[quote]florelius wrote:
the most hostile things I know that have been done against religion in the name of atheism, is the books by Dawkins and Hitchens. [/quote]
Lol. Trust me, I could tear those guys up in a coma, if anyone falls for their straw man arguments then they’ll fall for anything.
As well, you’re forgetting Russia and Germany and their governments.[/quote]
If you are thinking about nazi germany, those guys where all over the place about religion.
some where christians, some where atheists and others again where believing in aasatru( norse-mythology ). They doesnt repressent atheists.
Sovjet and similar regimes are the closest you come to an atheist state, but I would argue theire hostility against religion and church where more based on a warped version of marxism than pure atheism. You cant lump atheist into the same group as communist, because not all atheists are communists and not all communists are atheists.
about dawkins and hitchens: theire “crusade” against religion are childish and it smells of middleclass-radicalisme. So no argue theire LOL.
I agree that Dawkins’ attitude at times too closely resembles that of a petulant, even bellicose, crusader when it comes to attacks on religion. I also agree that his negative attacks on religion–his ‘straw man’ arguments–are weak.
However, his positive arguments–the ones that concern themselves solely with scientific evidence–are as strong as they possibly could be. He would take any denier of evolution and tear them to fucking bits. Whether you accept his ultimate conclusions or not, he knows infinitely more than anyone on this forum with regard to evolutionary biology and ethology.
Unless he is a world-renowned scientist, no man could go toe-to-toe with Dawkins on the subject.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I agree that Dawkins’ attitude at times too closely resembles that of a petulant, even bellicose, crusader when it comes to attacks on religion. I also agree that his negative attacks on religion–his ‘straw man’ arguments–are weak.
However, his positive arguments–the ones that concern themselves solely with scientific evidence–are as strong as they possibly could be. He would take any denier of evolution and tear them to fucking bits. Whether you accept his ultimate conclusions or not, he knows infinitely more than anyone on this forum with regard to evolutionary biology and ethology.
Unless he is a world-renowned scientist, no man could go toe-to-toe with Dawkins on the subject.[/quote]
I do believe in evolution. But science is fallible, and hence a shaky thing to put you faith in. It can only infer from correlation, it’s not deductive and that is it’s primary weakness.
But like I said, I believe in evolution and really don’t see why evolution would be contrary to any Christian beliefs.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I agree that Dawkins’ attitude at times too closely resembles that of a petulant, even bellicose, crusader when it comes to attacks on religion. I also agree that his negative attacks on religion–his ‘straw man’ arguments–are weak.
However, his positive arguments–the ones that concern themselves solely with scientific evidence–are as strong as they possibly could be. He would take any denier of evolution and tear them to fucking bits.[/quote]
See this is the thing that gets me, some of his attacks are effective on Fundamentalist (I am a fundamentalist, but not in the sense that I mean Fundamentalist Christian), but for some reason people think it works on all Christians as if we’re equal. Sometimes I have to laugh it off because of how the attacks come about. But, a portion of the Catholic faithful see evidence of evolution.
[quote]
Whether you accept his ultimate conclusions or not, he knows infinitely more than anyone on this forum with regard to evolutionary biology and ethology.[/quote]
I don’t doubt it, but the truth is, a Catholic Priest came up with the big bang theory, we paid for science, we don’t hate science. We just don’t like when scientist cross the faith claim line and start coming up with faith claims. Catholics don’t deny evolution (both options are viable), the only thing Catholics should interject at is that nature created the soul (we believe if evolution is the truth that G-d would still have infuse the soul into the human and some point in history). As long as that isn’t tried to be ruled out, Catholics can accept it without any worry.
However, let that stuff hit a Fundie’s ears and we’ll flop around like salmon trying to jump a water fall.
Good book opposing God Delusion: Godless Delusion.
Unless he is a world-renowned scientist, no man could go toe-to-toe with Dawkins on the subject.[/quote]
[quote]florelius wrote:
the most hostile things I know that have been done against religion in the name of atheism, is the books by Dawkins and Hitchens. [/quote]
if anyone falls for their straw man arguments then they’ll fall for anything.
[/quote]
so says the man that believes the fantastical claims and myths of his Church, even ignoring the legacy of corruption within that institution.
[quote]florelius wrote:
the most hostile things I know that have been done against religion in the name of atheism, is the books by Dawkins and Hitchens. [/quote]
if anyone falls for their straw man arguments then they’ll fall for anything.
[/quote]
so says the man that believes the fantastical claims and myths of his Church, even ignoring the legacy of corruption within that institution. [/quote]
What fantastical claims? Legacy of corruption? Uh, no there has been corruption in the past and it has been corrected. The basic tenets of the church have not changed since apostolic days.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I agree that Dawkins’ attitude at times too closely resembles that of a petulant, even bellicose, crusader when it comes to attacks on religion. I also agree that his negative attacks on religion–his ‘straw man’ arguments–are weak.
