Hitler was a Theosophist. He followed Blavatsky as does Hillary Clinton and many of our New Age leaders. The Nazis were funded by Wall St. The SS also had a large homosexual contingent. These idiots obviously have an ax to grind with Christianity but they should read The Occult Roots of Naziism by Nicholas Goodrich-Clarke and give an honest presentation. If it wasn't for Christianity these people its critics really would have no other purpose in life.
He tried to, but was unsuccessful and abandoned his plan to unite the churches. However, as "European religion in the age of the great cities, 1830-1930" pg 14-17 notes, Prussian Germany had very low religious participation, Berlin had even less Sunday church attendance than Paris. Therefore, it was not a big deal for people to oppose their church. Himmler's SS promoted church-leaving, and the record years for church-leaving in German history are 1937, 1938, and 1939
@afeeder Are you suggesting that all that christian crap Hitler spouted was intended to incite non-christians to violence?
"While some Lutherans deny the charge, the Nazis did cite Luther's treatise to justify the Final Solution (Egil Grislis, 'Martin Luther and the Jews,' Consensus 27 (2001) No. 1:64.)."
I guess you could argue/believe hitler wasnt really a christian.. But in anycase that does NOT make him an atheist. he never stated he didnt believe in a god tho he may have question christianity it doesnt make him athiest!!!
They shouldn't of even argued this point, it's irrelevant! Whether Hitler was christian, atheist or fucking worshiped an aborigine god, it doesn't matter, you can't tarnish everyone with the same brush. Hitler was also a vegetarian, enjoyed the music of Wagner and had a moustache, are all people who share these qualities also Nazi's?
These guys clearly have not read hitlers table talk just because someone says there christian doesn't neccesarily mean they are everyone lies this is a quote from it by hitler "I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie. . .", "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity"
@ZeerosFate True atheist? Good or Bad is relevant but only to this point: Atheism itself is a worldview, which does not suggest one should be bad or good. Therefore, the atheist is free to adopt whatever life philosophy they choose. Some may choose to be decent citizens, and some may not. Stalin is a prime example of one who chose to do evil. In contrast, Christianity doesn't give that option. Either you're good (and follow the bible as a road map for your life), or you are evil.
@DL041683 Wow really? Well it came from Germany and it meant peace but really its like the upsides down cross was made when a man said "I'm am not worthy to die like Jesus" So they did it upsides down the point of this story was to say, Though we may be unworthy to even follow the lord he still let's us, Ahem back on point hitler was not an atheist READ SOME BOOKS were done here
Lol You people have done absolutely no research....hey since you think He was a Christian, maybe you could explain where his use of the Swasticka originated...and I could go on endlessly, but if that isn't a good start, I don't know what is. Oh and correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Barry (aka Obama), state that He was a Christian, only to later claim muslim faith....oh and isn't he calling himself a democrat, yet he has obvious associations with socialist parties? Get my drift?
"When people struggle for the survival of their race (...) then humanitarian and atheistic values will completely fall away (...) they are human fantasies"
Of course Hitler Wasn't a Christian, anymore than I'm a Nazi! People who believe this pile of codswallop need to re educate themselves as to what a Christian is and what Hitler was!
Utter and unadulterated HOGWASH. You clearly have absolutely no inkling what Christianity is all about believing that Hitler was a Christian. It's as if you "people" are so blinkered by your atheism or disbelief, that you have to link True Christianity and Naziism. You have not one iota of evidence for your statement, because there is none. Hitler hated Christians. Why don't you read up on some history. No apologies from me.
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)".
"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. (p 43) "
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...
"the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)"
"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? "
"Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65) "
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease". (p 118 & 119)
"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics".
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do".
"I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
Also, look up 'Nazi Beltbuckle' on google. The nazi's where very much 'god and country' people. (Frankly alot of modern right wingers remind me ALOT of them. (Including their vocal support of torture and illegal invasions.)
Not only where the nazi's christian, Hitler didn't invent anti-semitism. Jews where about as popular then as muslims are now. Hitler merely capitalized on centuries of christian hatred for the 'christkillers'.
The Nazis' most certainly were NOT Christian! This is a lie, and utter nonsense. You need to read and find out exactly what True Christian Faith is. The Nazis used Christianity to excuse their atrocities. This, even to an idiot, is obvious. NO Christian hates the Jews....we are told to love them, they are God's chosen people. The Romans killed Christ, and EVERY person on this Planet, past,future,present. is responsible for His crucifixion.
>> I guess that's why so many christians in Europe during middle ages hated Jews, cuz they were the ones who killed Jesus! lol The history of christians' love toward Jews isn't that long, get the fact right
You are right about the apparent hatred of Jews by “so called Christians” during the Middle Ages. This hatred has in fact continued by those who profess to be Christian but actually do not follow Christ’s teachings. This,clearly, is regrettable, but in the Bible it clearly mentions that those who “curse” Israel, will be cursed and those who “bless” Israel will be blessed. Gen.12:3. I reiterate that NO bonafide Christian hates Jews, myself included. Regards.
@JesuismyKing Of course you'll say "Oh they are not REAL christians!!"
As an atheist, I'd like to use Gandhi's quote "Leave the Christ in your bible, but take the Christ whom you believe"
Even now, most of fundamental christians in America are politically republicans, saying "poors are poor cuz they're lazy," which, in fact, contrasts ALOT with Christ's teachings about "Love the poor." Will those fundamental christians, however, think they're NOT real christians?
@JesuismyKing My point is, can you really say that those christians during Middle Ages were not REAL christians? Cuz it is just like the whole christian community is divided into catholic, protestant, this community, that community, this church, that church, and ALL of them calling each other as NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN.
@2Pains1Love Different denominations accuse each other of heresy,etc, and it is arguable who is right or wrong. However, denominations aside, a Christian is someone who accepts Christ into their “heart” as Saviour and Lord of their life, and follows His teachings. Repentance is a prerequisite. Believing in God is not enough and using a “Christian” label for one’s own ends is not right either, as in the case of Hitler. I can't argue against your point as I tend to agree with you in part.
@JesuismyKing Is he anything like the witch burners? The Crusades? No no no, Hitler was a christian. You're a clear representation of someone who's had the bible be read to you selectively, but clearly hasn't read the bible by themselves or else you'd agree that Hitler was a christian. Read up!
Oh don't make me laugh! "You're a clear representation of someone who's" NOT read the Bible! and you're against Christianity. You clearly have no knowledge of the teachings of Christ. Just because Hitler "knew" the Bible means nothing, after all satan believes it! It's you that needs to "read up"...try Dietrich Bonhoeffer for a starters. ALL those who believe Hitler was a Born Again, Bought by the Blood of Christ, Christian, need their bloody heads examined. End of discussion.
@JesuismyKing No, you need to read a science book and learn some critical thinking skills, learn about your bible objectively, take that bug out of your ass, then have a pleasant day. OK, end of discussion.
LOL...You need to do some research on your opponents before telling them what they ought or ought not to do! But then I'd expect that from someone who "doesn't" research both sides of an argument. Good day.
@JesuismyKing Do you understand how hypocritical that statement just was? I've read the bible and believed the dogma for a long time. You're an arrogant and willingly ignorant ass.
Aah...I wondered how long it would be, before the verbal assaults would come! It's as good as admitting defeat! You've "read the (B)ible and believed the dogma for a long time"....Poppycock! So has Satan! You know nothing about Jesus and His teachings, let alone who and what Hitler was. I half expect you not to believe the holocaust ever happened....or if it did, you believe Christians were responsible for it. This is the sickness of society today. God help you. This ends now. Capiche?
What the USHMM actually says is "During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups [besides Jews] because of their perceived "racial inferiority": Roma (Gypsies), the disabled, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others). Other groups were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals. "
Hitler's "Jewish problem" was identical, point for point, to Martin Luther's "Jewish problem." The holocaust was the offspring of German Protestantism. Case closed. Whether Hitler and Goebels waffled on their Christianity later in the Reich is irrelevant. They came to power by using the Christianity of the German masses,and the hatred of Jews came right down from the founder of protestantism,and continued through all the great christain leaders, not the least of which were Spurgeon and Calvin
@Frab2001 No, we do not advocate action on the part of the science. You can draw conclusions such as 'these people with these genetics are inferior and therefore we should perform mass genocide', but it's not advocated by evolution in the slightest. That's some crazy guy's conclusion on the matter. Which is what happened. He was pretty damn crazy and I'm sure he was looking for all kinds of reasons to justify his lunacy.
@Frab2001 hahahaha just because Darwins theory of evolution is undeniably the explanation for the origin of species doesnt mean that all atheist, or believers in evolution, feel that social darwanism is a good thing. just because he may have felt that the social adaptation of a force of discourse was a good thing doesnt mean he was an atheist. funny how Christians will throw the hitler argument around like a baseball but call people assholes when it bites them in the ass
@FcukH8 Although Hitler did use his own brand of religion to justify his cause to a degree, the main basis for his regime was formed upon ethnicity/race. And while religion is a powerful tool for manipulation, not every dangerous extremist uses religion to further their cause- take Stalin, for instance.
