ShirleyJay Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 So in essence they've been asked 'awkward' questions to justify their beliefs? which have been answered just not to your satisfaction ? or do you just not understand the simple message of the gospel ? this is my final comment. I don't wish to be embroiled into your game , which you love playing , especially as you have repeated it so many times in different threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 which have been answered just not to your satisfaction ? or do you just not understand the simple message of the gospel ? this is my final comment. I don't wish to be embroiled into your game , which you love playing , especially as you have repeated it so many times in different threads. Okay, bye bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 showing yourself to be again ! I do be. Too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I do be. Too short. I do be too, do be two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 deserve respect for the way they live by faith. Utter rubbish. What on earth makes you think that having faith automatically means you must be respected? ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 16:34 ---------- Peoples views deserve respect out of common decency I don't have any common decency with a sect that requires kids to die because they cannot have a blood transfusion. I don't give any respect to a religion that insists friends of mine are unworthy because they love people of the same sex I don't give any time at all to religions that consider normal human behaviour to be sinning and worthy of special shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Hitler believed he was doing god's work. Hitler's hatred of the Jew was rooted in his Christian culture. His beliefs, including those concerning Christianity("flaws" and all), along with his beliefs concerning racial impurity being the original sin against god, stemmed from his religious views. To suggest the political climate isn't influenced by culture - or to suggest Hitler's religious views had no bearing on his politics - is a nonsense. Ryedo40- there is no causal link to suggest Hitler's childhood exposure to Christianity (by the way I am not Christian) was a basis for his actions. That is like saying Ted Bundy’s childhood Boy Scout membership caused him to kill! The nazis were virulently anti-Christian and had plans to destroy the German Christian church- it is pretty certain by the time of Hitler's death he was most likely atheist. However my previous post(s) was not to align this with atheism causes X and religion caused Y etc. It was in relation to the outdated view that religions caused more wars than non religious ones- which is factually incorrect. Just going back to Hitler for now (as I want to shed some more light on his belief) to hold he was Christian and therefore his actions somehow place a shadow over Christianity can be discounted from certain sources. Attached is a NY Times article with a quote below: According to Baldur von Schirach, the Nazi leader of the German youth corps that would later be known as the Hitler Youth, ”the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement” from the beginning… http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/weekinreview/word-for-word-case-against-nazis-hitler-s-forces-planned-destroy-german.html The Nazis killed anyone and everyone who they did not feel was worthy to pass on their genes. It seemed to them perfectly justifiable to kill any survival machines with what they perceived to be undesirable genes. Now if I was to lay the blame on Darwin (from The Decent of Man) it would seem ridiculous- but strange as it seems, this view is held by some and I have even read that Hitler was greatly influenced by Darwin! Here's a quote from California State University Professor of History Richard Weikart (From Darwin to Hitler) : With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, the sick;….Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. This pretty much is in line with Hitler's thoughts, what he set out to do- to create the higher race in his view, survival of the fittest etc. Hitler once said: The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing for the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Ryedo40- there is no causal link to suggest Hitler's childhood exposure to Christianity (by the way I am not Christian) was a basis for his actions. That is like saying Ted Bundy’s childhood Boy Scout membership caused him to kill! No but there's a massive causal link between centuries of Christian antisemitism led by Christian clerics in Europe and the holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) No but there's a massive causal link between centuries of Christian antisemitism led by Christian clerics in Europe and the holocaust. I don't deny that one bit- anyone who says the opposite is wrong. But this would also have to be looked at as actions of certain people at a certain time- not to lay the blame on X religion or even God. In my view, anyone carrying out attacks on another religion is far from guided, they usually hijack the religion for their own cause. No doubt many people of a religious nature commit wrongs and crimes, and IMO it looks worse as I always think these groups/persons are supposed to be doing good work. Basically alot is human desire and greed that leads to sometimes a wrong road. Edited June 3, 2015 by Baz1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I don't deny that one bit- anyone who says the opposite is wrong. But this would also have to be looked at as actions of certain people at a certain time- not to lay the blame on X religion or even God. In my view, anyone carrying out attacks on another religion is far from guided, they usually hijack the religion for their own cause. No doubt many people of a religious nature commit wrongs and crimes, and IMO it looks worse as I always think these groups/persons are supposed to be doing good work. Basically alot is human desire and greed that leads to sometimes a wrong road. What human desire and greed causes people to say for example, mutilate the genitals of their young? I'm reminded of the Steven Weinberg quote: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Huh, you were claiming that faith should be treated differently. That's special pleading. Careful here because one can also say atheists use a form of special pleading. If I quote from Rational Wiki what special pleading is, it states: Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency – in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions.” “Therefore, they introduce a ‘special case’ or an exception to their rules. While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn’t adequately justify why the case is special. Correct me if I am wrong, but from my experience talking face to face with atheists (and in a very nuanced approach and amicable manner from both sides), I have asked questions of how life emerged from non-living matter. I have had responses like 'we don't know yet' or 'science doesn't know but it will one day'...I mean, come on! Is that not special pleading?! What really stretches me is that either some atheists are totally oblivious to the language code and DNA or are just ignorant. I have heard some say to me that natural events can (in the right conditions) create X. Really? Nautral laws do not create anything! So to hear that these natural laws/events can make X happen is amusing to say the least. Can a natural event write the DNA code? Seriously, do you believe that?? It would be just as absurd to assert that mindless chemical or physical processes could write a newspaper article! A quote by Bill Gates comes to me. He said: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any we’ve ever created.” In order to suppose that a code or language could be produced by an unintelligent natural process, atheists must receive a special exemption from the rule which states that abstract, substitutive, symbolic representation (language or code) can only result from intelligence...and that my friend just isn't the case and science does not support it either. Hence it is my view that those atheists who deny this are simply materialists and naturalists-they follow what they believe is science but it isn't. This is what conflicts with pure SCIENCE. To throw an example, physicist Paul Davies point out that 'the phenomenon of the genetic code mediating information between the two languages of life (proteins and nucleic acids) provides a mystery: How can mindless processes set up codes and languages? I honestly think if some of you on here took an open mind and really looked at the evidences from a scientific point of view and an understanding of the philosophy of science - you may hold different views. All this talk about evidence for god etc may in itself become pointless when one really examines things a bit more closer. Suffice to say, there are many evidences for an Intelligent Being, and one example (as brief as it is) is in what I pointed out. You have argument from conscience, morality, fine tuning- yes some of these gets covered and few like to throw their views, but in all fairness, many of you have made up your mind about God before conversations even begin! On top (my last point) there is the emotional baggage few of you bring to the table- emotional arguments serve no real purpose in these type of discussions. I will end it here but wish you all well and hope you find what you may be looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts