychosomatic responses. Well, that could explain some of the stuff I'm talking about, but I really doubt that a person could recover from cancer, or get over some chronic condition just from his own thoughts. And then there's people who have died, like brain dead, for hours and still come back. This is one of the things I was talking about, a scientific person might look at this and try to find some scientific reason for it. But a religious person like myself might look at that explanation and say it's complete BS. Two completely different viewpoints. It's very hard to reconcile these two points of view. We can argue about details all we want it won't change the fact that we're looking at the problem two completely different ways. Scientist have a theory that explains why they believe it happens based on what they've observed. But they're perception is colored by they're own beliefs. They don't want to believe that miracles exist, so they may deceive themselves. In this case the devil probably helps too. On the other hand, it could be that I and other Christians are the ones who are deceiving themselves. Ultimately there's one truth, at least one of us is wrong. But if religion can be a delusion so can science.
My source is Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History 4th Edition.
Well, my source is 3.5 Edition, which is better -- it still has gnomes, and Hitler is a devil in it, not a demon!
(Hey, if we've stooped to talking Nazis, then edition wars must be fair game...)
This is one of the things I was talking about, a scientific person might look at this and try to find some scientific reason for it. But a religious person like myself might look at that explanation and say it's complete BS. Two completely different viewpoints.
The only problem I see with that logic is that one person bases their viewpoint based on careful study of the issue at hand, whereas the other simply calls "B.S.," sight unseen, without troubling to understand the first person's explanations.
Those who have never studied Scripture have absolutely no business bashing Christianity.
Those who have never studied science have absolutely no business bashing scientific theories (and no, that watered-down crap taught to us in high school by well-meaning education majors is NOT science, in most cases).
|
A lot of people believe in the same force...they just call it different things. I kind of see "prayer" "positive thought" "magic" etc as all just altering reality through the conscious...
"Outrageous claims require excessive proof." a belief of science.
Until everything is explained beyond theory, I can't let science completely destroy my open mind. Science has given us a great many inventions, but at what cost? Supposedly, Aborigines in Australia can naturally divine where water is... I haven't seen this with my own eyes, but I have seen it on TV...truth? No idea, but I leave the door open to the possibility...
Just cuz we haven't explained it YET doesn't mean people who believe in it are necessarily crazy...they might be, but maybe that's what gives them the insight?
=D
Well said Xaaon.
|
|
Which one should I "choose" to believe?Which one fits you best? There you go.
I was raised to believe in God, but it never really felt right to me, and now I'm a proud Wicca.Great for you (really). But my point is, the evidence is there, or it isn't. I can't "choose" to be Christian, or Wiccan, etc., because I'd still be aware that the data simply don't support the dogma. I can't will myself to believe something, and I can't decide to stop thinking critically. Which one "fits me" isn't criteria for discerning the truth.
It appears you have made your choice then, doesn't it? ;)
Hitler and the majority of the leading Nazis were decidedly anti-religious. This is established by their private writings and many speeches that they gave. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that Nazi ideology and Christianity were incompatable. However, he also knew that the majority of Germans were religious people and so he used religious iconography to draw the German people in.
Well let's look at some actual quotes from Mein Kampf:
"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time."
"Indeed, nearly all attempts to exterminate a doctrine and its organizational expression, by force without spiritual foundation, are doomed to failure, and not seldom end with the exact opposite of the desired result..."
"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain."
"Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image."
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."
"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."
"While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply so their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."
"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."
"The attack against dogmas as such, therefore, strongly resembles the struggle against the general legal foundations of a state, and , as the latter would end in a total anarchy of the state, the former would end in a worthless religious nihilism."
"Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."
"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
"No more than a famous master can be replaced and another take over the completion of the half-finished painting he has left behind can the great poet and thinker, the great statesman and the great soldier, be replaced. For their activity lies always in the province of art. It is not mechanically trained but inborn by God's grace."
"A man who knows a thing, who is aware of a given danger, and sees the possibility of a remedy with his own eyes, has the duty and obligation, by God, not to work 'silently,' but to stand up before the whole public against the evil and for its cure."