However, his positive arguments–the ones that concern themselves solely with scientific evidence–are as strong as they possibly could be. He would take any denier of evolution and tear them to fucking bits. Whether you accept his ultimate conclusions or not, he knows infinitely more than anyone on this forum with regard to evolutionary biology and ethology.
Unless he is a world-renowned scientist, no man could go toe-to-toe with Dawkins on the subject.[/quote]
I do believe in evolution. But science is fallible, and hence a shaky thing to put you faith in. It can only infer from correlation, it’s not deductive and that is it’s primary weakness.
But like I said, I believe in evolution and really don’t see why evolution would be contrary to any Christian beliefs.
[/quote]
I agree with this. I’d be the first to admit that I don’t completely understand the theory of evolution. Even the most decorated evolutionary biologists don’t fully understand it, and they sure as hell know more about it than me.
I have however done a good amount of reading on the subject and have concluded that it makes sense and that there is enough evidence of it for me to accept it. More than any other account of the dawn of man, anyway. I also have no choice but to trust the people that have devoted their lives to the study of it.
That said, I understand that tomorrow a new discovery could shake the theory to its foundations–that it is not set in stone by any means.
[quote]florelius wrote:
the most hostile things I know that have been done against religion in the name of atheism, is the books by Dawkins and Hitchens. [/quote]
if anyone falls for their straw man arguments then they’ll fall for anything.
[/quote]
so says the man that believes the fantastical claims and myths of his Church, even ignoring the legacy of corruption within that institution. [/quote]
What fantastical claims? Legacy of corruption? Uh, no there has been corruption in the past and it has been corrected. The basic tenets of the church have not changed since apostolic days.[/quote]
Claims of the virgin birth, incarnation and resurection from “pagan” myths; inconsistent scriptures; the invention of the trinity (based on a scripture that did not appear until about 1500) and oh yeah, fucking little boys (and covering it up)- to be blunt, which continues to present. We just had another local case in PA. I’m just painting the broad strokes to make a point. I’m sure I could fill the thread.
[quote]florelius wrote:
the most hostile things I know that have been done against religion in the name of atheism, is the books by Dawkins and Hitchens. [/quote]
if anyone falls for their straw man arguments then they’ll fall for anything.
[/quote]
so says the man that believes the fantastical claims and myths of his Church, even ignoring the legacy of corruption within that institution. [/quote]
What just because I won’t answer your questions because all you seem to say is ‘someone refutes it’?
I can give reason to all my beliefs, but I attempted to see what you’d accept as proof and you were unreasonable, even in an academia they would not expect such proof.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - do you ever consider that maybe the “terrorists” dont “hate us for merely existing”, but instead see the victims of terrorism as “collateral damage”? That they see what they’re doing as a “war” and using the same logic that “War is ugly and it always will be. There seldom is a proper reason for people to die over it, but it happens.”?
Wouldn’t you be a little upset to hear someone say that exact thing about American deaths?[/quote]
LOL @ the targeting of civilians being “collateral”.
“Collateral damage is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome”
[/quote]
There is no LOL here, be better than that!
On one side, you have a peoples that still throw rocks at tanks. On the other, a superpower that can bomb you from their control room without ever looking you in the eye. Terrorism is the commerce of their war because they lack the resources to fight us (and others) on our terms.
Issues of what constitutes a “military target” aside, there isn’t much difference between hi-jacking a plane and sending it into a building and firing a volley of cruise missiles at a City with both combatants and civilians.
They are both forms of war. Trying to apply “rules” to war, whether legal (by agreement) or moral, is meaningless. [/quote]
Excellent post. Wasn’t able to vocalise my own argument, but this is an important point that people ought not to miss.
I believe that the crimes of Muslims, together with the Muslim world’s support for said crimes, have been so egregious as to warrant collective punishment of their civilian populations. This punishment should comprise aerial high explosive and incendiary bombing of population centres. I also believe it is our duty to punish collaborators.
[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
I believe that the crimes of Muslims, together with the Muslim world’s support for said crimes, have been so egregious as to warrant collective punishment of their civilian populations. This punishment should comprise aerial high explosive and incendiary bombing of population centres. I also believe it is our duty to punish collaborators.[/quote]
Are you motherfucking kidding me? You must be. Lol, good one.
