RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (23) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Are "Radical" Atheists Dangerous?, Orr vs. Dawkins< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2007,18:34   

Well, just remember that they're not laughing *with* him; they're laughing *at* him.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2007,18:38   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 14 2007,16:47)
I can speak for the S. Baptists.

Which ones?  The ones who think evolution is godless atheistic liberalism, or the ones who filed as plaintiffs in Arkansas to have creation "science" kickedout of schools . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2007,18:39   

lol

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2007,20:24   

Why is everyone focusing on Hitler's beliefs rather than his actions? Beliefs are hard to pin down; actions are a matter of public record. And the record indicates that Hitler was not fond of the Catholic Church:

Reichskonkordat:

   
Quote
The main points of the concordat are

The right to freedom of the Roman Catholic religion. (Article 1)
The state concordats with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929), and Baden (1932) remain valid. (Article 2)
Unhindered correspondence between the Holy See and German Catholics. (Article 4)
The right of the church to collect church taxes. (Article 13)
The oath of allegiance of the bishops: "(...) Ich schwöre und verspreche, die verfassungsmässig gebildete Regierung zu achten und von meinem Klerus achten zu lassen (...)" ("I swear and vow to honor the constitutional government and to make my clergy honor it") (Article 16)
State services to the church can be abolished only in mutual agreement. (Article 18)
Catholic religion is taught in school (article 21) and teachers for Catholic religion can be employed only with the approval of the bishop (article 22).
Protection of Catholic organizations and freedom of religious practice. (Article 31)
Clerics may not be members of or be active for political parties. (Article 32)

Here's another source.

Now let's see what happened after the treaty was signed:

   
Quote
An "Editors Law" was passed in December 1933, forcing all editors to become members of the "Literary Chamber of the Reich" and to obey whatever directives might follow. This law made it an offense to give detailed accounts of pilgrimages, print liturgical calendars or even announce meetings of local Catholic clubs. In its definition of what constituted anti-State propaganda, the "Editors Law" was a death sentence for the large and thriving Catholic press.
[...]
Mueller's documentation established a clear progression of anti-Catholic measures between 1933 and 1939, ordered by a State determined to force young Catholics into the ranks of the Hitler Youth. Catholic schools and trade unions were dismantled and clergy targeted for prosecution and imprisonment. Clergy were humiliated and punished in "Currency" and "Immorality" show trials throughout 1935 and 1936. (Laws had been passed from 1933 onwards to regulate the import and export of currency. Exporting currency was made "high treason" and "economic sabotage." These were familiar principles to those used to a totalitarian economic system, but the Catholic clergy were not.)
[...]
That Easter [1935], pilgrims returning to Germany from Pius XII's blessing in Rome were punished at border checkpoints by Gestapo and SS units. They were put out of their trains and kept waiting for seven hours in pouring rain, while suitcases were ripped open and the contents scattered. Anything belonging to a "denominational organization" — flags, banners, books, tents, even knives and forks — was confiscated. Insults were hurled at the pilgrims: "So these are the Papists, the people who stabbed Germany in the back in 1918! They ought to be beaten and sent to a concentration camp... cutting their throats would be the best thing." In the teeth of outraged protests, the local police merely said they had been searching for illegal uniforms.
[...]
The Nazi strategy was, essentially, to destroy Catholicism by eliminating all organizations supported by the Church, from schools and children's groups to Catholic trade unions. By 1939, Catholic schools and trade unions were virtually destroyed. Replacing them were National Socialist Schools, the Nazi Labor Front and the Hitler Youth with its female counterpart, The German Girls League.


The initial attack on Catholic schools in Munich reduced the percentage of students from 84% in 1934 to 65% percent in 1935. In 1937, parents were forced to choose their child's school in front of two witnesses, usually storm troopers in full uniform. These witnesses warned of future trouble and loss of employment. The children themselves would also suffer. There would be no primary school prizes for them; prizes were funded only in State schools. Parents still in favor of Catholic schools might be told that, "your little ones will have to go to a school on the outskirts, miles away."


