LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksEven whilst in New York, all I hear from Tee-Pee is:
Raaagh, raaagh, raaaagh.
Even whilst in New York, all I hear from Tee-Pee is:
Raaagh, raaagh, raaaagh.
Maybe if you listened better, you'd be better able to contribute. Until then, maybe you shouldn't bother.
Whilst we all have different views, neither side is going to bow down or change their own opinions. Remember the Friends episode with Ross and "opposible thumbs". I think that applies here. We're all dead set on our own choice of beleif, for example TeePee believes in Science, I believe in God etc. Arguing about which one is right is not going to get us very far. All we'll have at the end of it is a very big argument.
Discuss away, for sure, but arguing isn't going to settle the age old debate of "Science vs Religion".
Join the HEXUS Folding at Home Team!!
Welcome to HEXUS! - Read this if you're new!
hexus trust | joshwaller.co.uk | tea review
So you don't believe in science?Originally Posted by joshwa
Yes, I cherry pick the bits I like depending on my christian biasSo you don't believe in science?especially one's based on personal experience, like the sky is blue, electricity hurts when used inappropriately, etc
Join the HEXUS Folding at Home Team!!
Welcome to HEXUS! - Read this if you're new!
hexus trust | joshwaller.co.uk | tea review
Well, that might have been a valid point if ALF was an athiest group, but it isn't is it? I may just as well call it a christian group.
Funny you should say that because IMO all the road pricing petition tells us is that there are 1.8 million pitchfork waving yokels in the country who won't be happy until the govt comes with a scheme to reduce congestion by pricing everyone else off the road while leaving themselves magically unaffected.
But mainly it's funny because in fact the petition was started by a member of the 'Association of British Drivers', another right-wing lobby group with a fantastically all-encompassing name like the 'Tax Payers Alliance'. Check out their site:
http://www.abd.org.uk/
...and read their press releases on such subjects as 'schools' (WTF do they have such a section for anyway) - eg "Plans to indoctrinate children reflect panic", 'sustainability' ("ABD Warns Of Slide To Soviet Regime As Green Pressure On Blair Mounts"), or 'climate change' ("The Great Global Warming Swindle").
Does this mean that 1.8 million people are calling for a ban on schools teaching children about recycling? No it does not (forgive them, they know not what they sign...).
Does 40,000 christians signing a petition to stop the staging of a (privately funded) play mean they are interfering busybodies with no regard for free speech (except when it involves the wearing of crucifixes to work)? Yes it does. I'm not ascribing them with any further opinions than the one they explicitly signed up to. Looking around that site just tells you what sort of mouthpiece they choose to represent them (and by the way, they also picketed a benefit performance in aid of a cancer charity and claimed it a victory when they scared the charity off, so maybe there's a moral conundrum for you).
Just because you might agree that (for example) Jerry Falwell is both dangerously insane and insanely dangerous, it doesn't change the fact that he is a hugely influential figure with millions of dumb americans hanging off his every word. And that's reason for you to worry just as much as me.
Well, except that Hitler was a catholic right up to his death, the catholic church collaborated with the Nazis throughout Europe, no Nazis were ever excommunicated from the church, and every german uniform belt buckle was inscribed "god is with us".
I might just as blithely claim that the Nazis were a catholic organisation as the facts would support my assertion much more than yours...
I suggest you read about Nietzsche. While the Nazi-party considered him a 'founding father', he was an advocate of individualism, and could be considered anti-political. There are very few similarities between Neitzsche's views and Nazism. He's an important philosoher, although very outdated in some respects, but definitely worth learning about.
His philosophy certainly did not lead to Nazism. His works were selectively appropriated in order to give legitimacy to parts of Nazi ideology.
As JPreston correctly stated, The Nazi party could certainly not be called an atheistic organisation.
The fact that Hitler claimed in public to Catholocism is enough to convince you that he believed in it, and wasn't just wanting the church's support? What happened to that healthy scepticism thing you've been showing?Well, except that Hitler was a catholic right up to his death, the catholic church collaborated with the Nazis throughout Europe, no Nazis were ever excommunicated from the church, and every german uniform belt buckle was inscribed "god is with us".
