27 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI will repeat: Social Darwinism and all its manifestations is not an application of Darwin's theories. It is a misapplication of them. If certain ideologies misapplied Darwin's theories to their own political programs, then those ideologies bear the sole blame in the matter. The failure of Nazi ideology is not a failure of Darwin's theories, it is simply the failure of Nazi ideology.
lol, this is the greatest work of fiction since lord of the rings, trilogy. I did not state that Darwin had anything to do with the social Darwinist movement, but that it was merely the application of his theories , in social and economic models by others, he himself, i am sure did not favor the ideas, and why should he considering the disastrous ef ...[text shortened]... need it
'compassion', a godly quality compassion, how did that get in there, mmm, i wonder
I'm not quite sure what to make of your claim about Stalin here. Are you saying that if he had been a Christian that those atrocities would never have happened? If so it is manifestly false. Francisco Franco was a Christian and he had plenty of blood on his hands. I'm sure I don't need to repeat the litany of abuses caused by Christians throughout the ages.
Or are you saying that if he had been one of the actual twelve disciples of Christ that they wouldn't have happened? I guess that goes without saying. If Stalin had been somebody other than Stalin, he wouldn't have done all the bad things Stalin did. You may as well say that if Stalin had been a good person, he wouldn't have been so bad. You think?
As for adopting the teachings of Christ, the question is, 'what, exactly, are those teachings?' Unlike you, I do not believe that the bible is divinely inspired. Nor do I believe that they are an accurate depiction of Christ's teachings (assuming that he actually existed.) I don't believe that Christ said half the things that are attributed to him in the bible. If you really understood the hodge-podge nature in which the bible was cobbled together, I'm sure you'd agree. So it's not so simple a matter to follow Christ's alleged teachings. However, there is some interesting work going on within the Jesus Seminar, which is trying to strip away all the false attributions contained in the bible in order to reconstruct Jesus' actual message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by bill718Couldn't one say the same thing about the Christian? The choice isn't simply restricted to 'no god/christian god.' There could be any number of gods out there. How do you know you are praying to the right one? Perhaps there is a god out there somewhere, but he punishes people who followed Christianity.
You can support athieism if you want, and you can do it all your days on this earth...but you'd better be right!
😏
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by rwingettA novel idea...but I'll take my chances with Christanity.
Couldn't one say the same thing about the Christian? The choice isn't simply restricted to 'no god/christian god.' There could be any number of gods out there. How do you know you are praying to the right one? Perhaps there is a god out there somewhere, but he punishes people who followed Christianity.
😏
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI don't understand this distinction between mere animals and ensouled animals. What does a soul add to an animal, in your view? What capacities or faculties does an ensouled animal possess that a mere animal necessarily lacks?
If we divest a human being of his or her soul, and consider ourselves animals, would you consider that progress?
Imagine for a moment that you are the subject of a certain government's top-secret, advanced brainwashing program. You are treated to a veritable smorgasbord of Pavlovian conditioning techniques designed to degrade you and force compliance ...[text shortened]... e animal; if we considered him an entity in possession of a soul and made in the image of God?
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by bill718And I would guess that you do so because you estimate based on the evidence available to you that your 'chances' are better with Christianity. I on the other hand have different evidence or have evaluated it differently and think my chances are far better if I stick with atheism. Apparently certain buses in the UK now agree with me.
A novel idea...but I'll take my chances with Christanity.
😏
Your earlier post however where you said "...but you'd better be right!" is correct but trivially obvious for any stance taken, so I can only guess that what you really mean was that the consequences for being wrong is worse for atheism than for Christianity, - that I would disagree with.
27 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you once again claiming to know my beliefs when I do not? Are those really my beliefs or are they your beliefs about what my beliefs are?
misconceptions, its no wonder, you yourselves don't actually know what it is you profess, so how are we supposed to keep up with the trends in your ideology?
So do you now stand corrected about what Atheists believe or don't believe and the distinction between atheists and people who accept the Theory of Evolution as valid?
Or will you simply wait a few threads then post the same nonsense again?