Meetings were regularly held to vote on the issue of Catholic or "Community" schools. In Speyer, a town of some 40,000 inhabitants situated on the Rhine, one working man gave his bishop details of how his "vote" had been obtained in 1937: "I was told to go to the Parish Council offices. On arriving there I declared, I want the Roman Catholic school' and prepared to leave. The local Nazi cell-leader held me back and wrote a note to my firm stating that because of my declaration I would be dismissed from my job. A police constable then told me if I didn't change my mind I would never obtain public work again."
[...]
The government in Germany funded all schools, Catholic and State. A councilor of the Bavarian Ministry of Education announced that in 1936 alone, of 1,600 teaching posts formerly awarded to nuns, 600 would be taken away from them and transferred to secular staff. The councilor did not bother to explain what would happen to the unfortunate 600. The economic effects of such enforced layoffs forced many religious houses to close. Nuns were driven into subsistence jobs. Some had to return to their parents or move in with sympathetic relatives. Yet others applied for jobs in industry. In Baden, in the summer of 1938, there were 41 nuns working in one textile factory, all former teachers. The government then announced that all nuns renouncing vows would be automatically entitled to State employment!


Thus, on October 27, 1938, Adolf Wagner, Bavarian Minister of the Interior stated with pride: "The denominational schools throughout the whole of Bavaria have now been transformed into Community schools." By January 1939, more than 10,000 Catholic schools had been suppressed in Germany, and by the end of April that year, the Catholic Herald (London) reported that a further 3,300 schools had been abolished by decree in what was described as "A Black Day for the Catholic Rhineland."


Catholic youth associations, with a collective membership in the hundreds of thousands, were attacked for being "un-German." Teachers were reminded that as employees of the State, they had a duty to encourage their pupils to join the Hitler Youth or German Girls League (GGL). One teacher told her girls: "Join the German Girls League. When you leave school you'll be wanting a boy friend and if you've not been in the GGL you won't get one. And then, when you get married, your husband will lose his job the second they find out you haven't been a member of the GGL." Thousands of Catholic employees were threatened with disciplinary measures or dismissal unless they ensured their children were enrolled in the Hitler Youth or German Girls League. Training guilds, such as the Prussian Master-Craftsman Association, began announcing from 1935 onwards that only those enrolled in Nazi Party organizations would be accepted as apprentices. German Railways, employing hundreds of thousands, passed a similar ordinance the same year. Even farmers began issuing notices to the same effect, with shops advertising part-time jobs following suit. The New York Times on June 1, 1937 reported a Hitler speech stating: "We will take away their children. They shall not escape us."


Now combine these incidents with Heddle's links.

Here are two sources that discuss Hitler's relationship with Protestant churches. Admittedly, Hitler backed off some of his major attempts to persecute unruly Protestant clergy:

 
Quote
As resistance to his policies mounted, Hitler began to separate himself from the German Christians.  He emphasized the separation between church and state, and took a less active role in intimidating other church groups.

Muller, however continued to serve as Reich Bishop, even as Hitler's interest in the German Christians waned.  In an effort to forestall the collapse of the German Christian Church, Muller declared that all Evangelical youth groups would be incorporated into the Hitler jugend.  This created a furor among the opposition, because the Baldur von Shirach, the jugend's leader, was a declared atheist who placed the State ahead of all else.  Muller also ordered the Gestapo to go to churches and monitor what was said.

By the middle of 1934, Protestant opposition to Hitler was well organized, and the German Christian Church became fraught with internal division.  Without support from the government, the German Christians and Muller became totally ineffective.

This did not stop Jager from brutally oppressing pastors in Wurttemberg (although the strength of the resistance in Prussia handicapped Jager's ability to interfere with church operations), and continuing to spread propaganda denouncing the Protestant opposition.  A Protestant Kulturkampf was instituted, and throughout Germany, with the exception of Westphalia, opposition was brutally repressed.  Pastors were fired, arrested, and jailed.

In October of 1934 Jager was dismissed by Hitler, and all measures against dissenting bishops were annulled.  Opposition leaders were summoned to Berlin, and Frick assured them that neutrality was now the official government policy towards the German Evangelical Church.



Some of these sources have obvious biases, so proceed with caution! Nevertheless, these links provide a little background to the debate.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2007,20:41   

The "debate"?

Oh, you mean the side debate people would rather have with almost anyone--even Heddle!--rather than talk about your topic...?

Now I got ya...

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,12:25   

"He's bringing facts to the debate? Facts?!!!"

"He must be either desperate or conservative. Git a rope."

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The_Shadow_Of_Paley



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,14:26   

Some on this thread have attempted to cite Stalin as an example of how "secularism" fails to provide an adequate moral foundation. Well, it seems to me Stalin and those like him succeded magnificiently in providing exactly this kind of belief, for large scale slaughter can not be inspired by "amorality" or "nihilism" but rather by unbridled moral rightgeousness. While this can involve god-beliefs, it certainly doesn't have to.