I might just as blithely claim that the Nazis were a catholic organisation as the facts would support my assertion much more than yours...
Anyway, the point is kind of the other way. Hitler=Bad, Hitler=Atheist, therefore Atheism=Bad doesn't work for the same reasons that saying that any one Christian is bad and therefore Christianity is bad. It just doesn't work, and seeks to work on peoples emotional response rather than a logical conclusion. Even if Hitler was a staunch Catholic (which I am disinclined to believe), there have been many other atheists with bad ideas and actions which stem from an existentialist 'there is no point' viewpoint.
Hitler was an example of the point, not the point itself, but I lean toward the opinion that Hitler was not really a very Godly man.
Everytime someone makes a valid point (note - I am not refering to my take mickey gravity posts - however my early posts are included in this group) you simply ignore them and pick on another random point, hence me stopping making an effort quite a while a go.
You remind me of person on the debate team at school who point blank refused to listen and think to anyone else's point of view, and everytime someone made a valid point would just shout his original point a little louder.
To quote PJ and Duncan:
Show me the 'valid' points I ignored.
You joined this thread on page 14, rehashed a couple of things stated in previous pages in your first post, and then said something that was just plain wrong. I showed you to be wrong, and your following posts are just whining.
Alex has a valid argument, so I'll until you think of something, I'm going to ignore you, and talk to the adults.
I would agree with you that Hitler isn't exactly a 'poster boy' christian, and that there are many atheists who do bad things.Anyway, the point is kind of the other way. Hitler=Bad, Hitler=Atheist, therefore Atheism=Bad doesn't work for the same reasons that saying that any one Christian is bad and therefore Christianity is bad. It just doesn't work, and seeks to work on peoples emotional response rather than a logical conclusion. Even if Hitler was a staunch Catholic (which I am disinclined to believe), there have been many other atheists with bad ideas and actions which stem from an existentialist 'there is no point' viewpoint.
My concern is that you're edging into the 'Atheists have no morals' area. I don't believe the bad actions of some atheists stem from a lack of morals as a direct result of Atheism. We all know that christianity or religion in general aren't the source or reason for our morality. While modern christianity teaches a 'generally' good moral code, there is nothing to say that christian morals are any better than atheisit ones. It's not like 'fear of god' is what stops us all from murdering each other.
As far as societies go, atheist societies are by no means perfect ones. Examples like the Soviet Union spring to mind. But atheism isn't what defines these countries. They are many things, have many social structures and atheism happens to be part of them, but they aren't 'otherwise perfect' and I think it's the other parts which lead to the problems.
All societies are by nature irrational ones. Because some societies are more rational in one area, doesn't make them totally rational.
/me christens this thread plane on a treadmill mk2.
You're missing my point - extreme groups that cause suffering to others are not Christian. No matter what they say, they are not representing the opinions of the majority of Christians. Judging Christians by them is just as invalid as saying that all people who *don't* claim they are part of a Christian group are represented by other extremists who don't claim they are part of a Christian group.
If your premise is that the religious cause is responsible for extremism, then that's disproven by the fact that extremism exists with a non religious cause as well, ala ALF.
Seeing as we're so fond of 'science vs religion' in this thread, and we're talking about Nazi's, perhaps it would be time for me to point out that scientists were initially quite approving of Hilter's Eugenics, and without biochemists Hilter would never have have got the idea in the first place.
The danger of science was drummed into us very well at Cambridge, and there is almost a collective guilt sometimes.
I'm certainly not of the opinion that Atheists automatically have no morals.
Last edited by kalniel; 07-03-2007 at 10:47 AM.
Hitler frequently claimed divine authority for his madder ideas; personally, I think that might have more to do with his being frickin' barking than any influence the church might have had. It's worth noting that he criticised the RC church pretty vehemently in Mein Kampf over its supposed failure to recognize Germany's "racial problem". Upon taking office, he passed a sterilisation law (not exactly in line with Catholic teaching...), disbanded the Catholic Youth League, pressured parents to remove their children from religious schools, and forbade state teachers from participating in voluntary RE classes outside school hours.
