I have no doubt that Hitler wanted to seem Christian, but actions speak louder than words. But, in case that's not enough, here's some words too: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews." Now there we have the No True Scotsman. No Christian ever thinks any other Christian is "true" if they've given Christianity bad press. Ridiculous. You've no doubt sinned at some point but you think you're still Christian. So, what if Hitler asked for forgiveness for all his sins in the manner you deem most "correct"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_HitlerHitler was raised Catholic. In his book <i>Mein Kampf</i> and in public speeches he made statements affirming a belief in Christianity. He called the purge of Jews "positive Christianity." While there is debate over his actual private feelings about the faith, he was a publicly practicing Christian. There exists no known evidence that Hitler was an atheist or agnostic. Again: evidence he was Christian; no evidence he was otherwise. Hitler said: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." The Reichskonkordat was a treaty signed on 20 July 1933 between the Holy See (Catholic Church) and Nazi Germany, guaranteeing the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired dictatorial powers, and placing constraints on Catholic critics of the regime, leading to a muted response by the Church to Nazi policies. Yes, the Catholic Church colluded with Nazis. |
|
|
|
I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day.
If you were a Taoist, channeling, divining, and manifesting (no idea what OOB is), then you were never an atheist. You simply exchanged one brand of bullshit for another. Not how I see it, but fair enough, you kinda had to be there. I'm confident that if I could write a long enough book I could demonstrate just how seemingly logical of a progression it was. That stuff is a lie, but also just real enough to be incredibly dangerous. You're still "there," in the midst of more lies. When you talk of those other beliefs you are describing your current one. |
|
|
|
That said, I do feel like there is a movement towards Christianity being less accepted, or popular, in our society than it used to be. This is my own perception of course.
Christianity is on the decline in the U.S. It is still disproportionally high, however. You should expect a bumpy ride down since the U.S. is @75% Christian and Europe is something like @13% (depending on types, yadda). It is expected as America matures that fundamentalism in particular will subside to European levels. It is still growing I believe in Africa and I think China of all places, last I looked. I think the Chinese Christian rise is tied to the "Christian materialism" movement in the U.S. which comes to countries of wealth. It is just cherry picking the bible of course; another branch that chooses to ignore certain bible teachings over others. |
|
|
|
Rejecting god, and then coming to realize that it's all nothing but a fairy tale was the best thing that has ever happened to me, and I have been happy ever since!
Congrats on releasing yourself from the shackles of religion! |
|
|
|
You seem very angry with Christians and at God for some reason.
For an atheist, being "angry at god" is like being angry at Voldemort. |
|
|
|
I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day.
If you were a Taoist, channeling, divining, and manifesting (no idea what OOB is), then you were never an atheist. You simply exchanged one brand of bullshit for another. I smiled at this but it's probably a No True Scotsman fallacy. I would rather say he wasn't a skeptic. |
|
|
|
I'm confused. You're describing relative morality, where sometimes murder is OK. I'm looking for your examples of absolute morality. Now you're just being ridiculous, of course there is a separation between murdering someone, and sentencing someone to death because they have murdered. There is a difference because murder is a relative moral. I am still awaiting your absolute moral. The whole use of the word moral is a religious shell game. People use it as a weapon; those with morals know what is right and those without do not. Of course that is complete horseshit.
Your god, if he did exist, would be the most capriciously violent and vengeful being in the universe yet somehow he's great to worship because "might makes right" for you, whether the lich you worship is actually "evil" or not. It doesn't matter if he's a vile bastard to you, and that is twisted. Along your line of reasoning, if inside your mythology Satan had cast God out of Heaven you'd follow Satan just as gladly, as long as people sang songs calling Satan's torture of others "love".
Meanwhile you deem atheists amoral because you believe they don't follow any of the "moral laws" in your book of rules. Again, horseshit. We don't need a book to tell us not to kill people, not to steal from others, etc. Morals are not created by those using the moral system (first point), God is still good(second point), and empathy is not a valid source of morality(third point). I suppose I could take three paragraphs to say what I just said, but that would be a waste of space. What is a waste is your bothering to answer as you have. Simply concede or maybe just don't answer at all. I can say red is green but that doesn't make it so. You don't provide any evidence or argument but simply state a position. That is your concession on these points. [/quote] So multiple people get together and decide what is moral? Like the German government?