I will admit right away I have no wider grounding for my own moral and aesthetic preferences than personal opinion. True believers of all sorts would  classify me as "evil" or "nihilistic", but perhaps I am just honest. I don't have a "moral foundation" and I don't need one. Would any of the godly or the godless alike like to explain why I do?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,14:52   

Before we proceed further, are you one of Ghost of Paley's multiple personalities?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The_Shadow_Of_Paley



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,16:28   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 15 2007,13:52)
Before we proceed further, are you one of Ghost of Paley's multiple personalities?

We've already been through this on another thread. I was a part of the geocentric, presuppositionalist tag team the Ghost character was during his troll days. My partner has kept the Ghost account since then and I have started a new one.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,16:41   

Quote (The_Shadow_Of_Paley @ Mar. 15 2007,15:28)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 15 2007,13:52)
Before we proceed further, are you one of Ghost of Paley's multiple personalities?

We've already been through this on another thread. I was a part of the geocentric, presuppositionalist tag team the Ghost character was during his troll days. My partner has kept the Ghost account since then and I have started a new one.

So yes, basically.

Remind me, were you GoP's evil twin or his good twin?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The_Shadow_Of_Paley



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,17:47   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 15 2007,15:41)
Quote (The_Shadow_Of_Paley @ Mar. 15 2007,15:28)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 15 2007,13:52)
Before we proceed further, are you one of Ghost of Paley's multiple personalities?

We've already been through this on another thread. I was a part of the geocentric, presuppositionalist tag team the Ghost character was during his troll days. My partner has kept the Ghost account since then and I have started a new one.

So yes, basically.

Remind me, were you GoP's evil twin or his good twin?

I was the evil one. While he is a mere ghost who could have emerged from the plays of Shakespeare, I am one of those more incomprehensible and  frightening things crawling from the pages of Lovecraft or Dean Koontz on his better days.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,18:18   

To Paley (all of them):

(yawn)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The_Shadow_Of_Paley



Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,19:31   

It has been a long time since I've read Hitler's magnum opus, and his writing on Christianity seemed to me even more inane than the rest of the work. While condeming the Jews, he still seems to be enamoured with Jesus with whom he thinks shares some sort of spiritual nexus with him. In light of the fact he suspected he had Jewish ancestry and hence was not a part of his own "master race," my understanding of his "Christianity" was to link himself to Jesus so he could "overcome" his racial inferiority as, in what appears to his idiosyncratic interpretation of the Gospels, Jesus had done. According to John Toland, Nazi law defining Jewishness explicitly excluded Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler (primary source?).

One thing he makes clear his Anti-Semitism is explcitly racial and not religious. One of the points he repeats ad nauseum is that the religion of Judaism is a sham and ruse designed to fool Aryan societies of the Jew's true (racial) nature. Christian "Anti-Semites" certainly hate Jews, but they also hate anybody else who fails to share their theology. Hatred based on theology is not the same as hatred based on race.

With that thought let us take up why it is so #### important to some people to make Hitler as Christian as possible. The point is not to link Hitler to Christianity qua Christianity, but to link Hitler's racism and anti-semitism to American Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who form the core of the "religious right." As a former Christian fundamentalist, I know from personal experience this is a crock.

What Evangel/fundie Christians out to do above and beyond everything else is convert as many people as possible. Recalling the discussion of eternal security a page or two ago, this doctrine implies once a man make s a public profession of his Christian faith, he is "saved" and is guaranteed a place in Heaven upon death. Everything these people do revolves around persuading others to do this. It goes without saying that bigotry is utterly inimical to this purpose. No serious fundie would ever publicly say anything that might alienate a member of an ethnic group for this reason. The appearance of loving everybody is paramount in their churches. Even the homosexual issue is not as cut-and-dried as often thought. While they believe that homosexuality is a sin, this does not impede their desire to get as many homosexuals "saved" as possible. It is up to each congregation, and each believer, to decide where to strike the delicate balance between "Hating the sin" and "Loving the sinner."  Guys like Fred Phelps are not typical at all. To the extent fundamentalists are "hate-mongers", their hatred is directed at beliefs different from their own, not on race, national origin, or even for the most part sexual orientation.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2007,21:35   

Quote (The_Shadow_Of_Paley @ Mar. 15 2007,18:31)
To the extent fundamentalists are "hate-mongers", their hatred is directed at beliefs different from their own, not on race, national origin, or even for the most part sexual orientation.