I certainly wouldn't ever suggest that; prior to my accepting Christ, I'd say that I most certainly did have morals, and my stepfather (who was a Humanist) certainly did.
I'd agree; people can choose to be bad, whatever their notional faith, or lack thereof.
I'd go partway with you on this one; atheism is a simple belief that there is no such thing as god. It doesn't necessarily of itself imply adherence to a moral code, it is a simple statement of a believed state of affairs. The reciprocal position is belief in a god or gods. That in itself doesn't imply any moral code either; one may believe that God exists without believing that this simple fact implies any moral obligation whatsoever. However, if that belief takes the form of something like Christian faith, for example, that form does obligate adherence to a certain moral or ethical code. Consequently, Christians are supposed to derive moral guidance as a consequence of their form of faith (as are members of other faiths).
Well, I'd argue that there are no such things as atheist morals, since as noted, atheism does not, in and of itself imply adherence to a moral code (don't go off the deep end, I AM NOT saying that atheists are devoid of morals, merely that atheism as such does not imply them). That said, atheists may derive for themselves or feel guided toward ethical systems which are not necessarily implied by a simple atheist belief (or derived from any religious belief), but appear to be "good". Indeed there are some atheists who have no belief whatsoever in the doctrinal aspects of Christianity, or in God, who feel however that the ethics of Christianity are good even set aside from the belief/doctrine aspect.
This sort of leads on to my next point; Christians are not obligated to "be good or you won't get into heaven"; that's perilously close to a belief in what's called "salvation through works". Christians are supposed to do good because that is good in and of itself; you're not saved because you do good things, you're saved by the grace of God. To a certain extent, then, one can say that there is a degree of independence between Christian belief in God, an Christian morality.
Nor are societies based around religious doctrine. It's an imperfect world
Yes and no; suppression of organized religion, not merely Christian but all, was an absolute cornerstone of the construction of Soviet society. It was regarded as a key objective to supplant religious belief with belief in Party and State. It was not the single defining characteristic most certainly, but it was regarded as hugely important.
If we're looking at things like socio-economic structures (state socialism, planned economies, all that sort of thing), it's worth noting that they would have been entirely possible under a system which didn't suppress religion. In fact, they could all have existed in a theocracy. Similarly, even in societies that allow or support religious faith, the faith aspect is not their single defining characteristic either, except in the case of an explicit theocracy.
It appears therefore that we are being asked to apply two different sets of standards here; where a society allows or supports religion, we're asked to accept that as its key defining characteristic, and where the members of that society do something evil it must be because of their religion. However, where a society is avowedly and dedicatedly atheist we are asked to effectively discount that as a defining characteristic, and attribute their evil actions to something else. I'm actually OK with the latter, since as noted above atheism does not in and of itself imply a particular moral code; my issue is with the former - the assumption that the evil acts of people who are nominal members of a particular faith are always attributable to that faith, and not to the same secular considerations that would drive, say, a Stalin to the same acts.
Well, another thing we can agree on...
"Screws fall out, it's an imperfect world..."
Bender, The Breakfast Club
I think my point was not 'atheists have no morality' - after all I am still agnostic atm. My point was it is a rather stupid form of argument to base one's opinion of ANY belief system based on it's craziest followers - a line of argument taken all too often by the likes of Richard Dawkins.
Oh agreed; the argument goes something like:
1. Your belief system is not what you say it is, but what WE say it is.
2. What WE say it is is derived from an unrepresentative sample of nominal followers of that belief system, an extremist sample whose beliefs are the easiest to attack/dismiss.
3. We can attack and defeat those, therefore your belief system is stupid.
And as I say above, I am in NO way implying that atheists are im- or amoral; merely that atheism itself is a morally neutral proposition in that it implies no adherence to any particular moral or ethical code. It merely states a belief in the non-existence of a god or gods.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