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhat benefits do you have for being an atheist in terms of afterlife? how does being an atheist improve your chances in anything?
And I would guess that you do so because you estimate based on the evidence available to you that your 'chances' are better with Christianity. I on the other hand have different evidence or have evaluated it differently and think my chances are far better if I stick with atheism. Apparently certain buses in the UK now agree with me.
Your earlier post h ...[text shortened]... s for being wrong is worse for atheism than for Christianity, - that I would disagree with.
i see religion like a blanket for the soul. it can keep you warm if you wear it responsibly. it can comfort you even if you have it in your bag, knowing itis there if you needed. sure, it can choke you if you wrap it too tightly. it can obscure your vision if you put it over your eyes. and if you believe it is better than a bullet proof vest and stand in front of a gun you will most likely be disappointed.
if you find a way to keep warm without (let's not say religion) a spirituality of sorts, i guess it is ok. easier with it though.
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…what benefits do you have for being an atheist in terms of afterlife? how does being an atheist improve your chances in anything? ....…
what benefits do you have for being an atheist in terms of afterlife? how does being an atheist improve your chances in anything?
i see religion like a blanket for the soul. it can keep you warm if you wear it responsibly. it can comfort you even if you have it in your bag, knowing itis there if you needed. sure, it can choke you if you wrap it too tigh ...[text shortened]... hout (let's not say religion) a spirituality of sorts, i guess it is ok. easier with it though.
Its not supposed to. A “benefit” or the “benefits” that you would expect if a given hypothesis is correct is not a logical justification to believe that given hypothesis is true.
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonif you are not sure that either result is correct, on what grounds do you choose which one to believe? especially if choosing either one doesn't have repercussions on your reality. don't you choose the one you find more pleasant?
[b]…what benefits do you have for being an atheist in terms of afterlife? how does being an atheist improve your chances in anything? ....…
Its not supposed to. A “benefit” or the “benefits” that you would expect if a given hypothesis is correct is not a logical justification to believe that given hypothesis is true.[/b]
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziA system which condemns millions of people to eternal hellfire doesn't sound very pleasant to me.
if you are not sure that either result is correct, on what grounds do you choose which one to believe? especially if choosing either one doesn't have repercussions on your reality. don't you choose the one you find more pleasant?
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by rwingettlol, you don't even know what they are, yet you claim that the bible is not divinely inspired, one must assume, that was of course, after you never read it! and no you are wrong, anyone who sheds the blood of another is not a Christian, simply because he is not following the teachings of Christ, but you wouldn't know that, because, by your own admission you don't know what they are? because if you did, you would then be able to use your scant powers of reason and determine quite clearly that those individuals regardless of what they claim to be are not Christians, but no, you find it quite convenient to sit happily in your skepticism, nursing your prejudices like a women nursing her wrath at some misdemeanor of her husband, ''let god come to me, after all, am i not also a god!'', as for the rest of your post it also betrays an incredible ignorance and does not merit commenting upon, you really should think before opening your mouth!
I will repeat: Social Darwinism and all its manifestations is not an application of Darwin's theories. It is a [b]misapplication of them. If certain ideologies misapplied Darwin's theories to their own political programs, then those ideologies bear the sole blame in the matter. The failure of Nazi ideology is not a failure of Darwin's theories, i ...[text shortened]... onstruct Jesus' actual message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar[/b]
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadyawn, such a crashing bore and tiresome fellow, actually i got better things to do than try to ascertain what it is you actually believe, because as i have shown, you don't actually know, because if you did, you would post it, but as far as i can remember you haven't, its empty, void, center of a doughnut, zilch , zero etc therefore perhaps if you post something with content we could discuss that, until then, what is there to discuss with you?
Are you once again claiming to know my beliefs when I do not? Are those really my beliefs or are they your beliefs about what my beliefs are?
So do you now stand corrected about what Atheists believe or don't believe and the distinction between atheists and people who accept the Theory of Evolution as valid?
Or will you simply wait a few threads then post the same nonsense again?