A history lesson for you -------------->

Why were so many private Christians schools formed in the South after 1954?

Extra credit:  What year did Bob Jones University finally allow blacks as students, and why?

Extra Extra Credit:  What year did BJU finally stop banning interracial dating amongst its students, and why?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,00:44   

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 13 2007,13:21)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Mar. 13 2007,12:46)
BWE:

     
Quote
     
Quote
 
First, historians are not sure that Hitler was a Christian. And I was under the impression that Stalin was an atheist when he left the seminary and never looked back. In any case, Stalin's (and to a lesser extent, Hitler's) policies were explicitly antireligious. The Jews, who had earlier endured pogroms in Christian hands, were targeted for annihilation in Nazi Germany. Apparently, subordinating the Church to an all-powerful state did not protect the Jews from physical harm, and may have removed the moral brakes provided by Christianity. And the Jews certainly learned the meaning of Stalin's catch phrase: "est chelovek, est problema, net cheloveka — net problemy." Fortunately his government's incompetence prevented another Holocaust.

Are you actually claiming that persecuting Jews is an anti-religious activity?


Sorry for the unintended meaning. What I was trying to say was:

1) If antisemitism is largely a byproduct of Christianity, then we should see antisemitism decline when the influence of the Church declines. In Nazi Germany and Communist Russia (particularly under Stalin), that didn't happen. In fact, we saw serious attempts to wipe Jews off the face of the earth. It doesn't get any more antisemitic than that;

2) Antisemitism is not confined to the religious -- many atheists have been and are virulently anti-Jewish; and

3) When evaluating whether or not a certain dictator was antireligious, I put more weight on his actions than his words. (And more weight on his private speech). Based on this standard, Stalin was clearly antireligious and Hitler was somewhat antireligious. I'll be happy to back this up if you wish, but it looks like Heddle has already provided some excellent supporting evidence.

And this involves your topic how? Are you claiming there are fewer xians/muslims now than in a previous time?

And your reply fails to address any of my points.
 
Quote
It seems that these critics hold several odd ideas, the first being that anyone attacking theology should actually know some.

“The most disappointing feature of ‘The God Delusion,’” Mr. Orr wrote, “is Dawkins’s failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology” and “no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions.”
Straw man. First, Dawkins has no need to address orthoxy  or specific theology. He pushes a different issue. Second, the implicit assumption that Dawkins never learned any theology remains unsupported.
 
Quote
“In a book of almost 400 pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false,” Mr. Eagleton wrote. “The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history and this by a self-appointed crusader against bigotry.”

See my previous post(s).
 
Quote
In Mr. Orr’s view, “No decent person can fail to be repulsed by the sins committed in the name of religion,” but atheism has to be held to the same standard: “Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual fact that (1) the 20th century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before.”

Seems a mite biased of a statement, eh? I would need a whole lot of context for the claim that the 20th century was an "experiment in secularism". And it was not "more spectacularly virulent than that which came before.” So the whole point is moot.

 
Quote
Finally, these critics stubbornly rejected the idea that rational meant scientific. “The fear of religion leads too many scientifically minded atheists to cling to a defensive, world-flattening reductionism,” Mr. Nagel wrote.
I share this fear. Yet I still disapprove of intellectual dishonesty. Trying to map the interior dimensions as surfaces sometimes leads to a dehumanizing worldview, and the scientific method knows no other techniques. Yet the mapping of real surfaces through physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy and physical sciences also paints a very real backdrop from which to experience the interior dimensions. Religion offers niether.

Paley, did this just go down the drain?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,11:00   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 15 2007,20:35)
A history lesson for you -------------->

Why were so many private Christians schools formed in the South after 1954?

Extra credit:  What year did Bob Jones University finally allow blacks as students, and why?

Extra Extra Credit:  What year did BJU finally stop banning interracial dating amongst its students, and why?

I know the answers to all three, but that's sort of unfair.

:D

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,13:24   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 15 2007,20:35)
Why were so many private Christians schools formed in the South after 1954?

Extra credit:  What year did Bob Jones University finally allow blacks as students, and why?

Extra Extra Credit:  What year did BJU finally stop banning interracial dating amongst its students, and why?

Let's see...