"By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious-dogmatic principles-- or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles-- by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence."
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
Does this sound like an anti-religious man? If you want to argue that Hitler would turn against any power he couldn't co-opt, well sure. He's a megalomaniac. It's what they do. That doesn't mean they cease being Christians, though. Unless you think you are automatically expelled from the faith for having disagreements with its leadership.
But ok, what did Hitler really say about non-believers?
We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
And what about the Nazi party platform?
"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest."
If you're interested in reading a more exhaustive and broader compilation, I recommend this. For a bunch of non-Christians and anti-religious people, they sure don't act it.
One wonders how Dave's textbook, with which I am not familiar, explains all of this.
Exactly as I said before does everyone who prays get healed no, just like psychosomatic response wouldn't cover it all either. Basically what about all those people who god didn't heal when they prayed, and then they died?
You'd have to ask a theologian. From what I've seen from reading the word Id have to chalk it up to A) Christians live after death any way, so dying isn't that bad, B) If God solved everybody's problems that would make this whole exercise of life pretty pointless, one day there won't be any problems any more, but that's for God to decide. But as I said before, we have two different viewpoints, so we're going to interpret what I just said in completely different ways. It's perfectly logical to me, it probably doesn't make any sense at all to you. It's pretty useless to discuss it, because we're on two different wavelengths. If two scientists discussed something they'd have a fairly good chance of coming to an agreement on it, because they believe in same basic principles. It's different with you and me.
That's deism or even pantheism, not atheism.
Another statement made by Martin Boorman. Spoiler due to length
** spoiler omitted **
Perhaps you're right. I'll concede the point.
If two scientists discussed something they'd have a fairly good chance of coming to an agreement on it, because they believe in same basic principles.
Hardly! We argue with each other more than we argue with non-scientists... because scientists are trained and obligated to make every effort to pull down one another's theories -- that's how the wheat gets separated from the chaff.
That would be like the Pope telling all the Cardinals, "Look, every proclomation I think of making, you guys need to demand that I show you how it fits Scripture, and you need to try and come up with your own scriptural constructs that prove I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Only if my idea withstands all of that will I make the proclomation; otherwise I'll accept one of yours instead... unless I can tear that one down!"
|
|
Exactly as I said before does everyone who prays get healed no, just like psychosomatic response wouldn't cover it all either. Basically what about all those people who god didn't heal when they prayed, and then they died?You'd have to ask a theologian. From what I've seen from reading the word Id have to chalk it up to A) Christians live after death any way, so dying isn't that bad, B) If God solved everybody's problems that would make this whole exercise of life pretty pointless, one day there won't be any problems any more, but that's for God to decide. But as I said before, we have two different viewpoints, so we're going to interpret what I just said in completely different ways. It's perfectly logical to me, it probably doesn't make any sense at all to you. It's pretty useless to discuss it, because we're on two different wavelengths. If two scientists discussed something they'd have a fairly good chance of coming to an agreement on it, because they believe in same basic principles. It's different with you and me.
I can agree with that. While I don't believe as you do, I see the merit of your beliefs, I could see it as comforting, but not something I could accept myself.
The only problem I see with that logic is that one person bases their viewpoint based on careful study of the issue at hand, whereas the other simply calls "B.S.," sight unseen, without troubling to understand the first person's explanations.
Those who have never studied Scripture have absolutely no business bashing Christianity.
Those who have never studied science have absolutely no business bashing scientific theories (and no, that watered-down crap taught to us in high school by well-meaning education majors is NOT science, in most cases).
Well if a person must be fully educated to participate in these debates meaningfully... that disqualifies a large portion of the population. In fact no one knows everything. In fact, likely no one man could learn from personal experience the entirety of human knowledge in one life time. But I have studied many of these things. I have also consulted the opinions of those more learned than me. Now you say that one person bases they're viewpoint on study, but maybe they didn't. Maybe they just regurgitate what they've learned, in high school for instance. While I was discussing the religious person's response in that situation, I believe a non-religious person is just as capable of "calling B.S., sight unseen."
Edit:
Nevermind, smurf.