@FcukH8 Correct in one aspect: if I want to get maximum effect on destroying an enemy of mine, I would become their friend first and then attack them while their guard was down. You're obviously not of that opinion so don't bother replying unless you want to get laughed at by thousands of my employees nationwide... lol.
Actually you CAN be an atheist and still respect and even follow some of Jesus' teachings. However, atheists probably don't go along with the claims that his mother was a virgin, or that he was 'the way, the truth and the light' nor that he came alive again after he was crucified. These claims can be regarded as largely the exaggerated imaginings of later followers who were not themselves witness to any of it nor even met him.
The caller asks whether child molesters should be shot. Well, 1.5 billion people follow the teachings of a reknowned child molester. Mohammed married a little girl of 6 years old and consummated the marriage when she was 9. He was 54 years old. So when Muslims say that Islam 'gave women rights' then all you have to ask is, how come Mo's FIRST wife (before his 'revelations' was a wealthy woman of independent means, and his second, after his revelations, was a 6 year old?
@elibeth121 It's all very well making bold assertions but you really have to do a little better than that. The idea that Jesus' Mum was a virgin has been debunked by the fact that the misunderstanding was related to the translation of Aramaic. Their word for 'maiden' was the same as 'virgin'. The evidence for what Jesus said and did, let alone coming alive again, are very flimsy and not supported by any contemporary records AT ALL.
@ritchloui "There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672)
It's true that the word almä can mean virgin, maiden or damsel, but there's no proof that virginity isn't the intended meaning in scripture.
@2nd2LastSamurai The fact is that Mary was married and Joseph was the father. It's all simply absurd to try to make it otherwise. But hey, people who go along with religious dogma are encouraged to believe things without evidence and call it faith. The more absurd and extreme the claims the greater the degree of faith required. This is why religions value 'faith' so highly, because they are asking you to believe things that are simply not true.
@ritchloui Not to draw this out, but how is that fact? You've acknowledged the existence of characters from some Biblical texts that many don't accept, and asserted/established as fact a version of events that differs from what those same Biblical texts portray. Regardless of the Bible's validity, God's existence or whether Mary was a virgin, how is accepting an aspect of an idea with Biblical origins as fact and disregarding/supplementing the other part of it not a bold assertion?
@elibeth121 My dear friend. Your argument 'just because you don't support it, doesn't mean it didn't happen', has LESS credibility than saying 'just because you DO support it, means it DID happen'. It is a fallacious form of reasoning. I am currently of the opinion that the 'Godly' have at the core of their moral compass the concept of 'eternal torture'. ie a God who would ever inflict it for any reason at all. This is a very SERIOUS mental illness. As a species we need to heal ourselves of it.
@ritchloui Nope never a mental illness, you couldnt be more wrong., He lives in me and he makes me life better. He has changed my life, and I hope you could use your brain and believe in God.
Well I for one have used my brain and concluded that every god invented by humans was created for the purpose of satiating our fears of the unknown. I have yet to hear a single rational explanation to believe an omnipotent god exists, let alone one of the thousands that you don't worship.
If you don't believe me, then tell me why you don't worship any god other than the christian god... that's the same reason I don't believe in your god.
MAN who cares what hitler says. that doesn't make the bible and god real.. hitler was just another control freak like the idiots who wrote the bible and made up god..... different concept same scenario O_o
@TheDeserthunta He killed people in the name of his type of government, not because anyone believed in god or not. Nice try, but you're ignorant on the subject.
@TheStarvingSamurai Not tryin to pick a fight, but the same thing you said in response to TheDeserthunta can be said of Hitler- would you accept that to drop the argument? I'd say that either claim is really a moot point as far as it applies to one's beliefs as an individual, and to try to "blame" the other side for the actions of Stalin or Hitler is petty and pointless. They were ruthless, deluded, murderous politicians who were drunk with power, dominance and oppression.
@2nd2LastSamurai Well you'd have too be drunken with power, dominance and oppression in order for anyone to kill millions haha. And like shadowknighth95 said, Hitler was using religion to justify his actions. Not an argument here, just simply what he has said in speeches and his writings.
@TheStarvingSamurai Understood. However, Hitler also wrote a great deal about propaganda and its usefulness, and employed the same exact propaganda techniques that he preached about in using religion as a powerful tool to influence and control people. Hitler may have believed in a God that he claimed was Christian, but the religion that he advocated was original and in conflict with the beliefs and principles of many that identified themselves as Christians both then and now.
@2nd2LastSamurai Lol exactly! This whole video is showing that Hitler did not kill everyone cause he was an atheist. His belief that he was doing something god wanted and everything may not be right, but it's still true that he used it, not Atheism.
@TheStarvingSamurai and because hitler used and abused christianity its becomes our baggage?? and your right stalin didnt because he did not believe in a god. but he was still an atheist. oh sorry i forgot i was speaking to thestarvingsamurai, renowned philosopher and famous historian. ill remember to come to u next time i have any questions about the universe
@TheDeserthunta Never said it was baggage, did I? You said Stalin was baggage of Atheism, oh great one of idiocy. You think Atheism caused Stalin to kill his citizen which is why you said he was Atheism's "baggage". But it's clear that Stalin did it to further his idea of government and had nothing to do with Atheism or anyone believing in god. Thanks for the compliment, but i'm just using common sense, you should try it sometime.
I think what the caller is saying that not even Hitler thought that he was a Christian, he was just using that to manipulate people. And Hitler also used Darwin's theory to justify racial superiority and eugenics. I don't think Darwin is any more responsible than christians for the actions of an individual in another place and time.
@DanielMurphy007 Ok put it like this: being christian is being moral, but being moral does not depend on the bible nor the idea of jesus, neither does christian morality need the bible. Christianity relies on the bible but not the morality of the christians, even modern satanists are EXTREMELY moral, they aren't just some people who sacrifice/murder and have orgies... most never have done that in their lives and have NO want to....
I would disagree, as a theory is a framework of ideas in which things are explained. In the same way, hitler couldn't 'justify' something with the theory of particle gravity. Especially since Darwin was specifically about Natural* Selection, not artificial selection.
You can however show direct flow from the extreme antisemitic bloodline-preserving writing of Paul.
I don't recognize everyone in the last supper image at the end, but I recognize Leibniz and Einstein, who were not atheists but had very sincere religious beliefs. I recommend Einsteins essays on Science and Religion, they are available online and are very eloquent as to the role of religion with regard to the future of humanity.
@DanielMurphy007 Wait... he wasn't religious himself, he believed in a god that is pretty much irrelevant in the sense of worship, and that god is not what makes us good, nor does god impose an idea of good and evil... Religion is pretty much set concepts, morals, and rules that are defined as absolute....
To have atheists claim that Hilter was a follower of christ after killing 6 million JEWS is the stupidest thing anyone could ever say. Why? Hear me clearly, "Jesus was a JEW." In fact, the entire bible (except for the book Luke) was written by.....you guessed it JEWS.
The truth is, Hitler was Catholic, Catholic does not equate to being a follower of Christ. The reason why atheists say these things is because they don't actually know what a christian is.
@robdmccoy I suspect some of the Catholics I know would be highly insulted if you told them they don't follow Christ. Protestant fundamentalists nutjobs like to claim that Catholics aren't Christian.
Your assertion that Christians wouldn't kill Jews because Jesus was a Jew is equally ludicrous. Learn some history. The Jews have been persecuted by Christians for 2000 years. Do you even know why?
It only sounds ignorant when you don't know what makes a person a follower of Christ. This is where the confusion begins. Second, you should understand that even if you're a protestant that doesn't mean you're a follower of Christ. The fact, is what you know as being a christian is actually false. The only way to find the truth is to seek the truth.
Here's something to remember.
Anyone can stand up and call themselves a christian in order to gain some kinda of position of power.
The Nazi belt buckles all said "God on our side" in German. The Catholic Church celebrated Hitler's birthday up to the end of his regime, and most important of all, Hitler got his antisemitism from the Catholic Church, which was officially antisemitic at the time, and for some time after the war. Furthermore, all of the men and women who executed the Holocaust on his behalf in the SS were almost all Catholic or Protestant. That dirty work was all done in the name of the Christian God.
@DandAinTac "Gott mit uns" was a military slogan/imperial motto for the German empire for centuries before WWII, the church didn't celebrate Hitler's birthday (misnomer), and Hitler's antisemitism was racist, not religious. Some of the dirty work was the murder of millions of Christians, as well as Jews. If the Christian God doesn't condone killing, isn't it possible that they followed a different version of God? Like maybe a cult that twisted Christian teachings to suit its own purposes?
