Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-23-2009, 06:38 PM #22
TPB_Bubbles
Veritas Vos Liberabit
 
TPB_Bubbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: British Columbia
This is the stupidest question I've ever heard.


It's because when you go to the North Pole, there is no Santa's Workshop. Not only that, but technically there are two North Poles so Santa would have to be in two places at one time, and therefore be omnipotent, and therefore be God. And if Santa is God, why the **** would he be living at the North Pole? It's cold there...
__________________
"It's better to be aware of one's ignorance than to go on believing dubious and unjustified ideas." - Socrates

"Upstream, small redirectons of flow, downstream everything shifts."
TPB_Bubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 06-23-2009, 06:53 PM #23
ISmokeIce
Postmodern Sophist
 
ISmokeIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock View Post
Just like there is more than one definition for atheism, I suspect there is more than one definition for antitheism.

I've seen the word used to distinguish atheists who affirmatively believe there is no God from atheists who simply don't believe in a God.
Strong atheism and weak atheism seem like better words for that. Strong and anti have very distinct implications. But I won't argue that the words can't be used differently depending on context.
__________________
"No passion is stronger in the breast of man than the desire to make others believe as he believes...It is not the love of truth, but desire to prevail that sets quarter against quarter and makes parish desire the downfall of parish. Each seeks peace of mind and subserviency rather than the triumph of truth and exaltation of virtue-- But these moralities belong, and should be left to the historian, since they are as dull as ditch water" - Orlando: A Biography
ISmokeIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 07:00 PM #24
DyePaintballer2k11
Greek, I am it
 
DyePaintballer2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Terrain eval, standby
DyePaintballer2k11 helped look for balloons
DyePaintballer2k11 has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
DyePaintballer2k11 has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
DyePaintballer2k11 has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel. View Post
I challenge anyone to find a research study with evidence that disproves santa.
I guarantee that no one has ever gone to the north pole and thoroughly searched for Santa claus. And I mean not just looking around. He could be hiding under the ice. or he could even live in a different dimension of space and time. think about it?
Ask your parents. Did you ever get a present neither of them bought?

Next one please, Eintstein.
__________________
ST GDT Crew: OVER 10,000

USAF
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine.
And the machine is bleeding to death.
DyePaintballer2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 07:33 PM #25
Spock
Live Long and Bluster
 
Spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE PA
Spock is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyePaintballer2k11 View Post
Ask your parents. Did you ever get a present neither of them bought?
How do we know they're not just part of a huge government coverup? Where's yesme when we need him?

Quote:
Next one please, Eintstein.
Oh, the ironing.
Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 08:07 PM #26
JRunior
 
 
JRunior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamboPreacher View Post
wow - exactly what I think of many anti-theists (weighing the evidences differently)! kewl.
Oh Rambo! I think someone with as much knowledge about the Bible as yourself has to admit that the empirical evidence for GOD is non existent (By definition alone - Can't test God). As far as empirical data stemming from claims made in the Bible, on a scale of evidence in the eyes of empiricists it falls rather low... if it makes the scale at all).

You have your faith and that's cool. But from an empirical standpoint Christianity offers next to nothing.

Weighing the evidence differently is tough when one side accepts the Bible as divinely inspired because the first half of the book had prophecies that were fulfilled giving credibility to the second half of the book while the other side is asking "Why should we give a **** about what the first half said in the first place?".

Jr,
JRunior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 09:30 PM #27
RamboPreacher
Player not a Pro.
 
RamboPreacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Iowa
RamboPreacher is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRunior View Post
Oh Rambo! I think someone with as much knowledge about the Bible as yourself has to admit that the empirical evidence for GOD is non existent (By definition alone - Can't test God). As far as empirical data stemming from claims made in the Bible, on a scale of evidence in the eyes of empiricists it falls rather low... if it makes the scale at all).

You have your faith and that's cool. But from an empirical standpoint Christianity offers next to nothing.