They are more commonly known as "laws" but yes, bad law is created every day and governments (and their citizens) allow it to happen for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately other clan/government groups decided other "morals," other law, should prevail. The rest of your argument is "the ten commandments are bad, your morals are bad". The ten commandments are good, a 10th grade could not create a better 10 commandments, and moral relativism = utilitarianism, both are evil, an 10th grader could make a better ideology than moral relativism.
I didn't think you'd give up this easily. The Code of Hammurabi, which came well before the bible, was carved into stone to preserve it longer. You'd think a god would know that, eh? I love that people claim prophecy and omnipotence for this god and the dude can't even stop his "revelation" for a second to say, "oh yeah, before I forget, papyrus might not be a good idea to record this. Try stone." The choice of writing material is a human one,. God shows a clear preference for stone in the creation of the ten commandments. The amount of effort put forth by the Jews in their preservation of the Torah is quite incredible, stone sounds fun, until you realize the practical limitations of it. You need a good source of well hewn stone, you need enough stone to write the Torah, and finally you need more effort to record in stone than papyrus. The law of God was meant to be used by the people, and stone is not very practical. Well, I suppose I should be happy you even tried to argue your point, thin as it is. Why would the choice of writing material be any more a human choice than the words written? The argument sounds pretty arbitrary. You'd be better off just saying "faith has no need of logic" and leave it there. 18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. This is not being simply naughty, this is flat out rebellion by the child. And do not assume young child either, glutton and drunkard are listed as well. Furthermore this passage is more a protection to the child, in that the child must be taken to the elders of the city to determine whether of not the child's rebellion deserve death, I would imagine this was not a common occurrence. This is not a commandment to stone all rebellious children. Due to the patriarchal system, this stops the parents from simply stoning the child. Well, I must say I wasn't expecting you to condone child abuse. One would think I'd know better by now. At least your values can serve as a warning to others to steer a wide course around religion. Slavery Slavery in the context of the bible is very widely misunderstood. First, when you say slavery, everyone get's the image of the enslavement of the Africans, however man-stealing in the bible is clearly punishable by death. I imagine this would have been a counter-cultural thing to say. Exodus 20:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. Slavery was allowable in the bible, such as in the repayment of debts or captives in war. However all slaves were granted freedom in the year of jubilee, every 49 or 50 years (at regular intervals of time, if a slave was captured 10 years from the year of jubilee, they were granted freedom 10 years later). Furthermore, all hebrew slave were to be let free 7 years after their enslavement. What seems to be misunderstood is that slavery is a bad idea but your god condones it. Period. In what context is slavery good? If it was "right" back then and "wrong" now then it is another example or moral relativism, or that your god was wrong, take your pick. I don't know if I'll ever understand when christians answer the question of slavery nearly the same every time by saying, "slavery is wrong but god did allow it for 10 or 20 or maybe 50 years per slave anyway." It's as if you don't even listen to yourself speak. I'd rather hear a christian say, "yeah, slavery is a pretty big fuck up in the bible. What can I say? I believe in god but I also believe he wasn't perfect, or maybe he was and the bible was just a manmade guideline for life in the medieval world." The strict adherence to such absurd illogic as perfection simply turns an educated populace away from your cause, and the world's populace is experiencing a massive education boost with access to the internet. Christians also never point out "the catches" with releasing slaves, like one's own daughter given to slavery couldn't be released, or if a slave had a family they weren't released. |
|
|
|
No, the way it was done in the OT was that if someone had a message with a prophecy from God to declare, they would stand before the elders of that time and deliver it. The scribes would record and notarize it. That way, if it came true, it would be on the record who said it, and further attention would be paid to the other things they said. There was extremely little tolerance for false prophets, so such was rarely attempted. This is why we have the books of the prophets.
This sounds like it was more in line with mining bitcoins. If a "prophet" went on a lucky streak with his guesses then earned more street cred. I like how you say "little tolerance for false prophets" yet according to you there was an entire system setup to record delusional rants. "Now serving Prophet #1,036,666. Step up and state your vision, please." What an interesting 9 to 5 that must have been for the scribe. |
|
|
|
I have read/studied the bible from cover to cover and believe in it firmly...
So you believe in unicorns and a flood that we understand through science couldn't possibly have happened as described? You believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys? You believe females were formed form dirt? You believe Lot's wife suddenly turned into a pillar of salt? You believe in fire-breathing animals? You believe a human lived inside a fish for 3 days at sea? Firmly? I hope you don't mind if I disregard whatever else you may firmly believe in... |
|
|
|
^^^ this. Or as Ravi Zacharius once asked of moral relativism: Is anything "Wrong?"