@DandAinTac Check out pave the way foundation's website for a great deal of verifiable historic documentation regarding the church's position of Nazism/Hitler during and well before WWII.
@DandAinTac Forgot to mention that members of the SS were required by Himmler to believe in "God" to enlist in the SS, but were encouraged not to identify with any particular sect, such as Protestantism or Catholicism (or even Christianity, for that matter- a number of SS troops were even Islamic). The idea behind this was that an organization is more efficient/easier to control when individuals unquestioningly obey orders tied in to their religious beliefs- a tactic shared by Hitler.
@2nd2LastSamurai I accept the corrections to the details, since I pulled from memory. Doesn't change the basic thrust of the argument--Nazism and Hitler cannot accurately be described as atheist, they are much closer to Christian than atheist.
@DandAinTac Fair enough :) and I would definitely agree with you that Hitler was not an atheist. My only beef is that I would challenge the statement that Hitler did what he did because of Christianity. I believe Hitler was driven to do what he did because of his own personal beliefs steeped in delusion and racism, and with Hitler's exceptional understanding and use of propaganda, religion was simply a valuable tool in stringing people along.
@2nd2LastSamurai (Part 1 of 2) Fair enough--it is extremely common for theists, particularly Christians, to blame the crimes of the Communist totalitarian dictatorships, from Stalin to Pol Pot, on atheism, which is absurd, because atheism is content-free. It is merely the lack of belief in something, so one could just as accurately blame Stalin's lack of belief in elves for the people he had executed. (continued)
@2nd2LastSamurai (Part 2 of 2)...but let's suppose that the NKVD had belt buckles that said "atheism on our side" and Stalin had left writings that said he was doing it all for atheism, and the cause of atheism required that he have people executed--would you be as quick to let atheism off the hook as you are with Christianity and the Nazis?
@DandAinTac We're in agreement then. Supposing what you mentioned was true, I couldn't blame atheism, because I know that atheism itself doesn't require/encourage killing, even if Stalin said it did/wanted it to. However, where atheism is simply a view regarding the (non)existence of an all-powerful being without any unifying outline for morality, I would contend that Hitler's methods/goals were not only not encouraged by Christianity, but were contrary to Christianity's teachings, like a cult..
@DandAinTac Unfortunately, it's difficult for many to believe that, because the teachings of Christianity have been misused muddled throughout history by events like the crusades, inquisitions, and other events concocted by status-driven and power-hungry individuals who excelled not in faith but in their ambition and ability to manipulate followers. I believe very little can be found in these events which harmed countless people, or in those responsible for orchestrating them, that is Christian.
@2nd2LastSamurai That is pretty much saying: These people are immoral therefor they are not moral... Being moral has nothing to do with christianity... Being christian is to have morals, but that has nothing to do with god, nor christianity. Christianity does mostly harm, and for what good it does do is a unnecessary reason for christianity to exist. It causes people to do things that are not acceptable, and yet for what? Nothing, i am christian by your logic yet i am atheist -_-
Hitler was catholic, his writings invoked god over an again, the mottos and oaths of the military invoked it. He was in cahoots with the Vatican, prior to and during the war. I'm not sure why people keep wheeling this argument out, it's utterly irrelevant.
Hitler wasn't a Christian. Ian Kershaw provided enough information to counter that. Yes he quoted Christianity to get into office. Mein Kampf was also partially propaganda. He also said he enjoyed lying to the masses among his own people. He thought of Christianity as a "jewish religion." He probably wasn't an atheist. He believed in Germanic concepts with new age. He used Christianity to influence people. I could win that argument. I am an atheist who hates religion by the way.
Hmm. I need to go back and read some stuff. I could've sworn that I've read about how the Nazis basically destroyed the practice of Christianity in Germany during their 12 years. It seems like this goes back to the question of what a Christian is. Are you a Christian if you claim to be, even if you might be deliberately lying about it? Are you a Christian if the majority of Christians say that you aren't? I'm surprised that I haven't thought much about Nazi religion before.
While science doesn’t affirm what it doesn’t know, neither does it rule it out such as a possibility. That being said, if science really is what one believes in, and if the objective really is a search for truth, how can one offhandedly disregard valid possibilities? If one possibility is that there is a God, how does science tell you that there isn’t? In other words, I would iterate your own rhetorical question- “Is it so hard for ppl to admit that they just don't have a clue?”.
Thank you for pointing out again that it's just a wild guess based on the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW.
The thing about science is it desires testable evidence, what you posit as "evidence" is a far cry from it, the "god" concept barely qualifies as a hypothesis.
@Seymour13 I missed your first comment as it was flagged as spam. I challenged your depiction of probability theory in my last post, I didn't reinforce it. the things I've mentioned are very scientifically testable, but it seems that you don't regard probability as a useful scientific tool. While probability isn't certainty, I think most people would be surprised at the amount of things we don't know but which we use probability theory to define scientifically, as an alternative to wild guesses.
@Seymour13 Aside from rule #1, I just don’t see much that is actually scientific about these 3 “rules” mentioned, and I was curious where the scientific method states or eludes to these ideas. Either way, this would be my response to those items:
1. Right. So why assume that which is unobservable to be non-existent? Really, an agnostic would have the most sound scientific stance here.
2. This is more of a cliché than a scientific argument, and a bit of a misused one at that. The end of the statement should probably include something like the phrase “…in order to be regarded as truth/fact”. Otherwise it’s an open-ended statement that people tend to use as justification for their belief-based invalidation of others’ beliefs, whether they’re justifiable in the individual sense or not.
Extraordinary claims don’t require extraordinary evidence in order to exist or to remain possibly true, especially on a personal level. They only require such evidence to be considered as a universal truth, or to be established as general knowledge.
3. Similar to #2, this is another cliché. Certainly, an individual is capable of dismissing/denying whatever evidence they want. So while this concept might be justified in individual beliefs, science has very little to say about it...
@Seymour13 Science either knows, or it does not know, period. At this point in time, the best that science has to offer in relation to God’s existence is it “doesn’t know”. Besides, there is evidence (even if only circumstantial) in favor of an intelligent designer, just nothing that’s considered as having a “correct” or indisputable interpretation.
@2nd2LastSamurai the 'evidence' for an intelligent creator was tried in a court of law and found to be laughable nonsense. Read about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case where this was tried.
@MagnusNyborg This really has little bearing on anything. Worthy of note is the fact that the case and the verdict are under much scrutiny as a form of judicial activism. It was Judge Jones' responsibility only to come up with a ruling regarding what had a place to be taught in the "science" classes of schools within the jurisdiction of the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (more specifically in the curriculum in the Dover Area School District).
@MagnusNyborg Here are a couple of statements that serve as critiques of Judge Jones’ ruling: From the Montana Law Review:
“Unfortunately, Judge Jones appears to have confused the question of whether he finds ID [intelligent design] personally convincing with the question of whether ID is a scientific theory. Because he was not convinced by the scientific arguments made by ID proponents, Judge Jones ruled that ID must not be science in principle..."
@MagnusNyborg "But it was not Judge Jones's place to determine the ultimate truth or falsity of ID's scientific arguments”… “Even if Judge Jones believed that ID is false, he should have remembered that "the wisdom of an educational policy or its efficiency from an educational point of view is not germane to the constitutional issue of whether that policy violates the establishment clause...
@MagnusNyborg "If it is really true that "[s]tates and local school boards are generally afforded considerable discretion in operating public schools," then what matters is that the school board sincerely believed that ID has scientific merit, not whether a federal judge is convinced of its ultimate scientific truth.”
@MagnusNyborg Anti-intelligent design legal scholar Jay Wexler wrote: "The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science and to freedom of religion”
Although Judge Jones denies accusations of judicial activism, he admits that he used this case for judicial policy-making to affect parties that were not involved in the case (aka judicial activism) by stating...
@MagnusNyborg “I wrote the opinion in a comprehensive way because I knew that the dispute was possibly going to be replicated someplace else. And what I wanted to do was make the opinion sort of a primer that people could read. You're absolutely correct. It's not precedential outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania, but I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened about what the dispute was all about."
@MagnusNyborg This case hardly establishes that evidence for an intelligent creator is "laughable nonsense", and what it does establish, it fails to do so in a scientifically valid or objective fashion.
@MagnusNyborg Please be more polite, I didn't insult you.
Yes, and the wording of the verdict did not include "laughable nonsense"- that's only your interpretation, but I explained how many are of the opinion that the judge overstepped his authority by instating new judicial policy to resolve this particular case. It was anticipated that Jones' ruling would be overturned if appealed, but the school district was not interested in such a pursuit...
@2nd2LastSamurai but the events inside did. Behe presented this flawed argument that the bacterium flagellum could not have evolved its 'engine' because it took some 40 aminoacids in exact combination, claiming that there was no documents that supported this part to evolve. Behe was then introduced to a half-meter high stack of scientific papers, and asked if he had read those - and he answered NO.