'Doomsday is near; die all, die merrily' -Hotspur, Henry IV, Part I, Act IV, scene II.
Hardly! We argue with each other more than we argue with non-scientists... because scientists are trained and obligated to make every effort to pull down one another's theories -- that's how the wheat gets separated from the chaff.
That would be like the Pope telling all the Cardinals, "Look, every proclomation I think of making, you guys need to demand that I show you how it fits Scripture, and you need to try and come up with your own scriptural constructs that prove I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Only if my idea withstands all of that will I make the proclomation; otherwise I'll accept one of yours instead... unless I can tear that one down!"
But I'm not talking about some new theory based on new observations and all that. I'm talking about something more basic that most scientists agree on.
I'm not really the one who should be arguing this. As I said before I'm not a theologian and I'm not very good at communicating either.
Well if a person must be fully educated to participate in these debates meaningfully... that disqualifies a large portion of the population.
I agree, it does. No one knows everything -- that's a point we can all agree on. But I'll take it a step further: a great many people know absolutely nothing about some topics, and therefore do not have any idea what they're discussing.
|
|
Hardly! We argue with each other more than we argue with non-scientists... because scientists are trained and obligated to make every effort to pull down one another's theories -- that's how the wheat gets separated from the chaff.
That would be like the Pope telling all the Cardinals, "Look, every proclomation I think of making, you guys need to demand that I show you how it fits Scripture, and you need to try and come up with your own scriptural constructs that prove I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Only if my idea withstands all of that will I make the proclomation; otherwise I'll accept one of yours instead... unless I can tear that one down!"
But I'm not talking about some new theory based on new observations and all that. I'm talking about something more basic that most scientists agree on.
I'm not really the one who should be arguing this. As I said before I'm not a theologian and I'm not very good at communicating either.
Your communication skills seem fine, and as for the not knowing, well thats what healthy debate is for, to learn or to inspire you to learn.
But I'm not talking about some new theory based on new observations and all that. I'm talking about something more basic that most scientists agree on.
Everything that scientists seem to agree on today was once a new theory that most of them were trying to tear down. Only after withstanding decades of concentrated attempts to discredit it in any way possible will a new theory gain any kind of general acceptance. That applies to even something as basic as gravity -- and even then, Einstein was able to make us all seriously revisit the basics.
|
|
Well if a person must be fully educated to participate in these debates meaningfully... that disqualifies a large portion of the population.I agree, it does. No one knows everything -- that's a point we can all agree on. But I'll take it a step further: a great many people know absolutely nothing about some topics, and therefore do not have any idea what they're discussing.
LOL I know a little science with my masters in Psychology, and I am married to a PHD recipient in Biology, yet I still find things in my field everyday I didn't know before. Frankly by those standards I'm not qualified to debate either.
LOL I know a little science with my masters in Psychology, and I am married to a PHD recipient in Biology, yet I still find things in my field everyday I didn't know before. Frankly by those standards I'm not qualified to debate either.
You'll never catch me trying to tell a plumber how a septic system works, or tell a mathemetition how to approximate an infinite regression. When it comes to the scientific method, though, I'm in pretty good shape -- certainly good enough to address what are painfully common misconceptions about it.
Oh I don't doubt you can, but the purpose of debate is to help educate others (if they're willing to learn) which is why I personally wouldn't disqualify others from a debate. If something is said and it is blatently wrong then I expect others to correct it with sources sited like they have been.
I'll be the first to admit that I get a little overly huffy about the overwhelmingly prevailent attitude that "everyone knows as much about everything as everyone else" -- that used car salesmen are somehow on even footing with astrophysists, when it comes to discussing quasars, and that their opinions are just as likely to be correct. That's not a comment on these boards in particular, by the way, but on people in general.
I'll be the first to admit that I get a little overly huffy about the overwhelmingly prevailent attitude that "everyone knows as much about everything as everyone else" -- that used car salesmen are somehow on even footing with astrophysists, when it comes to discussing quasars, and that their opinions are just as likely to be correct. That's not a comment on these boards in particular, by the way, but on people in general.
You are not alone. This is a factor in almost every argument of substance I've ever been involved in.