1) 1954. Wasn't that the year that god commanded the creation of religious schools? It's in the bible.
2) BJU let the first black in the same year that the first black applied for admission.
3)BJU has never allowed dating of any kind.

(Am I close?)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,14:15   

BWE:

 
Quote
Paley, did [my response] just go down the drain?


Sorry for being a little tardy.....but I need one favour. Would you mind restating your objections in one post? The post you quoted is a little vague, and I'm trying to respond to your actual position. No hurry.....I will probably be tied up until Monday evening.

Kristine:

While I respect your right to be rebellious, I sometimes wonder if your lifestyle doesn't play into the Establishment's hands. After all, you're a hard-working taxpayer who pursues mild decadence in her limited spare time while refusing to reproduce. Isn't this what our media and government want from intelligent white women?

I'll let my shadowy shade reply to the attempted history lesson, but I'd like to note that Evangelical Christianity limits the evil that men do to other human beings, because the emphasis is on saving souls, which in turn implies that the lamb has a soul worth saving. It's like an Irish Nationalist in a Columbo episode who would mark his whisky bottle with his ring before pouring a shot, while saying "This far and no farther".

This far and no farther. Segregation perhaps, but extermination.....no. This reinforces the point I made earlier: the Most Secular Century witnessed deliberate genocide on an unprecedented scale. Technology certainly played a role, but the impulse to wipe out the "vermin" -- born on the lack of respect afforded "bad" individuals under secular philosophies -- cannot be ascribed to noncultural factors.

I sometimes wonder if liberals recognise the implicit compliment that they give people in Western societies by holding them, and ONLY them, accountable for past misdeeds. It's almost as if they don't expect the same level of moral reflection from non-Westerners.

Just find it interesting, is all.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,16:09   

Paley,
I do believe that you are trolling now.
But as an honest answer to the OP, I think it is always dodgey when someone wishes to impose their World View upon somebody else.
That could work either way BTW. Religious upon atheist is wrong and so is the reverse.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,17:49   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Mar. 16 2007,13:15)
Sorry for being a little tardy

No, no, no, Paley -- you are a GIGANTIC tardy.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,18:07   

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 16 2007,12:24)
Let's see...

1) 1954. Wasn't that the year that god commanded the creation of religious schools? It's in the bible.
2) BJU let the first black in the same year that the first black applied for admission.
3)BJU has never allowed dating of any kind.

(Am I close?)

(hint: follow the money)

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2007,18:16   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Mar. 16 2007,14:15)
I'll let my shadowy shade reply to the attempted history lesson, but I'd like to note that Evangelical Christianity limits the evil that men do to other human beings, because the emphasis is on saving souls, which in turn implies that the lamb has a soul worth saving.

That's laughable.  Nice try.  Mind telling us why fundies support Zionism?

Quote
This far and no farther. Segregation perhaps, but extermination.....no. This reinforces the point I made earlier: the Most Secular Century witnessed deliberate genocide on an unprecedented scale. Technology certainly played a role, but the impulse to wipe out the "vermin" -- born on the lack of respect afforded "bad" individuals under secular philosophies -- cannot be ascribed to noncultural factors.


This is why I generally don't go onto your threads.  It's completely fruitless.  You made this claim and I countered it, as did many others here.  Yet, here you are making the same claim.  You make a token comment about technology, but you continue to hold to your belief that religious people are just simply more moral?  Whatever.  At this point, you're just being an ostrich.  If Christian hatred towards the Jews didn't exist, it wouldn't have been so easy to put them in the oven.  Period.  You won't even acknowledge that, so there's really no point in continuing.

Quote
I sometimes wonder if liberals recognise the implicit compliment that they give people in Western societies by holding them, and ONLY them, accountable for past misdeeds. It's almost as if they don't expect the same level of moral reflection from non-Westerners.


And a straw man for the tri-fecta.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,11:50   

This is all so pointless.  There's no way to quantify "christian hatred" or any other hatred towards the Jews.  The Jews (and gypsys) just happen to be among the most persecuted people on the Earth so from anyone's perspective this group or that group is the root.  That's crap and lazy thinking.  That's why I warned you in the beginning, GoP, this is not a discussion.  To most here, religion and specifically Christianity, is the root of all evil and for the them to even entertain any other concept is beyond their ability.  

We can throw out any example of Christian or non-Christian evil and it means nothing.  You say Hilter, I say Pol Pot, you say Crusades and I say Stalin, blah, blah, blah.