Behe failed completely to provide evidence, and as a result, ID was deemed not a science.
@MagnusNyborg The problem that many legal experts have is that this judge doesn’t have the judicial, let alone scientific authority to make the ruling he did, and in fact might be infringing on the religious freedoms of those affected by this case. Regardless, the case and the ruling certainly have no jurisdiction outside of the Middle District of Pennsylvania- so again, the argument has little bearing on the legitimacy of one’s beliefs, even from a scientific standpoint.
@MagnusNyborg Fair enough, but the problem is that Jones' task was only to determine whether or not the school district had violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, nothing more. The court wasn't equipped or given all resources/authority to produce a "scientific" ruling of ID based on the limited evidence presented/parties represented. Because of this, the verdict, outside of its specifics in pertaining to this court case, has little jurisdiction over what is or isn't "science".
@2nd2LastSamurai the bigger question will however remain, the evidence. Even if the judge went above jurisdiction (and i am not able to judge), the lack of evidence will only casue a higher instance to rule in the same way, and then with jurisdiction. And penalties for wasting the courts time, as was ruled in the dover-case.
The only reason the "god" concept has gotten as much credibility is because it was invented in a time when we literally had nothing with which to explain the world around us and religions then did a good job of keeping the people ignorant and docile little sheep while expanding their cult's influence, inhibiting progress whenever it tried to rear it's head.
@Seymour13 As far as your second statement goes, it’s likely that you’re right to an extent, but it doesn’t represent all the actions of all members of all religions during all periods of history, and it still doesn’t invalidate something like a present-day individual’s belief in God.
Burden of proof is also overused and misunderstood. Proof comes at the completion of the scientific method- not the beginning. In an objective system, a supported hypothesis isn’t dismissed until it’s made false..
@Seymour13 RARELY does science/philosophy/the justice system have the luxury of having absolute “proof” of anything. In the concept of “burden of proof”, it’s often incorrectly assumed that “proof” is always available for a correct claim. The justice system deals more in the sense of “proof” on the basis that it’s better for the guilty to walk free due to lack available proof than it is for an innocent to suffer without the necessity of proof.
"how can one offhandedly disregard valid possibilities?"
VALID being the key word, "goddundidit" is just a guess, which is why I disregard it.
“Is it so hard for ppl to admit that they just don't have a clue?”
I'm saying I don't know and no-one else does either, just that the god claim is beyond unjustified and positing it as viable is intellectually dishonest.
I'm not making any claims, I'm not selling anything, I'm just not buying what religion is selling.
@Seymour13 This insures that more punishments issued are deserved than would be if the system were different. Science doesn’t operate under this burden, and sustains supportable hypotheses as possible explanations. In an objective debate, when support for a claim is given, it’s not enough to simply disagree and call it a “null hypothesis”. If it is null, one must explain why.
“Even if that's true, what good is it considering people needed hundreds of years (if not more) to understand it?”, and so on…
A valid question/point, but the original words of the Bible weren’t written in the language of/intended as a scientific/historical manuscript. The scientific concepts within the Bible are intended as a means of parable to convey moral/spiritual messages and therefore don’t supply explicit scientific evidence to back them up.
Theoretically, if there were a being capable of intelligent design who created life/the universe, why should it then be subject to/forced to operate within the parameters of its own invention (ie biogenesis)? Simply by creating anything, it would already have broken the law of conservation of mass. While science allows us to better understand aspects of the inner workings of the universe/creation, it doesn't necessarily hold jurisdiction over the one capable of intelligent design/creator.
No offense, but the “we don’t know, therefore [insert myth]” argument is an inaccurate depiction of what probability theory is or says. A number of universally accepted scientific principles were developed chiefly through the application of probability.
As evidence is subject to interpretation, it’s not surprising to find someone who disagrees with it, but that doesn’t disqualify it as evidence. In many circles of the scientific/historical community, this evidence carries enough clout to not be so hastily disregarded. You don’t need to agree with probability theory or it’s application to the improbability of life beginning on its own for it to remain scientifically cohesive or evidentiary.
@finalfantasy8VIII thats another contradiction. if you are arguing their is no god, then yhou have the burden to prove it. if you where an agnostic then you would have nothing to prove, but you are an atheist wich means you say their is no god, so prove it. and te truth will come to you at some point. weather in this life or the next, i just pray for you its the former
@blackbat1339 how does people claiming to be christian and do bad thing have anything to do with christianity itself, i follow the bible and jesus christ which is christianity , not men who claim to follow christianity. men will always war and commit evil no matter what their belief . you sir are a discrase to your fellow man for making such claims, JESUS IS LORD
@finalfantasy8VIII you sir are a fool. your arguments are week and contradict themselves, i would like you to ofer me proof and evidence of gods non-existence , just like you atheists want us to prove gods existence
@MrFollowingjesus before I continue I insult you I'll ask you this, how are my arguments contradictory? and just so you know the burden of proof is on you not me.
@finalfantasy8VIII talk about a statement of ignorance. you obviously no nothing about the religions if you think they just borrow stuff from each other, and every single peice of arceology that theyfind , not one peace has ever contradicted the bible, it has found it to be accurate. please do some research and educate yourself before you try to make a point with me, otherwise you are going to make yourself a fool infront of your fellow atheists.
Hitler was a Theosophist. He followed Blavatsky as does Hillary Clinton and many of our New Age leaders. The Nazis were funded by Wall St. The SS also had a large homosexual contingent. These idiots obviously have an ax to grind with Christianity but they should read The Occult Roots of Naziism by Nicholas Goodrich-Clarke and give an honest presentation. If it wasn't for Christianity these people its critics really would have no other purpose in life.
sprsmoke 5 days ago
Even the caller admits that Hitler used christianity to manipulate christians. Those christians tortured and killed millions of people.
@3:51 According to the christian bible, Jesus "meek and mild" demanded that anyone who wasn't willing to be his slave be killed:
Such as, Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
YY4Me133 1 week ago
@YY4Me133
He tried to, but was unsuccessful and abandoned his plan to unite the churches. However, as "European religion in the age of the great cities, 1830-1930" pg 14-17 notes, Prussian Germany had very low religious participation, Berlin had even less Sunday church attendance than Paris. Therefore, it was not a big deal for people to oppose their church. Himmler's SS promoted church-leaving, and the record years for church-leaving in German history are 1937, 1938, and 1939
afeeder 1 day ago
@afeeder Are you suggesting that all that christian crap Hitler spouted was intended to incite non-christians to violence?
"While some Lutherans deny the charge, the Nazis did cite Luther's treatise to justify the Final Solution (Egil Grislis, 'Martin Luther and the Jews,' Consensus 27 (2001) No. 1:64.)."
YY4Me133 2 hours ago
I guess you could argue/believe hitler wasnt really a christian.. But in anycase that does NOT make him an atheist. he never stated he didnt believe in a god tho he may have question christianity it doesnt make him athiest!!!
floorkillacris 1 week ago
MITUR BINESDERTY!!!
hellhammerz666 2 weeks ago
They shouldn't of even argued this point, it's irrelevant! Whether Hitler was christian, atheist or fucking worshiped an aborigine god, it doesn't matter, you can't tarnish everyone with the same brush. Hitler was also a vegetarian, enjoyed the music of Wagner and had a moustache, are all people who share these qualities also Nazi's?
TerraFirma69 2 weeks ago
Don & Ashley are too gentle. Matt & Jeff would have ripped this moron apart and made him go crying back to his Hesus!
countroshculla 2 weeks ago
These guys clearly have not read hitlers table talk just because someone says there christian doesn't neccesarily mean they are everyone lies this is a quote from it by hitler "I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie. . .", "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity"
icantmakeaname100 3 weeks ago
Great Quotes thanx, 1488
roobadoob1984 3 weeks ago
Stalin was not a true atheist because he was bad.
The game can get played both ways.
ZeerosFate 1 month ago
@ZeerosFate True atheist? Good or Bad is relevant but only to this point: Atheism itself is a worldview, which does not suggest one should be bad or good. Therefore, the atheist is free to adopt whatever life philosophy they choose. Some may choose to be decent citizens, and some may not. Stalin is a prime example of one who chose to do evil. In contrast, Christianity doesn't give that option. Either you're good (and follow the bible as a road map for your life), or you are evil.
DuoRepublic 2 weeks ago 3
@DL041683 Wow really? Well it came from Germany and it meant peace but really its like the upsides down cross was made when a man said "I'm am not worthy to die like Jesus" So they did it upsides down the point of this story was to say, Though we may be unworthy to even follow the lord he still let's us, Ahem back on point hitler was not an atheist READ SOME BOOKS were done here
linkfun456 1 month ago
Swastika*
DL041783 1 month ago
Lol You people have done absolutely no research....hey since you think He was a Christian, maybe you could explain where his use of the Swasticka originated...and I could go on endlessly, but if that isn't a good start, I don't know what is. Oh and correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Barry (aka Obama), state that He was a Christian, only to later claim muslim faith....oh and isn't he calling himself a democrat, yet he has obvious associations with socialist parties? Get my drift?
