RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   
  Topic: How Evolutionists do things, Evolutionists cherry-picking of data< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,06:36   

Quote
Largely because we now report it in full, and because we have the means and weapons available to attempt to commit it more easily.

That, and the aus-rotten of Las Casas in favor of Marx, Darwin, and Tupac. But they're hip, so I guess it's all good.

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

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,16:12   

Quote
I think you misunderstood me. I'm arguing that religious leaders, on average, are less violent than secular ones.... But violence has been a constant throughout history, that's for sure.



At this point, I'm not overly motivated to research statistical world history.  My intention is not to denigrate ethical religion or engage in a tit-for-tat on the myriad examples of horrific institutional behaviors derived from either religious or atheist leaderships.  And in each individual case the issues involved are complex, interactive, subjective, and manifold.  There are enough cases to make even an overview of the history into, say, a 15 credit university course sequence.  Maybe over the course of time it can be explored in greater detail.  But for now I'd like to present my opinion of the topic in very broad terms.

For now, I'm going with a hunch that religion at least equally violent, but more dangerous.  You would seem to say otherwise.  Okay.  How can we begin to approach this?

Maybe a better place to start would be some general questions.  Is an aggressive war ever justified?  What about a defensive war?  What are the differences between the two?  How are the motivations for either kind of war influenced by religious or athestic leadership?  Is it justified to persecute, torture or kill your own citizens?  Do religious or atheistic motivations give governments the right to torture its citizens?

Aggressive war.  Governments undertaking this option send their armies from their native country to assault another.  Why?  I think both types of government tend to do so on the basis of material and political gain.  Power plays.  

Honestly athestic governments would leave it at that, and not try to justify their war on other grounds, although ideology can easily take the place of religion in this case.  The population might or might not agree with the aims of the government, and that's too bad for them if they don't.  

A religiously influenced government would downplay the material and political angle, and instead invigorate the population to support the war by citing religious differences.  The Nazis.  The Crusades.  The Iraq War, more of the same.  Manifest Destiny and the Native Americans.  The other guys are heathens, the other guys are our enemies, god hates them and loves us, god is on our side, etc.  The population might or not agree with the aims of the government, and its too bad for them if they don't.  Probably, more of them will agree.  

I submit that in both cases the war is disgusting and unethical, and that in the end material and political power is central to both.  I will further submit that using religion to motivate the population is usually hypocritical and self contradictory.  The invaded country probably also believes/claims that god is on their side, loves them and hates the invaders, etc.  The whole thing is a barrel full of bs.  But religious motivations are more effective at gathering support for the war, thus that style of government is more dangerous.  So if you're the kind who believes that the end justifies the means, go ahead and lie to your population.  The world is yours by god given right.  Just go take it.

More later.  For now, midterms are coming up!  Study, I must.  Pox on creationists for taking up so much of my free time! :D

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2005,13:47   

Swooosh wrote:
Quote
A religiously influenced government would downplay the material and political angle, and instead invigorate the population to support the war by citing religious differences.  The Nazis.  The Crusades.  The Iraq War, more of the same.

 For a different perspective on the crusades, try Thomas Madden.
This page argues that Hitler was not Christian.
 As for the Iraq War, there's another side to the story:
Quote
According to Rubin, sanctions were the sole available choice that did not imply allowing Saddam Hussein to do what he pleased in the region....These observations do not answer the question of whether any policy, no matter how strategically sound, is worth the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children -- a figure that originated in a Unicef report on infant mortality in sanctions-era Iraq and became the rallying cry of anti-sanctions campaigners. And the argument against sanctions on Iraq went beyond even this single, horrifying statistic.

 I guess the Clinton years weren't so great for the Iraqi people, either.

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

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2005,06:59   

Quote
For a different perspective on the crusades, try Thomas Madden.


Sure, I'll check this out over the weekend.

Quote
This page argues that Hitler was not Christian.


It doesn't matter whether he was Christian or neo-pagan or Raelian or whatever.  This is beside the point that its tremendously easier to energize armies to aggressive wars when you use religion as a vehicle.

Quote
As for the Iraq War, there's another side to the story: ...  I guess the Clinton years weren't so great for the Iraqi people, either.


I agree.  Our treatment of Iraq has never been particularly avuncular.  We've had a tendency to treat Iraq like a drunken redneck stepfather treats his wife's children.  Sometimes we beat the holy #### out of 'em (Bush), sometimes we toss just 'em in the basement (Clinton).  Sometimes we give him a baseball bat and a wink, then send the other kids down into the basement with him (Reagan).  Then we go down there ourselves and beat him up for smacking the other kids with it (Bush especially, but a little bit of Clinton, too).   Oh, and then we take his oil. (All)

Which really just makes my point for me.  Aggressive wars are fought for political and/or material gain.  Our modern efforts in the middle east have been all about the oil.  Its just got a decidedly religious spin which makes it worse.

And yeah, I'll get to the "defensive war" thing this weekend.  Sorry, midterms were keeping me busy.

  
Ryu-Oh



Posts: 1
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2005,07:14   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,14:45)
I really do believe that if Hitler had been the Catholic he pretended to be (regarding his beliefs, that is: I think he was actually a neopagan), he would not have ordered the Holocaust.

I'm sorry.  I just can't let this pass.

How very convinient and comforting a belief this must be for you.  "Phew," you say, "Hitler wasn't really a Christian.  All Christians must be good, just as I've been taught."

You have your link.  Here is mine
Its pretty long, so I'll quote a nicely relevant portion (any emphasis is mine):

Quote
Beliefs Revealed
Hitler's beliefs are expressed quite clearly in Mein Kampf, and they are as follows:

    He believed in Heaven, ####, a supreme being who created the universe, Jesus Christ, life after death, special creation, original sin, expulsion from paradise, and divine judgement.

    He drew his inspiration from the Viennese Christian Social movement, and he expressed nothing but admiration for its founder.


    He believed that Jesus Christ was an Aryan, not a Jew. In fact, he claimed that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity".

    He used the term "human" to describe only Aryans. He described blacks, Jews, and (presumably) other non-Aryan races as a disease, or as lower animals (notice that he described Jews as an "adversary of all humanity", thus clearly describing them as something other than humans).

    He thought that interracial marriage would produce "monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and should be fought with religious fervour. This makes his beliefs on evolution and creation very clear; he thought that Aryans were created in God's own image, while all other races evolved from apes. This should come as no surprise; not only was this an overwhelmingly common belief during the age of European imperialism which lasted right up to the end of the 19th century, but it persists to this day (a lot of white supremacists still refer to blacks as "monkeys"). In his view, it was therefore an unnatural and unholy dilution of God's image for Aryans and non-Aryans to mate.

    He believed that Germany lost World War I because it turned its back on God, much as Israel was repeatedly humiliated and defeated whenever it turned away from God in the Old Testament.


What more is required to show that he was Christian? Not for nothing do Christian apologists make the absurd claim that hearsay accounts of supposedly private conversations with people outside his inner circle should be considered penultimate forms of evidence while Hitler's seminal writings should be considered irrelevant; they fear the truth, and they want you to disregard his most personal work.

And make no mistake: Mein Kampf is his most personal work. Far from being the carefully crafted political statement that some would make it out to be, it was Hitler pouring out his soul and revealing all of his life's plans to his closest confidante. He dictated and Hess transcribed the text of Mein Kampf while he was in prison in 1923-1924, finishing it after his release and publishing it in 1925. In it, he revealed everything: his plan to expand Aryan "living space" at the expense of the Slavs (ie- the foolish attack on Russia that so few saw coming), his plan to avenge the German defeat of World War I by conquering France, his belief that all of the world's races should be subjugated under the Aryan race, and his plan to exterminate the Jews. By reading this single document, one can predict every major action Hitler would take over the next two decades including the Holocaust and the "surprise" attack on Russia, yet Christian apologists would have you believe it was nothing but a misleading propaganda piece!

So in the book he wrote himself, about his own beliefs, Hitler professed his Christianity.  Lets not dance around this issue.  "But," you say, "that isn't real Christianity!  Christianity is good!"  That is a steaming load of.. circular logic.  

You have a few choices right now.  
    You may state what your particular brand of Christianity is, and refute all other sects of Christianity (and relinquish any need to explain or defend their actions.  Note that you then also relinquish any ability to have Christianity take credit for their "good" actions).  

    You may accept all forms of Christianity, including Hitler's brand (thus taking the complete opposite tack as above).  

    You may describe to us what "qualifications" a sect of Christianity has to have to actually be "Christian".

I suppose you could also choose to take credit for all good actions of Christians, and refute all bad ones, and thus reveal yourself to be a hypocrite.  

Personally, I believe that humans are humans, whether they claim to be from a religion or not.  There will be good Christians and bad ones.  There will be good Atheists and bad ones.  I'd have much more respect for you as a Christian if you said "Hitler was a Christian, but an immoral one," than I do with your current tack of trying to wash Christianity's hands of the truth.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2005,08:34   

Quote
So in the book he wrote himself, about his own beliefs, Hitler professed his Christianity.  Lets not dance around this issue.  "But," you say, "that isn't real Christianity!  Christianity is good!"  That is a steaming load of.. circular logic.  

You have a few choices right now.  

You may state what your particular brand of Christianity is, and refute all other sects of Christianity (and relinquish any need to explain or defend their actions.  Note that you then also relinquish any ability to have Christianity take credit for their "good" actions).  

You may accept all forms of Christianity, including Hitler's brand (thus taking the complete opposite tack as above).  

You may describe to us what "qualifications" a sect of Christianity has to have to actually be "Christian".



 Here's a source just for you:
Quote
Hitler did make anti-Christian remarks, like his October 10, 1941 claim that "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." (Adolph Hitler, "Table Talk," London, Weidenfelt & Nicholson, 1953). But much of his hostility was not so much against the ideas of Christianity, whatever their diverse interpretations, but the institution of the churches in Germany, and the opportunities they posed for allowing his Nazi movement to consolidate power. Hitler remarked, "We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interest of the State."

 So it seems that even if Hitler was a Christian, he wasn't a bible-believing one. Which is the only type that matters. It's a logic thing; you wouldn't understand.

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

  
celtic_elk



Posts: 11
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2005,05:35   

Quote
So it seems that even if Hitler was a Christian, he wasn't a bible-believing one. Which is the only type that matters. It's a logic thing; you wouldn't understand.


So the original disciples, Saul (later Paul) and all of those Mediterranean converts during the first couple of centuries before the text of the Bible was codified don't actually count as Christians.  Good to know.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Remind me why this is relevant to an evolution discussion?

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2005,07:53   

Having just noticed this,

Quote
In Mrs. Sagan's, it does. She claimed mitochondria and chloroplasts were eaten by other one-celled organisms to become animal and plant cells without any mechanism at all. This is a gargantuan increase in complex specified information utterly impossible without the aid of intellegent design.


I find it fun to point out that KW Jeon has done a LOT of work in this area.  Its fascinating stuff, and a very brief version of it goes something like this.

Amoeba eats bacteria.  Amoeba does not digest bacteria. Instead, amoeba carries bacteria around inside itself.  Both amoeba and bacteria die if the bacteria is removed.  Symbiosis grown right in the lab.

Paley needs to pull his eyes from the pages of a certain 2000 year old peer reviewed journal and join the modern era.   2000 year old peer reviewed journal is no longer a reliable source for scientific guidance.

And yes, yes I know I still have some posts to make.  I'll get around to it.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2005,09:37   

Quote
So the original disciples, Saul (later Paul) and all of those Mediterranean converts during the first couple of centuries before the text of the Bible was codified don't actually count as Christians.  Good to know.  Thanks for clearing that up.

 I guess we need to include "reading for comprehension" as one of those things atheists can't be bothered with. It was clear from the context that I was referring to modern Christians, not Christians throughout history. Yes, Paul didn't have the complete scriptures when he wrote his letters. But he did have direct testimony from apostles, family members, witnesses, etc, that more than made up for this lack. And some scholars think that much of the canonical New Testament was composed during the first century.
Quote
Remind me why this is relevant to an evolution discussion?

 Ahhh, but when I do bring up relevant issues, you guys keep changing the subject. And squeal when I still kick your ass.

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

  
BDb



Posts: 2
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2005,03:31   

Quote
My hypothesis is much more plausible than the orginal one proposed by Mrs. Sagan. (I am aware they got divorced; it's amazing how often that happens with evolutionists!


Sorry to make my first post off topic, but I found this to funny to ignore. Check out these links.
I find it funny that atheists and agnostics have a LOWER rate of divotce than any religious group. Of course, my wife and I are both atheists, and we’ve been happily married for 23 years now, and ALL our Christian friends have been divorced at least once, including the fundies!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

http://www.barna.org/FlexPag....eID=170

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20041128

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2005,11:18   

Quote
Sorry to make my first post off topic, but I found this to funny to ignore. Check out these links.
I find it funny that atheists and agnostics have a LOWER rate of divotce than any religious group.

 More about this later. For now, please see the new topic.

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

  
BDb



Posts: 2
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,02:27   

What exactly is the new topic?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2005,11:07   

Quote
What exactly is the new topic?

 Sorry......fighting on too many fronts right now. I'll try to address this later.

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

  
  42 replies since Oct. 17 2005,06:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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