Weighing the evidence differently is tough when one side accepts the Bible as divinely inspired because the first half of the book had prophecies that were fulfilled giving credibility to the second half of the book while the other side is asking "Why should we give a **** about what the first half said in the first place?".

Jr,
does empiricity preclude other "evidences"? or only evidence you interpret as empirical, and therefor valid? no, there is no proof of God, but there are evidences. many anti-religious folk choose to not weigh them, because they were raised in a way that precludes it as evidence in the first place.

this is the challenge. Yes, I believe God's Word, and I believe the OT and the NT are a whole, adn should be taken together. but to try to explain a depth of theology necessary to show that in a forum like this would mean long posts, so I choose to not make them. BTDT, and they get ignored.

I am sorry, but there is no TL;DR answers for the answer of theodicy, it is a challenge that has been an issue from the early church.

I believe that the non-believers/anti-believers/anti-religious (whatever someone wants to be referred to as without being offensive) has no "excuse", for not seeing the evidences of God (a creator?) from nature and the natural world. yes we know more about the natural world, but that doesn't preclude the evidence of a God.

they want to propose that since we know more of the natural world, that the God hypothosis is invalid and negated. I disagree. God's Word doesn't change. our finite understanding of it does. we as human kind are a growing, maturing, and yes "evolving", kind.

It is the religious that do not like change and refuse to grow, that is the challenge as well. yes, i said it. but that is only half the problem as the they-people (non-Christians, anti-blah, blah... "outsiders") that see that, generalize, stereotype and apply the broad brush stroke, making their beliefs in the weighted evidences they have as more valid; by lowering the validity of the evidences they believe they feel a need to denigrate, and make non-intelligent.

There are some Christians that change what they believe, like myself. this does not negate the validity of my claim if God's Word being truth. It means that I challenge my faith daily, and when science and God's word are at loggerheads, then I accept that I don't understand God's Word, or I don't understand that aspect of science, or BOTH.

but I do NOT believe that God's Word and Science are polar opposites, and I do not believe they are contradictory. But what difference does it make when there is another Christian, or a group of folks claiming to be Christians, that are loud and repetitive enough with their heresy (unintended, intentional ignorance) - that is what is believed by the non-believer.

as the saying goes: "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today
Is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips Then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

but as mentioned that is only HALF the problem (proclaiming "Christians"), the other half is the above atheists have already decided that Christianity is ignorant, invalid, hypocritical, etc... the truth is, in general, we are. but except for an extreme few, maybe - we don't' want to be. we aren't' that way on purpose. and when I discover that about myself, I turn away from it and make the changes in my life, as many Christians (religious) do. but that isn't seen; only the mistakes, and the generalities and broad brush strokes continue to loudly and repetitively perpetuate those mistakes.

oh well, post getting long, and probably most were lost after the first sentence or few. so it doesn't matter anyway. this is a public forum, even if minds are changed, extremely few, if any will actually admit wrong and change. we, as a human kind (yes, purposeful generality) are to egocentric.
__________________
Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
Founder of the CPPA - Christian Paintball Players Association
Member of: Christ Krew #82

"I believe, in order to understand" or "I understand in order to believe": Augustine/Anselm (paraphrase)
"Science, and especially physics is not about 'truths' - It's about forming beliefs that are less false"; Dr. S. James Gates, Jr.
RamboPreacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 09:36 PM #28
JRunior
 
 
JRunior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamboPreacher View Post
does empiricity preclude other "evidences"? or only evidence you interpret as empirical, and therefor valid? no, there is no proof of God, but there are evidences. many anti-religious folk choose to not weigh them, because they were raised in a way that precludes it as evidence in the first place.

this is the challenge. Yes, I believe God's Word, and I believe the OT and the NT are a whole, adn should be taken together. but to try to explain a depth of theology necessary to show that in a forum like this would mean long posts, so I choose to not make them. BTDT, and they get ignored.

I am sorry, but there is no TL;DR answers for the answer of theodicy, it is a challenge that has been an issue from the early church.