DL041783 1 month ago
"When people struggle for the survival of their race (...) then humanitarian and atheistic values will completely fall away (...) they are human fantasies"
Doesn't sound like he was an atheist.
GLANL 1 month ago
Of course Hitler Wasn't a Christian, anymore than I'm a Nazi! People who believe this pile of codswallop need to re educate themselves as to what a Christian is and what Hitler was!
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing Hitler was christian. Sorry.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby
Utter and unadulterated HOGWASH. You clearly have absolutely no inkling what Christianity is all about believing that Hitler was a Christian. It's as if you "people" are so blinkered by your atheism or disbelief, that you have to link True Christianity and Naziism. You have not one iota of evidence for your statement, because there is none. Hitler hated Christians. Why don't you read up on some history. No apologies from me.
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing
"Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
~Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf.
Pwn'd.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)".
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
10th October, 1941, midday:
"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. (p 43) "
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
"the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)"
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
19th October, 1941, night:
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
21st October, 1941, midday:
"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? "
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
"Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65) "
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
13th December, 1941, midnight:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease". (p 118 & 119)
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
14th December, 1941, midday:
"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics".
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
9th April, 1942, dinner:
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity" (p 339)
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
27th February, 1942, midday:
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do".
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
"I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
-PWN'D!!!!! Me thinks!
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing
Also, look up 'Nazi Beltbuckle' on google. The nazi's where very much 'god and country' people. (Frankly alot of modern right wingers remind me ALOT of them. (Including their vocal support of torture and illegal invasions.)
Not only where the nazi's christian, Hitler didn't invent anti-semitism. Jews where about as popular then as muslims are now. Hitler merely capitalized on centuries of christian hatred for the 'christkillers'.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago
@TheSkunkCat
The Nazis' most certainly were NOT Christian! This is a lie, and utter nonsense. You need to read and find out exactly what True Christian Faith is. The Nazis used Christianity to excuse their atrocities. This, even to an idiot, is obvious. NO Christian hates the Jews....we are told to love them, they are God's chosen people. The Romans killed Christ, and EVERY person on this Planet, past,future,present. is responsible for His crucifixion.
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing NO Christian hates the Jews
>> I guess that's why so many christians in Europe during middle ages hated Jews, cuz they were the ones who killed Jesus! lol The history of christians' love toward Jews isn't that long, get the fact right
2Pains1Love 1 month ago
@2Pains1Love
You are right about the apparent hatred of Jews by “so called Christians” during the Middle Ages. This hatred has in fact continued by those who profess to be Christian but actually do not follow Christ’s teachings. This,clearly, is regrettable, but in the Bible it clearly mentions that those who “curse” Israel, will be cursed and those who “bless” Israel will be blessed. Gen.12:3. I reiterate that NO bonafide Christian hates Jews, myself included. Regards.
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing Of course you'll say "Oh they are not REAL christians!!"
As an atheist, I'd like to use Gandhi's quote "Leave the Christ in your bible, but take the Christ whom you believe"
Even now, most of fundamental christians in America are politically republicans, saying "poors are poor cuz they're lazy," which, in fact, contrasts ALOT with Christ's teachings about "Love the poor." Will those fundamental christians, however, think they're NOT real christians?
2Pains1Love 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing My point is, can you really say that those christians during Middle Ages were not REAL christians? Cuz it is just like the whole christian community is divided into catholic, protestant, this community, that community, this church, that church, and ALL of them calling each other as NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN.
2Pains1Love 1 month ago
@2Pains1Love Different denominations accuse each other of heresy,etc, and it is arguable who is right or wrong. However, denominations aside, a Christian is someone who accepts Christ into their “heart” as Saviour and Lord of their life, and follows His teachings. Repentance is a prerequisite. Believing in God is not enough and using a “Christian” label for one’s own ends is not right either, as in the case of Hitler. I can't argue against your point as I tend to agree with you in part.
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing Is he anything like the witch burners? The Crusades? No no no, Hitler was a christian. You're a clear representation of someone who's had the bible be read to you selectively, but clearly hasn't read the bible by themselves or else you'd agree that Hitler was a christian. Read up!
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby
Oh don't make me laugh! "You're a clear representation of someone who's" NOT read the Bible! and you're against Christianity. You clearly have no knowledge of the teachings of Christ. Just because Hitler "knew" the Bible means nothing, after all satan believes it! It's you that needs to "read up"...try Dietrich Bonhoeffer for a starters. ALL those who believe Hitler was a Born Again, Bought by the Blood of Christ, Christian, need their bloody heads examined. End of discussion.
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing No, you need to read a science book and learn some critical thinking skills, learn about your bible objectively, take that bug out of your ass, then have a pleasant day. OK, end of discussion.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby
LOL...You need to do some research on your opponents before telling them what they ought or ought not to do! But then I'd expect that from someone who "doesn't" research both sides of an argument. Good day.
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing Do you understand how hypocritical that statement just was? I've read the bible and believed the dogma for a long time. You're an arrogant and willingly ignorant ass.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby
Aah...I wondered how long it would be, before the verbal assaults would come! It's as good as admitting defeat! You've "read the (B)ible and believed the dogma for a long time"....Poppycock! So has Satan! You know nothing about Jesus and His teachings, let alone who and what Hitler was. I half expect you not to believe the holocaust ever happened....or if it did, you believe Christians were responsible for it. This is the sickness of society today. God help you. This ends now. Capiche?
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing Good, I can't handle the lack of critical thinking.
Satan is part of the fucking story in the bible-- Of course the character is going to believe it! It's like saying Harry Potter believed in magic.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby
I rest my case.
JesuismyKing 1 month ago
@JesuismyKing Maybe if you made one in the first place...
aqouby 1 month ago
Condemning Christianity because Hitler professed himself to be a Christian is as absurd as condemning atheism because of Stalin.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
That "joke" at the end is racist - or at least it comes off as racist.
LavLTC 1 month ago
Among those rounded up and exterminated by the Nazis were Jews, gays, gypsies, communists, and atheists....
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago 2
@pastafarianprophet
Hitler's personal sec. was atheist
What the USHMM actually says is "During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups [besides Jews] because of their perceived "racial inferiority": Roma (Gypsies), the disabled, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others). Other groups were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals. "
afeeder 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitler's "Jewish problem" was identical, point for point, to Martin Luther's "Jewish problem." The holocaust was the offspring of German Protestantism. Case closed. Whether Hitler and Goebels waffled on their Christianity later in the Reich is irrelevant. They came to power by using the Christianity of the German masses,and the hatred of Jews came right down from the founder of protestantism,and continued through all the great christain leaders, not the least of which were Spurgeon and Calvin
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
@Frab2001 No, we do not advocate action on the part of the science. You can draw conclusions such as 'these people with these genetics are inferior and therefore we should perform mass genocide', but it's not advocated by evolution in the slightest. That's some crazy guy's conclusion on the matter. Which is what happened. He was pretty damn crazy and I'm sure he was looking for all kinds of reasons to justify his lunacy.
BeBoBli 2 months ago 2
@Frab2001 hahahaha just because Darwins theory of evolution is undeniably the explanation for the origin of species doesnt mean that all atheist, or believers in evolution, feel that social darwanism is a good thing. just because he may have felt that the social adaptation of a force of discourse was a good thing doesnt mean he was an atheist. funny how Christians will throw the hitler argument around like a baseball but call people assholes when it bites them in the ass
TheMCBADGER 2 months ago
Comment removed
billroscoe76 2 months ago in playlist The Atheist Experience 480 - 519
Hitler like every dangerous extremist did what he did in the name of religion. Theres no denying that.
FcukH8 2 months ago
@FcukH8 Although Hitler did use his own brand of religion to justify his cause to a degree, the main basis for his regime was formed upon ethnicity/race. And while religion is a powerful tool for manipulation, not every dangerous extremist uses religion to further their cause- take Stalin, for instance.