[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
I believe that the crimes of Muslims, together with the Muslim world’s support for said crimes, have been so egregious as to warrant collective punishment of their civilian populations. This punishment should comprise aerial high explosive and incendiary bombing of population centres. I also believe it is our duty to punish collaborators.[/quote]
[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
I believe that the crimes of Muslims, together with the Muslim world’s support for said crimes, have been so egregious as to warrant collective punishment of their civilian populations. This punishment should comprise aerial high explosive and incendiary bombing of population centres. I also believe it is our duty to punish collaborators.[/quote]
Oh my god a troll
run away…[/quote]
He nearly got me. Half way through my chiding I realised that no one could actually think like this and operate a computer at the same time. So it must be a joke.
[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
I believe that the crimes of Muslims, together with the Muslim world’s support for said crimes, have been so egregious as to warrant collective punishment of their civilian populations. This punishment should comprise aerial high explosive and incendiary bombing of population centres. I also believe it is our duty to punish collaborators.[/quote]
Oh my god a troll
run away…[/quote]
He nearly got me. Half way through my chiding I realised that no one could actually think like this and operate a computer at the same time. So it must be a joke.[/quote]
He nearly got me to. pwi is full of rather dodgy opinions, so he`s trollpost seemed plausible. I just hope its a troll post, because opinions like that make me sick and angry.
[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
I believe that the crimes of Muslims, together with the Muslim world’s support for said crimes, have been so egregious as to warrant collective punishment of their civilian populations. This punishment should comprise aerial high explosive and incendiary bombing of population centres. I also believe it is our duty to punish collaborators.[/quote]
Oh my god a troll
run away…[/quote]
He nearly got me. Half way through my chiding I realised that no one could actually think like this and operate a computer at the same time. So it must be a joke.[/quote]
[quote]Stan Darsh wrote:
God (any god) worshiping people have never benefited the world. Never will. [/quote]
So we didnt benefit from the arameic( they believed in some middleastern mythology i guess ) people who inventet the alphabeth, or the arab muslims who made advances in medicine and algebra, or the hindus who invented the number 0, or the christians who probably did something that benefited us, but I cant remember right know LOL.
[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
I believe that the crimes of Muslims, together with the Muslim world’s support for said crimes, have been so egregious as to warrant collective punishment of their civilian populations. This punishment should comprise aerial high explosive and incendiary bombing of population centres. I also believe it is our duty to punish collaborators.[/quote]
Are you motherfucking kidding me? You must be. Lol, good one.
[/quote]
Are you fucking kidding ME? Do you need to be reminded of 9/11 and the 85,000+ torture murders since committed by Muslims in the name of their religion? Do you need reminding about the daily attacks across the Muslim world like babies getting their throats slit for being Jews or Catholic schoolgirls in Indonesia getting beheaded? The Jewish Mumbai victims had their eyes gauged out for fuck’s sake.
Lastly, do you need reminding that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Muslim world AND in the Western democracies have expressed support for such bestial actions and continue to aid their Muslim brothers with political warfare, blood libels, extreme psychotic violence and lies about being discrimated against? You must be. Only it’s not funny.
[quote]Stan Darsh wrote:
God (any god) worshiping people have never benefited the world. Never will. [/quote]
So we didnt benefit from the arameic( they believed in some middleastern mythology i guess ) people who inventet the alphabeth, or the arab muslims who made advances in medicine and algebra, or the hindus who invented the number 0, or the christians who probably did something that benefited us, but I cant remember right know LOL.[/quote]
Firstly, Stan Darsh is a moron. Greek and Roman societies were deeply religious with religion dominating every aspect of daily life. Thucydides describes how, following the Peloponnesian War a decline in religion led to a decline in morality, fulfilment of duty and honour. The main premise of Edward Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall’ is that the same thing happened with the Romans(end of polytheism, rise of monotheism). The end of the European rennaisance also coincided with the ‘age of reason’. I’m an atheist for God BTW.
Secondly, florelius is a Dhimiwit. The Aramaeans were of Phoenecian origin like the Carthaginians and Tyreans. The ancient Greeks also had much Phoenecian blood.
Thirdly, whilst Muslims and their Dhimmis continue to claim they invented these things(advances in medicine and algebra), serious historians and classical scholars know they actually came via the Greeks and Romans when the Muslim invaders conquered Christian Byzantine and discovered the classical texts in private collections. The Alexandrian library had been destroyed by Julius Caesar then rebuilt and destroyed by Pope Theophilius. Thus the only extant classical texts after the fall of Rome were in Byzantine.
Fourthly, as any kid who used Euclid’s Elements in Maths class can tell you, the Greeks were teaching abstract algebra three centuries before Christ.
Fifthly, the number zero was used by the Babylonians and the concept of zero was a hot topic of debate amongst Greek mathematicians a Mellenia before Moohamhead(piss be upon him). Dhimmiwit!