I believe that the non-believers/anti-believers/anti-religious (whatever someone wants to be referred to as without being offensive) has no "excuse", for not seeing the evidences of God (a creator?) from nature and the natural world. yes we know more about the natural world, but that doesn't preclude the evidence of a God.

they want to propose that since we know more of the natural world, that the God hypothosis is invalid and negated. I disagree. God's Word doesn't change. our finite understanding of it does. we as human kind are a growing, maturing, and yes "evolving", kind.

It is the religious that do not like change and refuse to grow, that is the challenge as well. yes, i said it. but that is only half the problem as the they-people (non-Christians, anti-blah, blah... "outsiders") that see that, generalize, stereotype and apply the broad brush stroke, making their beliefs in the weighted evidences they have as more valid; by lowering the validity of the evidences they believe they feel a need to denigrate, and make non-intelligent.

There are some Christians that change what they believe, like myself. this does not negate the validity of my claim if God's Word being truth. It means that I challenge my faith daily, and when science and God's word are at loggerheads, then I accept that I don't understand God's Word, or I don't understand that aspect of science, or BOTH.

but I do NOT believe that God's Word and Science are polar opposites, and I do not believe they are contradictory. But what difference does it make when there is another Christian, or a group of folks claiming to be Christians, that are loud and repetitive enough with their heresy (unintended, intentional ignorance) - that is what is believed by the non-believer.

as the saying goes: "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today
Is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips Then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

but as mentioned that is only HALF the problem (proclaiming "Christians"), the other half is the above atheists have already decided that Christianity is ignorant, invalid, hypocritical, etc... the truth is, in general, we are. but except for an extreme few, maybe - we don't' want to be. we aren't' that way on purpose. and when I discover that about myself, I turn away from it and make the changes in my life, as many Christians (religious) do. but that isn't seen; only the mistakes, and the generalities and broad brush strokes continue to loudly and repetitively perpetuate those mistakes.

oh well, post getting long, and probably most were lost after the first sentence or few. so it doesn't matter anyway. this is a public forum, even if minds are changed, extremely few, if any will actually admit wrong and change. we, as a human kind (yes, purposeful generality) are to egocentric.
Very nice post!

I'll reply shortly

Jr,
JRunior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 03:31 AM #29
Daniel.
beer
 
Daniel.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Daniel. plays in the APPA D5 division
okay, because only one person got the joke about santa...... ill explain.
children who believe in santa claus- believe basically whatever they're told and instead of questioning it, they'll ignore all evidence that contradicts their claims.(seriously....kids are punks)
Humans in respect to beliefs (God, astrology, karma etc...) are the same way, although its extremely rare to see a Christian on his belly crying in Wal-mart because mommy said he couldn't get the Jesus action figure
Daniel. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 03:32 AM #30
Daniel.
beer
 
Daniel.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Daniel. plays in the APPA D5 division
one more thing, in my town theres a christian gift store, and there is a david action figure complete with robot arm. and i seen a child crying next to it.
i lold.
then i cried because i wanted one too
Daniel. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 03:48 AM #31
I hate tv's jon dore
TV's Jon Dore is horrible
 
I hate tv's jon dore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: the radio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel. View Post
okay, because only one person got the joke about santa...... ill explain.
no need to explain. its like explaining a fart joke.
its funny to some but really devoid of any insight.
this analogy has been made MANY times.
substitute easter bunny for santa and you have another identically un funny/anti-original ( for all the anti theists out there ) joke.

to question another mans faith is rude and pointless. they have faith for whatever reason be it upbringing, past substance abuse, what have you, and they rely on it to make them feel good about themselves and their place in this life. there CAN never be any proof of god ( assuming he isnt going to show up at the UN security council meeting with a frappacino ) and there can be no proof against his existance either. ( assuming an army of atheists never find heaven, rumage through the master bedroom and discover it has been empty for eons )

seems like when it comes to the internet people find it much more difficult to accept differing beliefs. I guess anonymity brings out the unaccepting jerk in all of us ( well....most of us.........certainly me. )
__________________
TV's Jon Dore is a horrible person with a horrible television show.
my official beliefs as decided by PBNation.
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=3112908
founding member of crappy pump team for jerks
TEAM MONKEY KNIFE FIGHT
I hate tv's jon dore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:00 AM #32
wavesport001
 