2nd2LastSamurai 2 months ago
@FcukH8 Correct in one aspect: if I want to get maximum effect on destroying an enemy of mine, I would become their friend first and then attack them while their guard was down. You're obviously not of that opinion so don't bother replying unless you want to get laughed at by thousands of my employees nationwide... lol.
billroscoe76 2 months ago
Actually you CAN be an atheist and still respect and even follow some of Jesus' teachings. However, atheists probably don't go along with the claims that his mother was a virgin, or that he was 'the way, the truth and the light' nor that he came alive again after he was crucified. These claims can be regarded as largely the exaggerated imaginings of later followers who were not themselves witness to any of it nor even met him.
ritchloui 2 months ago
The caller asks whether child molesters should be shot. Well, 1.5 billion people follow the teachings of a reknowned child molester. Mohammed married a little girl of 6 years old and consummated the marriage when she was 9. He was 54 years old. So when Muslims say that Islam 'gave women rights' then all you have to ask is, how come Mo's FIRST wife (before his 'revelations' was a wealthy woman of independent means, and his second, after his revelations, was a 6 year old?
ritchloui 2 months ago
@ritchloui Only they are not imaginary.
elibeth121 2 months ago
@elibeth121 It's all very well making bold assertions but you really have to do a little better than that. The idea that Jesus' Mum was a virgin has been debunked by the fact that the misunderstanding was related to the translation of Aramaic. Their word for 'maiden' was the same as 'virgin'. The evidence for what Jesus said and did, let alone coming alive again, are very flimsy and not supported by any contemporary records AT ALL.
ritchloui 2 months ago
@ritchloui "There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672)
It's true that the word almä can mean virgin, maiden or damsel, but there's no proof that virginity isn't the intended meaning in scripture.
Isn't that just another bold assertion?
2nd2LastSamurai 2 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai The fact is that Mary was married and Joseph was the father. It's all simply absurd to try to make it otherwise. But hey, people who go along with religious dogma are encouraged to believe things without evidence and call it faith. The more absurd and extreme the claims the greater the degree of faith required. This is why religions value 'faith' so highly, because they are asking you to believe things that are simply not true.
ritchloui 2 months ago
@ritchloui Not to draw this out, but how is that fact? You've acknowledged the existence of characters from some Biblical texts that many don't accept, and asserted/established as fact a version of events that differs from what those same Biblical texts portray. Regardless of the Bible's validity, God's existence or whether Mary was a virgin, how is accepting an aspect of an idea with Biblical origins as fact and disregarding/supplementing the other part of it not a bold assertion?
2nd2LastSamurai 2 months ago
@ritchloui Mary was pure and without sin, she was Jesus's mother. Just because you dont support it, doesnt mean it didnt happen.
elibeth121 2 months ago
@elibeth121 where is your proof that it did happen?
dudequerky 2 months ago
@elibeth121 My dear friend. Your argument 'just because you don't support it, doesn't mean it didn't happen', has LESS credibility than saying 'just because you DO support it, means it DID happen'. It is a fallacious form of reasoning. I am currently of the opinion that the 'Godly' have at the core of their moral compass the concept of 'eternal torture'. ie a God who would ever inflict it for any reason at all. This is a very SERIOUS mental illness. As a species we need to heal ourselves of it.
ritchloui 2 months ago
@ritchloui Nope never a mental illness, you couldnt be more wrong., He lives in me and he makes me life better. He has changed my life, and I hope you could use your brain and believe in God.
elibeth121 2 months ago
@elibeth121
Well I for one have used my brain and concluded that every god invented by humans was created for the purpose of satiating our fears of the unknown. I have yet to hear a single rational explanation to believe an omnipotent god exists, let alone one of the thousands that you don't worship.
If you don't believe me, then tell me why you don't worship any god other than the christian god... that's the same reason I don't believe in your god.
BattleshipAgincourt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MAN who cares what hitler says. that doesn't make the bible and god real.. hitler was just another control freak like the idiots who wrote the bible and made up god..... different concept same scenario O_o
TyeDye07 2 months ago in playlist More videos from village1diot
Comment removed
TyeDye07 2 months ago in playlist More videos from village1diot
where did u get the last picture lol
theblind1s 2 months ago
and stalin is your baggage atheism
TheDeserthunta 2 months ago
@TheDeserthunta He killed people in the name of his type of government, not because anyone believed in god or not. Nice try, but you're ignorant on the subject.
TheStarvingSamurai 2 months ago
@TheStarvingSamurai Not tryin to pick a fight, but the same thing you said in response to TheDeserthunta can be said of Hitler- would you accept that to drop the argument? I'd say that either claim is really a moot point as far as it applies to one's beliefs as an individual, and to try to "blame" the other side for the actions of Stalin or Hitler is petty and pointless. They were ruthless, deluded, murderous politicians who were drunk with power, dominance and oppression.
2nd2LastSamurai 2 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai Well you'd have too be drunken with power, dominance and oppression in order for anyone to kill millions haha. And like shadowknighth95 said, Hitler was using religion to justify his actions. Not an argument here, just simply what he has said in speeches and his writings.
TheStarvingSamurai 2 months ago
@TheStarvingSamurai Understood. However, Hitler also wrote a great deal about propaganda and its usefulness, and employed the same exact propaganda techniques that he preached about in using religion as a powerful tool to influence and control people. Hitler may have believed in a God that he claimed was Christian, but the religion that he advocated was original and in conflict with the beliefs and principles of many that identified themselves as Christians both then and now.
2nd2LastSamurai 2 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai Lol exactly! This whole video is showing that Hitler did not kill everyone cause he was an atheist. His belief that he was doing something god wanted and everything may not be right, but it's still true that he used it, not Atheism.
TheStarvingSamurai 2 months ago
@TheStarvingSamurai and because hitler used and abused christianity its becomes our baggage?? and your right stalin didnt because he did not believe in a god. but he was still an atheist. oh sorry i forgot i was speaking to thestarvingsamurai, renowned philosopher and famous historian. ill remember to come to u next time i have any questions about the universe
TheDeserthunta 2 months ago
@TheDeserthunta Never said it was baggage, did I? You said Stalin was baggage of Atheism, oh great one of idiocy. You think Atheism caused Stalin to kill his citizen which is why you said he was Atheism's "baggage". But it's clear that Stalin did it to further his idea of government and had nothing to do with Atheism or anyone believing in god. Thanks for the compliment, but i'm just using common sense, you should try it sometime.
TheStarvingSamurai 2 months ago
@TheDeserthunta Stalin was trained as a Jesuit Priest. So no, he is not atheism's 'baggage'.
ritchloui 2 months ago
the universe may well have a creator, but that one in the bible acts more human then god i do not know who he is.
rchasejr2003 2 months ago
@rchasejr2003 Jesus was human
elibeth121 2 months ago
We have to admit that the Christian had a real point in the Dawrvinist stuff!
Peristerygr 2 months ago
I think what the caller is saying that not even Hitler thought that he was a Christian, he was just using that to manipulate people. And Hitler also used Darwin's theory to justify racial superiority and eugenics. I don't think Darwin is any more responsible than christians for the actions of an individual in another place and time.
DanielMurphy007 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DanielMurphy007 Ok put it like this: being christian is being moral, but being moral does not depend on the bible nor the idea of jesus, neither does christian morality need the bible. Christianity relies on the bible but not the morality of the christians, even modern satanists are EXTREMELY moral, they aren't just some people who sacrifice/murder and have orgies... most never have done that in their lives and have NO want to....
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
@DanielMurphy007
I would disagree, as a theory is a framework of ideas in which things are explained. In the same way, hitler couldn't 'justify' something with the theory of particle gravity. Especially since Darwin was specifically about Natural* Selection, not artificial selection.
You can however show direct flow from the extreme antisemitic bloodline-preserving writing of Paul.
Harizl 3 months ago
I don't recognize everyone in the last supper image at the end, but I recognize Leibniz and Einstein, who were not atheists but had very sincere religious beliefs. I recommend Einsteins essays on Science and Religion, they are available online and are very eloquent as to the role of religion with regard to the future of humanity.
DanielMurphy007 3 months ago
Comment removed
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DanielMurphy007 Wait... he wasn't religious himself, he believed in a god that is pretty much irrelevant in the sense of worship, and that god is not what makes us good, nor does god impose an idea of good and evil... Religion is pretty much set concepts, morals, and rules that are defined as absolute....
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
To have atheists claim that Hilter was a follower of christ after killing 6 million JEWS is the stupidest thing anyone could ever say. Why? Hear me clearly, "Jesus was a JEW." In fact, the entire bible (except for the book Luke) was written by.....you guessed it JEWS.
The truth is, Hitler was Catholic, Catholic does not equate to being a follower of Christ. The reason why atheists say these things is because they don't actually know what a christian is.
robdmccoy 3 months ago
@robdmccoy I suspect some of the Catholics I know would be highly insulted if you told them they don't follow Christ. Protestant fundamentalists nutjobs like to claim that Catholics aren't Christian.
Your assertion that Christians wouldn't kill Jews because Jesus was a Jew is equally ludicrous. Learn some history. The Jews have been persecuted by Christians for 2000 years. Do you even know why?
Your comment is laughably ignorant.
Ansonidak 3 months ago
@Ansonidak
It only sounds ignorant when you don't know what makes a person a follower of Christ. This is where the confusion begins. Second, you should understand that even if you're a protestant that doesn't mean you're a follower of Christ. The fact, is what you know as being a christian is actually false. The only way to find the truth is to seek the truth.