This is just an example of how atheists try to justify their belief with some moral higher ground and how Christians try to label atheists as little satans.  Until we get beyond that, there simply is no discussion.

I apologize for the rant, I'll now step of my soapbox and fade back into the gallery.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,13:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 17 2007,10:50)
This is all so pointless.

I'm, uh, not an atheist, Skeptic.

And the reason all this DOES have a point is because it is the foaming fundies who are declaring that they should run things because they are so much more godly and more moral and blah blah blah than the rest of us mere mortal humans.  Just ask Heddle.

I've not seen any atheists advocating taking over the government and using it to force their religious opinions onto everyone else.  I *have* seen the fundies do exactly that (and more).  When the atheists try to do so, I will fight them just as hard as I fight the fundies.  And for exactly the same reasons.  Just ask PZ.

As for your self-righteous clucking, until you get off your ass and begin to do something about the world around you, I see no reason to listen to your sermonizing.  You are just as much a part of the problem as the fundies are.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,14:19   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 17 2007,11:50)
The Jews (and gypsys) just happen to be among the most persecuted people on the Earth so from anyone's perspective this group or that group is the root.  That's crap and lazy thinking.

Yes, it is lazy thinking to just say, "Alas, the Jews just happen to be persecuted and we just can't tell who is doing it."  There are pretty well documented accounts of why the Jews were persecuted and who was doing it.

Edit:  Of course, I'm not at all surprised that Skeptic would be intellectually lazy.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,14:37   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 17 2007,13:33)
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 17 2007,10:50)
This is all so pointless.

And the reason all this DOES have a point is because it is the foaming fundies who are declaring that they should run things because they are so much more godly and more moral and blah blah blah than the rest of us mere mortal humans.  Just ask Heddle.

I've not seen any atheists advocating taking over the government and using it to force their religious opinions onto everyone else.  I *have* seen the fundies do exactly that (and more).  When the atheists try to do so, I will fight them just as hard as I fight the fundies.  And for exactly the same reasons.  Just ask PZ.

And, that's annoying as heck as well, when some fundie tells me that I'm a bad person unless I have Jesus in my life.  That, people are incapable of being good, unless they have Jesus in their lives.  Nevermind the fact that Jesus tells us that we are all sinners and bad people inherently, because that contradiction is never acknowledged.  Nevermind the fact that being a Christian does not guarantee that you won't be a murderer or some other form of low-life (just ask the Catholic priests that like to fondle little boys.)  Nevermind the fact that the Bible is full of immoral teachings and events, all sanctioned in the name of god.  Nevermind the well documented history of Biblical teachings that has led Christians to commit all sorts of attrocities.

If you want to found a country that will be the most moral, I suggest you look no further than the founding fathers of this country.  They did not look to impose religion on anyone as most of them were irreligious.  Instead, they decided to codify everyone's right to worship or not as they please.

I suspect that GOP sees this country as a Christian nation and therefore moral, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  The truth is that this was intentionally founded as a secular nation that allowed for religious freedom where no one is coerced to be religious or not.  This country puts the lie to GOPs notions right from the start, unless GOP wants to say that the US is immoral because it is a secular state that does whatever he thinks is immoral.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,17:03   

Quote (GCT @ Mar. 17 2007,13:37)
I suspect that GOP sees this country as a Christian nation

Well, I suspect that Paley is just trolling again, since nobody has been paying any attention to him whatsoever lately, and Paley needs attention like a tapeworm needs shit.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,18:41   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 17 2007,10:50)
That's crap and lazy thinking...To most here, religion and specifically Christianity, is the root of all evil and for the them to even entertain any other concept is beyond their ability.

[snip]

This is just an example of how atheists try to justify their belief with some moral higher ground and how Christians try to label atheists as little satans.  Until we get beyond that, there simply is no discussion.

Lessee: sweeping generalizations? Check. Blatant projection? Check. Crap and lazy thinking? Absolutely.

Skeptic, you're a riot.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,23:34   

Thank you all for proving my point.  Do you just enjoy this, GoP or do you have some unrevealed sinister plan?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,11:56   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 17 2007,22:34)
Thank you all for proving my point.  Do you just enjoy this, GoP or do you have some unrevealed sinister plan?

Thank you for proving mine.

As noted, Paley is just trolling.  It's all Paley has EVER done. Why is he trolling now?  Because we've been ignoring him, and Paley craves attention.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  661 replies since Mar. 12 2007,10:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (23) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]