There is no good versus evil, no right versus wrong, except as we perceive it within whatever social structures we accept. Was it OK for your god to rape the 13 year old, Mary, to give birth to himself? Apparently during that time period, it was condoned. Today it is not, even though this is one of the foundation events for a religion that espouses "absolute morals". |
|
|
|
How does one know what truth really is?
A good start would be to ignore any religious text except the rule that is at the heart of them all, to treat others the way you want to be treated. From there, understand that through science most truths of our shared reality can be measured. Or disregard that and just repeat, "Gawd musta dun did it!" any time you have trouble understanding something. We are in a world that is getting to a point where there is almost no belief in absolute truth at all. Everything is becoming more relative.
Can you imagine why that may be the case, knowing that human understanding of the universe continually increases? I personally believe in absolute truth and that my foundation is the Bible.
The universe doesn't care what you believe. You either are seeking measurable truths about it or chalking it up to magic. Also, it is wrong to try to shelter myself, or my children, from things that are not wholesome?
If you're going to keep unwholesome things away from children be sure to keep the bible ata safe distance. It's filled with wanton violence, cruelty, war, dismemberment, rape and sodomy. You may want to let them turn 18 before letting them out of their cages, just to be safe. |
|
|
|
Or, "you err, knowing not the scriptures, nor the power of God."
Ah, the ever-faithful and often used christian fallback. "You don't understand the bible" or "You're using the wrong translation". It covers a whole lot of delusion for you without you needing to fire nary a brain cell. Atheists understand your bible and your god delusion. It is why we are atheists, and why we need to constantly inform christians of the passages in their own book of rules. "Atheists: Teaching Christians The Bible, Since 325AD" |
|
|
|
Just like one can believe in Christ, but not obey him. We see a lot of that. To paraphrase: "Even Satan and his demons believe, and they tremble."
Since your god has not yet destroyed your boogeyman, he either cannot or doesn't want to, or theoretically plans quite publicly to do so when Revelation says he will. There is no reason for satan to fear anything until the well-publicized event takes place. Satan, if he existed, would be perceptive enough to understand this, as should most anyone of even average intelligence. There is no trembling in hell, only non-stop keg parties and great rock concerts. |
|
|
|
bible says that in the last of times we will live in a world domined by just one "country" that will be the New World Order, they will use things like the micro chip in your hand or your head for use medical supply "the mark of the beast" and we will have just one wolrd wide currency.
Believe what you want.
The bible also says: "11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." Deuteronomy 25:11-12 This medieval goat herder's social primer has no place in the modern world. It served a purpose for a time but is now worthless. Move on. |
|
|
|
Where does our sense of compassion come from?
Evolved social empathy. Also, I use the Bible as my moral compass as well when my own selfish desires get in the way of what really is the right thing to do.
I don't want it to appear I'm picking on you. I'm just replying to what you post. However, you most certainly do NOT use the bible as a moral compass. It plainly tells you not to seek wealth, yet you've admitted to investing in bitcoin to make money. I hope you make a killing, but your god doesn't. I'm just curious why you say one thing and do another. It seems to be a common trait among the religious, who also claim their book of rules is "absolute". Curious, indeed. The Bible says "There is a way that seems right to a man but it leads to death." That is why I need to read the Bible and make sure I am not just making up my own ideas of what right an wrong are.
The bible also says not to wear clothing of mixed fabrics such as wool and linen. The bible says it is OK to sell one's own children into slavery. The bible says women who are raped must marry the rapist. Are these also incorporated into your "moral compass"? The more I listen to Him, the more compassionate I can become. The more loving I can be. The more I can care about others, regardless of their beliefs, be it atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. I don't have to agree with people that think differently than I do, but I need to love them and try to show them that God loves them too. The difficulty is that in "loving" them, I often feel a compelling sense of showing them that they are on a destructive path.
The problem of course is that religious people don't stop at simply "showing us we're on a destructive path." The next move is to legislate and the next to war over these values. Religion feigns love while seeking totalitarianism. So it is a problem for sure. How to love without offending. How to care without coming across as pushy, arrogant? Should we just let others choose their own path without doing anything at all? It seems that is what most people want us to do. "Live and let live." But is that the "moral" thing? Is that the right thing?
It is incredibly annoying to have religious proselytizing however I have more respect for those who do. If one is going to claim to live by a book of rules then one should do so, and proselytizing is advised your particular rule book. But so is wearing a cover over one's head (females only of course) - do you follow this law or ignore your god's commands here as well? |
|
|
|
Religion as well as science are based in reason. The truth stands out clearly from falsehood.