 
wavesport001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The River
Quote:
does empiricity preclude other "evidences"? or only evidence you interpret as empirical, and therefor valid? no, there is no proof of God, but there are evidences. many anti-religious folk choose to not weigh them, because they were raised in a way that precludes it as evidence in the first place.
You're right. Far too many of us have been raised to think scientifically and don't put enough weight into evidences that cannot be validated scientifically.

Care to share what some of these "evidences" are?
__________________
"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong." -Thomas Jefferson

"it really doesnt matter what you say on here. if there was truly evidence, it would come from a professor, not from a member on pbnation.com." - Anonymous poster
wavesport001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:24 AM #33
Daniel.
beer
 
Daniel.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Daniel. plays in the APPA D5 division
Quote:
Originally Posted by I hate tv's jon dore View Post

to question another mans faith is rude and pointless.
Every instance of violence and hatred is due to some sort of ignorance. and what is faith other than ignorance? Mark Twain once said "Faith is believing something you know ain't true." And religious thinking stifles thought. If Galileo was religious do you think he'd want to map the stars? He wouldn't because to say so was heresy. Einstein? Throughout history any sort of advancement in the scientific community has been attacked in some way by some sort of religion. The Number 0. Evolution. Stem cells. LHC. and religions always base their morals around the social norms of the time. So it holds society back as a whole. Gay marriage, abortion, stem cells, censorship etc... Who gives a damn abotu gay marriage or the F word in music? i think there are some more important issues that require our attention.
As Voltaire said "Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities"
Daniel. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:49 AM #34
I hate tv's jon dore
TV's Jon Dore is horrible
 
I hate tv's jon dore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: the radio
it is quite popular to blame religion for all of the historys betrayals toward humanity and overlook the fact that the single greatest killer of man was communism which is strongly rooted in a complete lack of faith/religion.

stalin mao and polpot did more damage to humanity as far as total deaths per year of its existance than any single religion ever could.

I agree that horrible things have happened in the name of god ( and allah, and the branch davidians, etc. ) but even MORE horrible things have been done in the absence of faith stalin, mao, polpot, and the holocaust ( rooted in eugenics ) come to mind.

and you seem to be discounting all the good that has come from faith. mother teressa, a LARGE group of global charitable orgonizations, local homeless shelters, etc.

faith is not inherrantly evil. people are retarded. ALL people are retarded. and if a powerfull, charismatic man comes into power he will be followed without question. regardless of his faith or lack there of.

agreed that religion has stood in the way of science in the past AND in the present. however to hold moral objection to the use of aborted or stillborn fetuses is quite resonable ( I believe stem cells may be used from umbilical/placental tissue now, but this is not necissarily what the overly religious believe...they still see stem cells as directly linked to dead babies )

I dont see any problem with religion acting against abortion, or gay marriage. I may not agree, ( I AM against abortion but dont care about homo marriage ) but it is their right to hold that position.

your assumption that the negative effects religion ( faith ) have had on society out weigh the positive effects is flawed.

however this is unprovable in either way so it is a moot point. and you are free to hold whatever opinion you feel. I personally believe that a lack of faith ( not orgonized religion, just a personal spirituality ) is a detriment to society.

your linking ignorance to faith is rediculous.
stalin polpot mao and eugenics are evidence that "ignorance" ( improperly used, what you mean is a lack of respect for human life, freedom, and equality ) is not always linked t faith, and the many rligious based charitys are proof that all faith is not inherrantly evil.
__________________
TV's Jon Dore is a horrible person with a horrible television show.
my official beliefs as decided by PBNation.
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=3112908
founding member of crappy pump team for jerks
TEAM MONKEY KNIFE FIGHT
I hate tv's jon dore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 04:39 AM #35
Daniel.
beer
 