Here's something to remember.
Anyone can stand up and call themselves a christian in order to gain some kinda of position of power.
robdmccoy 3 months ago
@robdmccoy RE: "Here's something to remember.
Anyone can stand up and call themselves a christian in order to gain some kinda of position of power. "
I never would have guessed.
Ansonidak 3 months ago
@Ansonidak
Well said...
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 months ago
Comment removed
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
The Nazi belt buckles all said "God on our side" in German. The Catholic Church celebrated Hitler's birthday up to the end of his regime, and most important of all, Hitler got his antisemitism from the Catholic Church, which was officially antisemitic at the time, and for some time after the war. Furthermore, all of the men and women who executed the Holocaust on his behalf in the SS were almost all Catholic or Protestant. That dirty work was all done in the name of the Christian God.
DandAinTac 3 months ago
@DandAinTac "Gott mit uns" was a military slogan/imperial motto for the German empire for centuries before WWII, the church didn't celebrate Hitler's birthday (misnomer), and Hitler's antisemitism was racist, not religious. Some of the dirty work was the murder of millions of Christians, as well as Jews. If the Christian God doesn't condone killing, isn't it possible that they followed a different version of God? Like maybe a cult that twisted Christian teachings to suit its own purposes?
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@DandAinTac Check out pave the way foundation's website for a great deal of verifiable historic documentation regarding the church's position of Nazism/Hitler during and well before WWII.
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@DandAinTac Forgot to mention that members of the SS were required by Himmler to believe in "God" to enlist in the SS, but were encouraged not to identify with any particular sect, such as Protestantism or Catholicism (or even Christianity, for that matter- a number of SS troops were even Islamic). The idea behind this was that an organization is more efficient/easier to control when individuals unquestioningly obey orders tied in to their religious beliefs- a tactic shared by Hitler.
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai I accept the corrections to the details, since I pulled from memory. Doesn't change the basic thrust of the argument--Nazism and Hitler cannot accurately be described as atheist, they are much closer to Christian than atheist.
DandAinTac 3 months ago
@DandAinTac Fair enough :) and I would definitely agree with you that Hitler was not an atheist. My only beef is that I would challenge the statement that Hitler did what he did because of Christianity. I believe Hitler was driven to do what he did because of his own personal beliefs steeped in delusion and racism, and with Hitler's exceptional understanding and use of propaganda, religion was simply a valuable tool in stringing people along.
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai (Part 1 of 2) Fair enough--it is extremely common for theists, particularly Christians, to blame the crimes of the Communist totalitarian dictatorships, from Stalin to Pol Pot, on atheism, which is absurd, because atheism is content-free. It is merely the lack of belief in something, so one could just as accurately blame Stalin's lack of belief in elves for the people he had executed. (continued)
DandAinTac 3 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai (Part 2 of 2)...but let's suppose that the NKVD had belt buckles that said "atheism on our side" and Stalin had left writings that said he was doing it all for atheism, and the cause of atheism required that he have people executed--would you be as quick to let atheism off the hook as you are with Christianity and the Nazis?
DandAinTac 3 months ago
@DandAinTac We're in agreement then. Supposing what you mentioned was true, I couldn't blame atheism, because I know that atheism itself doesn't require/encourage killing, even if Stalin said it did/wanted it to. However, where atheism is simply a view regarding the (non)existence of an all-powerful being without any unifying outline for morality, I would contend that Hitler's methods/goals were not only not encouraged by Christianity, but were contrary to Christianity's teachings, like a cult..
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@DandAinTac Unfortunately, it's difficult for many to believe that, because the teachings of Christianity have been misused muddled throughout history by events like the crusades, inquisitions, and other events concocted by status-driven and power-hungry individuals who excelled not in faith but in their ambition and ability to manipulate followers. I believe very little can be found in these events which harmed countless people, or in those responsible for orchestrating them, that is Christian.
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2nd2LastSamurai That is pretty much saying: These people are immoral therefor they are not moral... Being moral has nothing to do with christianity... Being christian is to have morals, but that has nothing to do with god, nor christianity. Christianity does mostly harm, and for what good it does do is a unnecessary reason for christianity to exist. It causes people to do things that are not acceptable, and yet for what? Nothing, i am christian by your logic yet i am atheist -_-
IronicAtheist 3 months ago
Hitler's turban is dirty.
gatorboymike 3 months ago
Hitler was catholic, his writings invoked god over an again, the mottos and oaths of the military invoked it. He was in cahoots with the Vatican, prior to and during the war. I'm not sure why people keep wheeling this argument out, it's utterly irrelevant.
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
the klan is a christian group who hate jews
whtsox1958 3 months ago
Christians trying to blame pagans for the distorted beliefs and actions of Christians.
shirehorse91 3 months ago
"Catholics, christians all over the US were denouncin'"
Bull-sodding-shit they were.
MakoSharkX 3 months ago
Hitler wasn't a Christian. Ian Kershaw provided enough information to counter that. Yes he quoted Christianity to get into office. Mein Kampf was also partially propaganda. He also said he enjoyed lying to the masses among his own people. He thought of Christianity as a "jewish religion." He probably wasn't an atheist. He believed in Germanic concepts with new age. He used Christianity to influence people. I could win that argument. I am an atheist who hates religion by the way.
MrNicMachiavelli 3 months ago
this max guy needs to hit the books. Please take a number and go sit over there.
zofoblues 4 months ago
@zofoblues Please take a number and go sit over there, hahaha
yourallbrainwashed 3 months ago
Hmm. I need to go back and read some stuff. I could've sworn that I've read about how the Nazis basically destroyed the practice of Christianity in Germany during their 12 years. It seems like this goes back to the question of what a Christian is. Are you a Christian if you claim to be, even if you might be deliberately lying about it? Are you a Christian if the majority of Christians say that you aren't? I'm surprised that I haven't thought much about Nazi religion before.
valkolakk 4 months ago
To be fair, I think there's an argument to be had about wether Hitler really was a christian or not.
There is NO debate, however, about wether or not Hitler was an atheist. He was most definitely, and to his own admission, not.
InnerPartisan 4 months ago
While science doesn’t affirm what it doesn’t know, neither does it rule it out such as a possibility. That being said, if science really is what one believes in, and if the objective really is a search for truth, how can one offhandedly disregard valid possibilities? If one possibility is that there is a God, how does science tell you that there isn’t? In other words, I would iterate your own rhetorical question- “Is it so hard for ppl to admit that they just don't have a clue?”.
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2nd2LastSamurai
"the improbability of life beginning on its own"
Thank you for pointing out again that it's just a wild guess based on the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW.
The thing about science is it desires testable evidence, what you posit as "evidence" is a far cry from it, the "god" concept barely qualifies as a hypothesis.
(cont.)
Seymour13 4 months ago
@Seymour13 I missed your first comment as it was flagged as spam. I challenged your depiction of probability theory in my last post, I didn't reinforce it. the things I've mentioned are very scientifically testable, but it seems that you don't regard probability as a useful scientific tool. While probability isn't certainty, I think most people would be surprised at the amount of things we don't know but which we use probability theory to define scientifically, as an alternative to wild guesses.
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
(cont.)
Three little rules when dealing with a claim:
1- One can't distinguish between the unobservable and the non-existant.
2- Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
3- What can be assumed without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
(cont.)
Seymour13 4 months ago
@Seymour13 Aside from rule #1, I just don’t see much that is actually scientific about these 3 “rules” mentioned, and I was curious where the scientific method states or eludes to these ideas. Either way, this would be my response to those items:
1. Right. So why assume that which is unobservable to be non-existent? Really, an agnostic would have the most sound scientific stance here.
(cont'd)
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
@Seymour13
2. This is more of a cliché than a scientific argument, and a bit of a misused one at that. The end of the statement should probably include something like the phrase “…in order to be regarded as truth/fact”. Otherwise it’s an open-ended statement that people tend to use as justification for their belief-based invalidation of others’ beliefs, whether they’re justifiable in the individual sense or not.
(cont'd)
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
@Seymour13
Extraordinary claims don’t require extraordinary evidence in order to exist or to remain possibly true, especially on a personal level. They only require such evidence to be considered as a universal truth, or to be established as general knowledge.
3. Similar to #2, this is another cliché. Certainly, an individual is capable of dismissing/denying whatever evidence they want. So while this concept might be justified in individual beliefs, science has very little to say about it...
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
@Seymour13 Science either knows, or it does not know, period. At this point in time, the best that science has to offer in relation to God’s existence is it “doesn’t know”. Besides, there is evidence (even if only circumstantial) in favor of an intelligent designer, just nothing that’s considered as having a “correct” or indisputable interpretation.