You are confused. Religion is the absence of reason. |
|
|
|
Considering all athiests are amoral, I am surprised at the many times they call God immoral.
Why do you think atheists are immoral? Since they call god immoral, it would suggest that they do understand what is moral and what is immoral, even to the point that they believe some of the actions that are attributed to god or some of his commandments are immoral. Atheists are more moral than god. This is an honest question I have had. Where do atheists get their moral compass from? Is it based on society around them? Do the laws of the land dictate what is moral? Can they change their minds if they feel like it? Society used to call many things immoral that are now called moral so is it based on the what others say is right or wrong? Or do they have a "conscience" that tells them what is right and wrong? If so, where does that conscience come from? Answered earlier in the thread. The short of it is: evolved social empathy. |
|
|
|
"Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely." - Sam Harris Or perhaps it fits in a plan that you do not see. So you've chosen #2, that your god is evil. And yet you still follow him. Nice. The ten commandments are the foundation of biblical law and morals, God is not bound by his laws. However, God is also a good God, thus all the laws he created are generally followed by him.
Well now you're just descending into fundamentalist pamphlet talk. If his laws are what make morality and he doesn't follow them, then he is immoral. You're just gonna state "god is good" while all evidence points to the contrary? This is just about checkmate it seems. e.g. Thou shalt not murder, athiests will contend that God has "murdered" people, however there is a separation between rightfully sentencing people to death, and a person deciding they want to kill somone.
I'm confused. You're describing relative morality, where sometimes murder is OK. I'm looking for your examples of absolute morality. Considering all athiests are amoral, I am surprised at the many times they call God immoral. It's quite obvious God would be above the law, God did not create the law for himself, but rather for the human race.
The whole use of the word moral is a religious shell game. People use it as a weapon; those with morals know what is right and those without do not. Of course that is complete horseshit. Your god, if he did exist, would be the most capriciously violent and vengeful being in the universe yet somehow he's great to worship because "might makes right" for you, whether the lich you worship is actually "evil" or not. It doesn't matter if he's a vile bastard to you, and that is twisted. Along your line of reasoning, if inside your mythology Satan had cast God out of Heaven you'd follow Satan just as gladly, as long as people sang songs calling Satan's torture of others "love". Meanwhile you deem atheists amoral because you believe they don't follow any of the "moral laws" in your book of rules. Again, horseshit. We don't need a book to tell us not to kill people, not to steal from others, etc. I criticize him based on my rational, evolved, relative morals. Go on then, Hitler thought he was saving the human race by removing the scourge of Judaism. I was trying to avoid Godwin's law however you've opened the can of worms, not me. Your argument concerning the "danger" of relative moralism with regard to Hitler falls flat. The point of relative morals is NOT "whatever each individual finds right is A-OK", it is that while we each individually need to determine right from wrong in our own loves (personal morals), these will continually be evaluated and adjusted against family (clan) morals, social, government and worldwide morals. And all of these morals continue to evolve worldwide as the various groups employ empathy to hopefully understand one another, groups and cultures. What we don't need is religion imposing arbitrary and piss-poor "morals" on that system of growth. I mean, your god had the chance to really make the world a wonderful place and his first commandment is the jealous, "don't worship anybody but me, or else!" Wow... swing and a miss. Thankfully he followed it up with the ultra-important "no graven images" commandment. Ouch. Strike two. And the humiliating strike out comes with the third waste of commandment, "don't you dare call me names." By the time he gets to anything of importance we're already not listening to this turkey. As I said earlier, any 10th grader could come up with a better list of commandments, and her list could hardly be less loving and righteous no matter what was on it. If you make one copy of anything, I suspect it would not last very long at all.
The Code of Hammurabi, which came well before the bible, was carved into stone to preserve it longer. You'd think a god would know that, eh? I love that people claim prophecy and omnipotence for this god and the dude can't even stop his "revelation" for a second to say, "oh yeah, before I forget, papyrus might not be a good idea to record this. Try stone." Commanding death of gays among many other arbitrary groups: Such is the moral law, but it certainly not to be executed by random people. There's just no way around it -- anyone who thinks 2 consenting adults pile driving the Hershey highway requires death is quite simply a big juicy turd of a human. It's a completely irrational belief, has zero to do with right or wrong, and is miles away from anything worthy of such a punishment. But what more can we expect from the most immoral book on the planet? Stoning naughty kids (Deuteronomy 21:18): The bible does not condone stoning "naughty kids". 18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