Daniel.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Daniel. plays in the APPA D5 division
im saying that a lack of logical thought causes atrocities. Religion is the best example but with the nazis it was a self-worship. They believed that their race and country was the best ever, based on no real logical thought processes. its faith, the nazi's had faith that they were the best and they didn't think about it logically.
Someone who believes in an invisible spaceman who gave birth to himself isn't too far from believing more...sinister things.
Take "God Bless America".
We as a nation have the hubris to believe that we are more worthy of God's blessings than others. Does God care about nationalities. All people are God's children. Why don't we say "God Bless Uganda" they need far more help than we do. Then Bush invades another country doing "God's work". Manifest Destiny? it boils down to nationalism which is just another form of self-worship. We think that God's on our side. But what if he's on France's side? or Chile's(most christian nation in the world, i think?). Nobody ever thinks about these things... We don't know and can't know whos "side" he's on. But because we think that God has our backs we feel free to tell the rest of the world how to live and get involved in some pretty stupid crap and now we're in horrible horrible debt. And thats just one way that religion is detrimental to everyday life. A man without religion is like a serial killer without a chainsaw...
Daniel. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 08:23 AM #36
RamboPreacher
Player not a Pro.
 
RamboPreacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Iowa
RamboPreacher is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel. View Post
im saying that a lack of logical thought causes atrocities....
exactly, but that paradigm is about people.
__________________
Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
Founder of the CPPA - Christian Paintball Players Association
Member of: Christ Krew #82

"I believe, in order to understand" or "I understand in order to believe": Augustine/Anselm (paraphrase)
"Science, and especially physics is not about 'truths' - It's about forming beliefs that are less false"; Dr. S. James Gates, Jr.
RamboPreacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 12:05 PM #37
Pwned6911
Erin Go Bragh
 
Pwned6911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northeast Ohio
Don't talk **** about Santa.
__________________
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
Pwned6911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:37 PM #38
chandler SNARF
Proud owner of the Brovo.
 
chandler SNARF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
I think staying up all night on Christmas Eve would qualify as proof. I mean, either way, the guy has to stop by and put coals or gifts in your stocking; plus, eat your cookies!
Santa sees when you're sleeping, and knows when you're awake.
__________________
My Grand Finale: Gearbag Sale like a mother****er.
chandler SNARF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:41 PM #39
chandler SNARF
Proud owner of the Brovo.
 
chandler SNARF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by I hate tv's jon dore View Post
stalin mao and polpot did more damage to humanity as far as total deaths per year of its existance than any single religion ever could.
Your point is? Stalin and Saddam Hussein both had mustaches, and Polpot and Mao were both Asian.

These men didn't do atrocities in the name of Atheism, that's ridiculous.
__________________
My Grand Finale: Gearbag Sale like a mother****er.
chandler SNARF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 01:08 AM #40
I hate tv's jon dore
TV's Jon Dore is horrible
 
I hate tv's jon dore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: the radio
Quote:
Originally Posted by chandler SNARF View Post
Your point is? Stalin and Saddam Hussein both had mustaches, and Polpot and Mao were both Asian.

These men didn't do atrocities in the name of Atheism, that's ridiculous.
stalin DID do atrocities "in the name" of atheism.
he burned churches and murdered religious leaders and followers.

hitlers campaign of extreme eugenics WAS in the name of science. in the name of developing a master race of people.

the science of eugenics is NOT defunct. it is entirely true to this day. it was not pseudo science. it is IMMORAL and horrendous to use eugenics on people...but it took the holocaust to learn this.

whats rediculous is believing that a lack of faith ( actually a faith in science ) would result in humanity destroying each other LESS than faith in any random god would.

science advances society.faith in good and evil, be that general faith or religious faith or whatever, faith guides society. faith keeps society on the pat of good while science moves us forward. without faith we have things like stalin ad eugenics, without science we have an equally bad theocracy. we need both, but just because we need science does NOT mean science is the be all end all solution to humanitys woes. science is just as corruptable as religion. to claim that religion is always bad, or that atheism has not lead to human atrocitys is absurd. just as absurd as the claims that most religious zealots make. faith and science are not mutually exclusive.