(cont'd)
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai the 'evidence' for an intelligent creator was tried in a court of law and found to be laughable nonsense. Read about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case where this was tried.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg This really has little bearing on anything. Worthy of note is the fact that the case and the verdict are under much scrutiny as a form of judicial activism. It was Judge Jones' responsibility only to come up with a ruling regarding what had a place to be taught in the "science" classes of schools within the jurisdiction of the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (more specifically in the curriculum in the Dover Area School District).
(con'td)
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Here are a couple of statements that serve as critiques of Judge Jones’ ruling: From the Montana Law Review:
“Unfortunately, Judge Jones appears to have confused the question of whether he finds ID [intelligent design] personally convincing with the question of whether ID is a scientific theory. Because he was not convinced by the scientific arguments made by ID proponents, Judge Jones ruled that ID must not be science in principle..."
(cont'd)
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg "But it was not Judge Jones's place to determine the ultimate truth or falsity of ID's scientific arguments”… “Even if Judge Jones believed that ID is false, he should have remembered that "the wisdom of an educational policy or its efficiency from an educational point of view is not germane to the constitutional issue of whether that policy violates the establishment clause...
(cont'd)
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg "If it is really true that "[s]tates and local school boards are generally afforded considerable discretion in operating public schools," then what matters is that the school board sincerely believed that ID has scientific merit, not whether a federal judge is convinced of its ultimate scientific truth.”
(cont'd)
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Anti-intelligent design legal scholar Jay Wexler wrote: "The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science and to freedom of religion”
Although Judge Jones denies accusations of judicial activism, he admits that he used this case for judicial policy-making to affect parties that were not involved in the case (aka judicial activism) by stating...
(cont'd)
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg “I wrote the opinion in a comprehensive way because I knew that the dispute was possibly going to be replicated someplace else. And what I wanted to do was make the opinion sort of a primer that people could read. You're absolutely correct. It's not precedential outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania, but I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened about what the dispute was all about."
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg This case hardly establishes that evidence for an intelligent creator is "laughable nonsense", and what it does establish, it fails to do so in a scientifically valid or objective fashion.
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai it established that the EVIDENCE as presented in the court, was laughable nonsense. Please learn to read.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Please be more polite, I didn't insult you.
Yes, and the wording of the verdict did not include "laughable nonsense"- that's only your interpretation, but I explained how many are of the opinion that the judge overstepped his authority by instating new judicial policy to resolve this particular case. It was anticipated that Jones' ruling would be overturned if appealed, but the school district was not interested in such a pursuit...
(cont'd)
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai but the events inside did. Behe presented this flawed argument that the bacterium flagellum could not have evolved its 'engine' because it took some 40 aminoacids in exact combination, claiming that there was no documents that supported this part to evolve. Behe was then introduced to a half-meter high stack of scientific papers, and asked if he had read those - and he answered NO.
Behe failed completely to provide evidence, and as a result, ID was deemed not a science.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg The problem that many legal experts have is that this judge doesn’t have the judicial, let alone scientific authority to make the ruling he did, and in fact might be infringing on the religious freedoms of those affected by this case. Regardless, the case and the ruling certainly have no jurisdiction outside of the Middle District of Pennsylvania- so again, the argument has little bearing on the legitimacy of one’s beliefs, even from a scientific standpoint.
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai be that as it may, i havent research that part, the fundamentals was still the complete lack of verifiable evidence.
And we all know how religious people do with evidence when it doesn support them...
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
@MagnusNyborg Fair enough, but the problem is that Jones' task was only to determine whether or not the school district had violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, nothing more. The court wasn't equipped or given all resources/authority to produce a "scientific" ruling of ID based on the limited evidence presented/parties represented. Because of this, the verdict, outside of its specifics in pertaining to this court case, has little jurisdiction over what is or isn't "science".
2nd2LastSamurai 3 months ago
@2nd2LastSamurai the bigger question will however remain, the evidence. Even if the judge went above jurisdiction (and i am not able to judge), the lack of evidence will only casue a higher instance to rule in the same way, and then with jurisdiction. And penalties for wasting the courts time, as was ruled in the dover-case.
With evidence, different matter.
MagnusNyborg 3 months ago
(cont.)
The only reason the "god" concept has gotten as much credibility is because it was invented in a time when we literally had nothing with which to explain the world around us and religions then did a good job of keeping the people ignorant and docile little sheep while expanding their cult's influence, inhibiting progress whenever it tried to rear it's head.
(cont.)
Seymour13 4 months ago
@Seymour13 As far as your second statement goes, it’s likely that you’re right to an extent, but it doesn’t represent all the actions of all members of all religions during all periods of history, and it still doesn’t invalidate something like a present-day individual’s belief in God.
Burden of proof is also overused and misunderstood. Proof comes at the completion of the scientific method- not the beginning. In an objective system, a supported hypothesis isn’t dismissed until it’s made false..
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
@Seymour13 RARELY does science/philosophy/the justice system have the luxury of having absolute “proof” of anything. In the concept of “burden of proof”, it’s often incorrectly assumed that “proof” is always available for a correct claim. The justice system deals more in the sense of “proof” on the basis that it’s better for the guilty to walk free due to lack available proof than it is for an innocent to suffer without the necessity of proof.
(cont'd)
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont.)
"how can one offhandedly disregard valid possibilities?"
VALID being the key word, "goddundidit" is just a guess, which is why I disregard it.
“Is it so hard for ppl to admit that they just don't have a clue?”
I'm saying I don't know and no-one else does either, just that the god claim is beyond unjustified and positing it as viable is intellectually dishonest.
I'm not making any claims, I'm not selling anything, I'm just not buying what religion is selling.
(cont.)
Seymour13 4 months ago
(cont.)
"how does science tell you that there isn’t?"
It doesn't, and that's not even the point...
Null hypothesis and burden of proof, look them up.
Seymour13 4 months ago
@Seymour13 This insures that more punishments issued are deserved than would be if the system were different. Science doesn’t operate under this burden, and sustains supportable hypotheses as possible explanations. In an objective debate, when support for a claim is given, it’s not enough to simply disagree and call it a “null hypothesis”. If it is null, one must explain why.
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
“Even if that's true, what good is it considering people needed hundreds of years (if not more) to understand it?”, and so on…
A valid question/point, but the original words of the Bible weren’t written in the language of/intended as a scientific/historical manuscript. The scientific concepts within the Bible are intended as a means of parable to convey moral/spiritual messages and therefore don’t supply explicit scientific evidence to back them up.
(cont)
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
Theoretically, if there were a being capable of intelligent design who created life/the universe, why should it then be subject to/forced to operate within the parameters of its own invention (ie biogenesis)? Simply by creating anything, it would already have broken the law of conservation of mass. While science allows us to better understand aspects of the inner workings of the universe/creation, it doesn't necessarily hold jurisdiction over the one capable of intelligent design/creator.
(cont)
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
No offense, but the “we don’t know, therefore [insert myth]” argument is an inaccurate depiction of what probability theory is or says. A number of universally accepted scientific principles were developed chiefly through the application of probability.
(cont)
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
As evidence is subject to interpretation, it’s not surprising to find someone who disagrees with it, but that doesn’t disqualify it as evidence. In many circles of the scientific/historical community, this evidence carries enough clout to not be so hastily disregarded. You don’t need to agree with probability theory or it’s application to the improbability of life beginning on its own for it to remain scientifically cohesive or evidentiary.
(cont)
2nd2LastSamurai 4 months ago
Hitler wasn't a Christian. He wasn't an atheist either. He seemed like he was new age. I don't think it was clear what he was.
MrNicMachiavelli 4 months ago
@finalfantasy8VIII thats another contradiction. if you are arguing their is no god, then yhou have the burden to prove it. if you where an agnostic then you would have nothing to prove, but you are an atheist wich means you say their is no god, so prove it. and te truth will come to you at some point. weather in this life or the next, i just pray for you its the former
MrFollowingjesus 4 months ago
@blackbat1339 how does people claiming to be christian and do bad thing have anything to do with christianity itself, i follow the bible and jesus christ which is christianity , not men who claim to follow christianity. men will always war and commit evil no matter what their belief . you sir are a discrase to your fellow man for making such claims, JESUS IS LORD
MrFollowingjesus 4 months ago
@finalfantasy8VIII you sir are a fool. your arguments are week and contradict themselves, i would like you to ofer me proof and evidence of gods non-existence , just like you atheists want us to prove gods existence
MrFollowingjesus 4 months ago
@MrFollowingjesus before I continue I insult you I'll ask you this, how are my arguments contradictory? and just so you know the burden of proof is on you not me.
finalfantasy8VIII 4 months ago
@finalfantasy8VIII talk about a statement of ignorance. you obviously no nothing about the religions if you think they just borrow stuff from each other, and every single peice of arceology that theyfind , not one peace has ever contradicted the bible, it has found it to be accurate. please do some research and educate yourself before you try to make a point with me, otherwise you are going to make yourself a fool infront of your fellow atheists.
MrFollowingjesus 4 months ago