EDIT: in the name of science.......nice...ironic.
__________________
TV's Jon Dore is a horrible person with a horrible television show.
my official beliefs as decided by PBNation.
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=3112908
founding member of crappy pump team for jerks
TEAM MONKEY KNIFE FIGHT

Last edited by I hate tv's jon dore : 06-26-2009 at 01:11 AM.
I hate tv's jon dore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 07:46 AM #41
petusikluk
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
I wanna know

who are u i dont know u when u are top player like me and then can u talk with me so i talk only with pro u hear me just remember that u kurva player
petusikluk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 12:09 PM #42
JRunior
 
 
JRunior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by I hate tv's jon dore View Post
stalin DID do atrocities "in the name" of atheism.
he burned churches and murdered religious leaders and followers.

hitlers campaign of extreme eugenics WAS in the name of science. in the name of developing a master race of people.

the science of eugenics is NOT defunct. it is entirely true to this day. it was not pseudo science. it is IMMORAL and horrendous to use eugenics on people...but it took the holocaust to learn this.

whats rediculous is believing that a lack of faith ( actually a faith in science ) would result in humanity destroying each other LESS than faith in any random god would.

science advances society.faith in good and evil, be that general faith or religious faith or whatever, faith guides society. faith keeps society on the pat of good while science moves us forward. without faith we have things like stalin ad eugenics, without science we have an equally bad theocracy. we need both, but just because we need science does NOT mean science is the be all end all solution to humanitys woes. science is just as corruptable as religion. to claim that religion is always bad, or that atheism has not lead to human atrocitys is absurd. just as absurd as the claims that most religious zealots make. faith and science are not mutually exclusive.


EDIT: in the name of science.......nice...ironic.
Firstly, when you state "In the name of Atheism" you don't seem to realize how absurd that sounds. How can someone do anything in the name of term that's used to describe a lack of belief. It's the same as going "In the name of those who do not believe in Santa Clause". To add, "In the name of Atheism" would also include every religious person as well as they too are atheists to a number of other Gods except the one they choose to follow. It's a statement that's so 'carte blance' that it's irrelevant.

Study political theory some more and you'll understand that Stalin was so destructive (Communism in general) against religion because the political philosophy requires that the individual worships only the state. God is replaced by the state, you work for the state, you love the state, die for the state. You become the altruist in the name of the state as opposed to Jesus/Muhammad etc. Just like thousands of wars before, you replace/incorporate your God into the lands you conquer.

Hitler's eugenics was based on a completely incorrect understanding of science. Science is the entity that was able to prove that races do not exist. Science was the one that self corrects itself with intense ethic and review boards. I will yield some points here as you state science can be corrupted and this is an example of it. Though, Hitler initially didn't want to kill the Jews, he just wanted to ship them out of Germany and leave a pure race. Logistics got in the way of that.

Eugenics is a bull**** idea. When you don't have races (biologically) it's hard to show the benefits of eugenics on a scientific stage.

I wouldn't say 'faith' is required at all. You don't need faith to study secular philosophy that covers all the bases of human behaviour we need. I don't have faith in Ayn Rand, Locke, Nietzsche, Hume etc. Knowledge protects societies from atrocities. Faith in Jesus won't protect you from an irrational argument. Knowledge of world issues, philosophy will.

I wouldn't say Science is as corruptible as Religion is. Science produces objects that can be used in positive or negative ways. It can develop medicines or biological weapons. The byproducts of science can be corrupted but Science itself, the laws stay the same despite who's in power. The theories stay the same despite who's in power. A=A no matter who's in power. Religion doesn't produce anything tangible that can be weaponized. But, religion allows for translation and reinterpretation and allows people to be more easily controlled by appeals to authority (He's a priest, minister, pope, Iman etc). There are multiple sects in all religions, multiple translations of various texts. There's a very large difference in how both are used, controlled and abused.

Jr,
JRunior is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump