Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
speek2.us — 10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.9 - You feel insulted and
Thecal- 1741 diggs
- digg it
- BassMastr, on 10/11/2007, -34/+96Mouseman
What colors the sky in your world? Thanks for judging me...I guess I'll save you a seat on my fire lake boat.
Whats it feel like to be brainwashed? Do you know your brainwashed and you just can't help regurgitate religious gibberish or do you really believe the crap that you say?- mouseman23, on 10/11/2007, -286/+24I won't be in hell, why save me a seat?
- BassMastr, on 10/11/2007, -11/+101Isn't it someone else's job to judge me and everyone else?
The way you go ranting at everyone telling them they are going to hell...I'll see ya there ya hypocrite. - asauterChicago, on 10/11/2007, -21/+89mouseman, how are you SO sure? If anyone is a poster-board for going to hell, that's you... last time I checked the bible was about forgiveness and love, you show a lot of un-forgiveness and hate... which I'm pretty sure puts you on a first class seat straight to hell by your terms...
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/11/2007, -56/+27Arguing about religion online is pointless, because while religion can't be proven scientifically (yet), it can't be totally disproved scientifically (yet). And any one of a myriad of logical arguments 'against' religion are totally ignored by the very illogical people with whom you're trying to reason.
- kinseyincanada, on 10/11/2007, -42/+20well hell will be awesome, it will be full of digg users!
- mouseman23, on 10/11/2007, -325/+14This is the problem with Atheists.
“And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy
neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do and thou shalt live.”
All Jesus asks is you believe, but instead you curse his name. How can you expect a Christian not to dismiss Atheists as crazies? - atdigg, on 10/11/2007, -47/+154@mouseman23: Why don't you go ***** yourself?
- coheedcollapse, on 10/11/2007, -14/+196The best thing about MouseMan is that he's so stereotypically fundamentalist that you don't even need to respond to him to get a laugh.
- revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -11/+141The best thing about mouseman is that he/she just made an account today. Someone is probably just trying to piss us off.
- KMye, on 10/11/2007, -18/+97Arguing about religion online isn't pointless; arguing about religion ANYWHERE is pointless...
- JamesWilson, on 10/11/2007, -17/+11@revenge7 (#6993595)
Ya don't feed the trolls - Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -15/+49@mouseman: "A certain lawyer?" What? Last time I looked in the ol' Good News Bible, it was "A teacher of Law." Don't tell me you guys are still shuffling the word of god around, are you?
It's about as funny as the kooks that want to translate "crocodile" as "dinosaur" to make their young Earth ideas a little less delusional. - OneHine, on 10/11/2007, -8/+62@mouseman23
Let's set aside the fact that you created your account just today and are thus almost certainly a troll.
So what, in your god-like opinion, is the fate of those Christians who laugh at fundamentalists right alongside us atheists? Are they saved through Jesus, or do you think they'll be tortured forever for the terrible sin of laughing at idiots?
And who is cursing Jesus? Last I saw, people were expressing enormous distaste for you, not Jesus. Please do not confuse yourself with God. - Redemption289, on 10/11/2007, -14/+74Actually, a lot of Christian fundamentalists believe that the very act of being a Christian means you are saved. This means I can literally kill a man, rape his wife, and drown their child and still go to heaven. No joke.
- doddilus, on 10/11/2007, -9/+92"Actually, a lot of Christian fundamentalists believe that the very act of being a Christian means you are saved. This means I can literally kill a man, rape his wife, and drown their child and still go to heaven. No joke."
Also by this Hitler could get into heaven, but the 6 million Jews he murdered could not - slicedoranges, on 10/11/2007, -15/+19Yes, arguing about religion is pointless a lot of the time because HXC Christians have it drilled into their brain with a huge padlock in front that they're right about everything.
- fuzzynyanko, on 10/11/2007, -14/+7I sometimes wonder if we'll have spaceships before the rapture making the lake of fire moot... Or will Jesus come in a spaceship and save his true followers?
- EztliNahua, on 10/11/2007, -5/+136Comment abuse: Blogspam, stolen content. Original site: http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm
- Tsen, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11@KinseyinCanada
"well hell will be awesome, it will be full of digg users!"
Oh HELL no! Looks like I've got one LOOONG eternity ahead of me... - lastobelus, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17@mouseman
You're obviously going to hell since you quite obviously don't love your atheist, muslim, gay, etc. neigbours as yourself.
Truth is, you're not actually a christian at all. You, my friend, are the modern day equivalent of the pharisees. Why was Christ critical of the pharisees? They taught and sought to enforce GODS OWN LAW that he gave to Moses. Why was Christ so vehemently opposed to a group of people who taught and sought to enforce his father's own rules?
You are a pharisee, not a christian. If Christ is real, when he returns he will spew you out. - Harbinger67, on 10/11/2007, -23/+23Why the hell do diggers hate religion so much? Anyone who doesn't immediately raise the anti-God banner is labeled a fundamentalist wacko. Sure, I understand bashing the people who are really obviously idiots, like the intelligent design camp etc etc, but if someone has a certain belief but DOESN'T force it on everyone else, why must they too be ridiculed? I'm not defending this mouseman guy specifically, but rather I'm talking about the whole "atheist or fool" mentality that seems to permeate this community. Why can't we just live and let live?
- NickMilne, on 10/11/2007, -55/+14And another goddamn thing:
This list is *****, even if it is meant to be funny. Let's take a look.
10. This would be quite the potent complaint if it managed to address the issue of what's actually true. Let's say there are a thousand boxes lying a parking lot, beside each of which someone is standing. ONE (1) of the boxes has something in it. Joe Truthclaim (box #493) is loudly denouncing the miserable, worthless emptiness of the 999 other boxes that surround him and his. Pablo Hesitanzio and Leslie Anger (#'s 29 and 863, respectively) say they think Joe's box is empty. He reacts with confidence and scorn.
Now, his reaction could reasonably have one of two possible rationales:
A) Joe is a hypocritcal, hypersensitive douchebag who blindly adheres to Bronze Age box-claiming conventions
B) Joe's box really has something in it
We're perfectly entitled to suspect (even "know," if we're feeling cocky) that the Fundamentalist's box is empty. However, neither courtesy nor reason permit us to pretend that option A) is the only answer. To sum up, then: there would be nothing wrong with a Fundamentalist affirming the existence of his god if that god really existed, and he would be well within his rights to denounce a million other gods if none of them measured up.
And of course, the corollary to this is that the New Atheists (as the media seems set on calling them) get all upset because theists believe in just one more god than they do.
9. This "sign" relies on conjectural claims lacking both accuracy and plausibility, striving more towards a mood than a reality. It also commits a fallacy of omission. To say that Fundamentalists feel "dehumanised" by evolution is overly simplistic, even clumsy; certainly not all Fundamentalists feel this way, for starters, and instead base their objections on other criteria. Not all Fundamentalists even object to evolution in the first place.
What is more - and this is the little deceitful omission mentioned above - Fundamentalists likely have no objection to the "Biblical claim that we were created from dirt" because the claim demands the act of creation. If Fundamentalists feel "dehumanised" by evolution at all, it's because of what they may perceive to be the blind, pointless blandness of it all. Dirt itself is nothing very exciting, of course, but having been shaped by God and imbued with the very breath of life, it becomes something rather more than just dirt.
8. Fundamentalists - and, indeed, most orthodox Christians - have "no problem believing in a triune God" because it simply is not the same thing as polytheism. They are confident in this because they know their own theology and what it means, and the people making this list do not.
It is at this early stage that the list's real focus becomes apparent. Fundamentalism - that is, the 19th C. brainchild of John Darby and others, focused around a certain collection of essays and formulated largely in response to the field of Higher Criticism - is not the target of this list. Neither is "fundamentalism," that muddy fiction bandied about so often by the sneering elite. The target is any Christian person who happens to actually believe in their religion. This, then, has all of the delicate usefulness of the sort of polemics Christian people have had to endure since the likes of Celsus and others walked the earth.
7. Few "atrocities" are attributed to Allah himself, who is an enigmatic and inscrutable god. Countless atrocities, both historical and modern, have been attributed to Allah's will, of course, but he himself is almost conceptual in his mystery. In any event, I would hope that any moral person would express voluble grief and dismay - even unto the purpling of the face - at a suicide bombing or a televised beheading. Furthermore would I hope that they would not respond with such physical anguish to news of tribal rub-outs that happened many thousands of years ago, no matter who the culprit, for such exquisite sensitivity could prove paralyzing.
And the complaint about the "elimation of trees" is just childish.
6. This combines the truth-disdaining folly of the the tenth point and the "telling 'em what they really believe" of the eighth. For us to nod in agreement with the point being made here we would have to blithely assume that the Fundamentalist does all of this without any grounds whatsoever for rejecting those Hindu or Greek beliefs. If he has reasons - even good reasons (which clearly exist, as so many atheists don't believe in these things either) - for doubting that men become gods, or that Zeus had sex with a swan, we may hardly call it a matter of hypocrisy. Fundamentalists don't disbelieve in these things because they think that congress with the divine is impossible; they disbelieve in them because they think the specific things being described are simply untrue.
5. This one is the worst so far. First, it would be tragically dumb to suggest that Fundamentalists would be "willing to spend [their lives] looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of the earth." They wouldn't; to them (to most sane people, even), the actual age of the earth is a matter of almost laughable unimportance. You who read this: do you care? I mean, *really* care? I don't think so.
More laughable still is the way the point sets up the affirmative. The age of the earth, it tells us, has been scientifically established. It's "a few billion years." The precision is startling, here. The crafters of this list might at least have gone to the trouble of finding out what that scientifically-established age actually IS, first.
Finally, we have seen the phrase "Bronze Age" used as a pejorative epithet. This is ***** stupid, to be blunt. A Bronze Age tribesman could kick your ass, for starters; and, for all his blind, naive idiocy, he could survive for years in a desert that would kill any one of us in a matter of days. What's more, we owe civilization as we know it to Bronze Age tribesmen. The Bronze Age brought the Ancience Near East out of its largely nomadic context as the development of forges - which could not easily be moved, after all - fostered the creation of established settlements. Look into what the Hittites and Minoans and Phoenicians were getting up to way back then and then try to tell us that "Bronze Age people" were just a bunch of worthless nubs.
In any event, this sort of thinking (that is, that ancient people were stupid) is the result of completely unjustified temporal snobbery. We are not the end of history. We are not the vindication of human development. No doubt we, too, will look like damn fools to a bunch of unthinking douchebags a few thousand years hence. As recently as a hundred years ago it was scientifically established that we were surrounded by "the aether" and that the bumps on your head correlated with your personality and destiny.
4. The issue of Hell, and what it is or isn't, is too nuanced to have been described accurately in this point. Yet more of the same "telling Fundamentalists what they really believe."
3. This is the only uncontroversial point on the entire list, and it's all because of their thoughtful inclusion of the word "may." "Some idiot" engaging in transports of glossolalia may very well be what it takes to convince someone of some religious suggestion. That's simply true, and there's an end to it. It's a meaningless statement, and it can hardly be refuted.
Of course, there's nothing to say that Fundamentalists do not listen to science, geology, biology, etc. Indeed, the very fact that they do "listen" to such things, believing quite sincerely that these fields' findings point to some elegant, divine creation, is even now a subject of some frustration to many.
2. That Fundamentalists define "0.01%" as a "high success rate" is a pretty bold claim, and I'd like to see it substantiated.
1. This last point is insane. I'm too drunk to really go into it properly right now, but the general drift of the thing is that this final point once more underscores the weird focus-drift of this list. Fundamentalists, the term being properly used, can quite reasonably be accused of many weird and disheartening things, but "not knowing their Bible" is not one of them.
Oh man, I really can't go on. You think it's not doing anything and then all of a sudden you turn your head a certain way and BAM, it hits you: you're ***** drunk. I had to backspace like eighteen times in that last sentence, and maybe another six in this one.
So, uh, discuss - user777, on 10/11/2007, -17/+5CHRISTIANS or any RELIGIOUS ENTHUSIASTS for that matter:
what do think of a extraterrestrial life (is it unproven? is god proven?) because how would u explain aliens' god? they must have a god, but probably not jesus or buddha or ala? perhaps some lifeform with 3 heads and 12 tentacles. that would mean there many god's projections, each with a different name other than "christianity", suggesting other religions might just as well be legitimate for no religion is end all rule all.
i'm a half christian, and half some other stuffs too. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32Dammit, I wish the moderators would leave a little stub, just a "post deleted" marker, when they delete an entry. Now I got fooled into digging mouseman because his original entry is gone, and I thought bassmastr attacked him unprovoked.
- dassin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13http://www.duggmirror.com
- 35263526, on 10/11/2007, -47/+4@doddilus:
Hitler wasn't Christian. He wasn't even religious. - redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -8/+54@35263526,
Actually, you are incorrect. Hitler was Catholic and defended his behaviour as being in accordance to the will of god. Here's a nice little quote for you from Mein Kampf:
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
Here's another short extract from Hitler's Munich speech, dated April 12th 1922:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
Hitler on the Nazi Party. October 27, 1928:
"We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian".
Also, it is to be noted that Hitler and the Nazi party wanted to create a Unified Church within the Third Reich.
I always love the way that xtians love to continue with the myth of Hilter being Atheist when he clearly stated his religious beliefs. Just goes to show how uneducated some people are. - Baltoche, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12Nobody is going to hell, because hell, heaven and god dosen't exist
sop waisting your time withnall this and start living because once you'll be dead, it will be over - redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32@ doddilus,
You mention 6 million Jews, but you neglect to mention the other 7+ million people murdered during the Holocaust. I am, of course, talking about the blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, trade unionists, gays, gypsies, communists, criminals, other political prisoners, people who tried to help the persecuted, the mentally ill, p.o.w's, the physically handicapped, etc..
Sorry, I just get really annoyed when the other groups are missed out. - 35263526, on 10/11/2007, -20/+7@redpixie:
Hitler publicly claimed to be Christian to gain the support of the Christian right during his rise to power, but he certainly wasn't actually a believer. His comments towards those close to him made that clear, as did his actions (and no, I'm not talking about his slaughter of gays/jews/gypsies, I'm rather referring to his institutionalized subjugation of the churches) when analyzed properly. From what I've been taught in A-level History and my own research, there is very little question in the sphere of academia as to his lack of religious preferences.
Edit - It's also worth noting that Hitler didn't actually write Mein Kampf himself, so anything from it has to be taken with a grain of salt when used to analyze his views. - PAJK, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4http://www.duggmirror.com
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10@ 35263526,
Wow, A-Level History huh? That really stands you as an expert in the field. One of my A-Levels (from the days when you actually had to study for the qualification) is in English Literature. Does that mean I am an expert on Chaucer?!
I'm quite curious to see what real academics, who have studied the Third Reich at length, have to say about your ignorance.
Once again, hence the problem of the uneducated. - 35263526, on 10/11/2007, -19/+4@redpixie:
Never said I was an expert, and I can hardly be blamed for the fact that I'm only 17 so A-levels are as far as I can go as far as recognized academia is concerned at this point. Nonetheless, I _have_ read several books on the subject of Hitler's ideology by notable individuals because I have a sincere personal interest, and they state quite without contradiction that Hitler was most definitely not religious. Furthermore, what I _have_ learned in school (and regardless of your needless jab at the present educational system, I have been taught very well and comprehensively, and for that matter, from what I've been told, good History grades are getting more difficult to obtain, not easier, though I can't personally speak for English Lit.) supports this viewpoint. Hitler certainly had strong ideological beliefs, but Christianity wasn't one of them.
Regardless, I'm pretty sure this veering massively off-topic, and as such, I'm afraid this is the last post I'll make on the matter. - wqwert, on 10/11/2007, -3/+91 10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian. - redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13@ 35263526,
Please provide your sources (author, date and quote) that state Hitler was not a Christian. I have provided you with quotes actually attributed to Hitler to prove otherwise. I would prefer direct quotes from Hitler himself that state he is not religious to any degree. It is not sufficient to say that you know otherwise without evidence for your stance and, I am sorry but your teacher is not a good source.
I am not asking for information from people who say that Hitler was not a christian, but direct quotes from Hitler or those who knew him personally. - wunderdog, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8"Actually, a lot of Christian fundamentalists believe that the very act of being a Christian means you are saved. This means I can literally kill a man, rape his wife, and drown their child and still go to heaven. No joke."
This statement conveys that you know very little about Christian doctrine. I don't know who, if anyone, teaches this but it is so wrong. If you killed a man, raped his wife, and drowned their children you would not go to heaven. If you change your life, repent your sins, and follow Christ's example, you will. That's what being a Christian is, pure and simple. - gojeda, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14"@35263526,
Actually, you are incorrect. Hitler was Catholic and defended his behaviour as being in accordance to the will of god. Here's a nice little quote for you from Mein Kampf:
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
Here's another short extract from Hitler's Munich speech, dated April 12th 1922:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
Hitler on the Nazi Party. October 27, 1928:
"We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian".
Also, it is to be noted that Hitler and the Nazi party wanted to create a Unified Church within the Third Reich.
I always love the way that xtians love to continue with the myth of Hilter being Atheist when he clearly stated his religious beliefs. Just goes to show how uneducated some people are."
Hitler, as was often the case, said one thing and acted in another way. He never had a cozy relationship with the Church and, in many cases, persecuted Catholics "who got in his way".
You also sort of shot yourself in the foot a bit when you said, "wanted to create a Unified Church". Did it ever occur to you that he wanted a Unified Church for the simple reason he was not happy with the one that was extant?
No, Hilter was not athiest......but he hardly fought for his Reich under the banner of the church.
What is more interesting, however, is that you failed to mention Stalin, Chairman Mao, or Pol Pot - three of the more destructive atheists of the 20th century.
.....I am sure, however, we will see the apologists "rationalizing" these facts away in no time at all. - BassMastr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+39That sucks that Digg censored and removed mouseman's original comments..
Digg is developing a serious problem with free speech...nothing about Muslims ever make it to the front page and now comments are disappearing...interesting...
Anyone else have a problem with this?
Yes Mouseman is an idiot, but he has every right to be an idiot... - freakk123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@Harbinger67
"Why the hell do diggers hate religion so much? Anyone who doesn't immediately raise the anti-God banner is labeled a fundamentalist wacko."
I don't think diggers hate religion so much as they tend to see the flaws in it, though they do also tend to take it to take criticism of it to a much greater level than I think is necessary.
I dunno, I'm christian, a presbyterian, and I go to church on occasion. I believe in God, etc, but ***** if that gives me the right to persecute others. And this is where I diverge from the beliefs of many fundamentalists, I honestly believe that the bible got some ideas right (Jesus's parables, most of the 10 commandments, etc), but again, it should not give people the idea that they're better than others, or correct. I dunno, I just think that people should believe or not believe whatever the hell they want to (as long as it does not negatively effect others!), and others should respect that. - MeneerR, on 10/11/2007, -18/+7I actually study computer science and we get philosophy of science as a subject.
I see a number of dumb opinions here:
1. science is fact, religion is belief. WRONG
Science itself is also a religion. I actually believe in science. But it's not a completely rational choice. Nobody here actually checks al those scientific theories. We accept them as easily and without hesitation as a christian accepts the truth of the bibble.
2. Religion can not be disproved scientifically. WRONG
Science may be religion, but religion is not science. Unless religion contains statements that can be verified to be true or false, it isn't science. Science does not have an opinion about anything that doesn't in any way change our reality. If I say i have two different objects in my hand, but there is no way you can measure, see, feel or know the difference: the difference doesn't matter scientifically speaking. Laws of nature are science, because we can do experiments that prove those laws either right or wrong. A theory we can't prove either way, is completely meaningless.
3. Science is fact. WRONG
Science is best current theory about reality. But the process to get these theories is not perfects. It's called induction. You see an apple falling, then you see another falling. Then you create a theory of gravity. The process is called GENERALISATION in lamen-terms. It happened a lot, so it must always be true. There is no garantuee that even the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow: we just assume they will. A turkey that gets fed everyday, might have a theory that he will be fed everyday. Until the day we chop his head off and eat it. Believing the sun will come up tomorrow is no different. It's not rational: but it's pragmetic: the best truth so far. Until we get a better truth.
4. Believing in God is Dumb, believing in Science is Smart. WRONG
All you do is repeat whatever the ***** somebody TOLD you was true. None of you here, actually tested any theory. The greatest scientists were so great because they never believed anyone. They QUESTIONED EVERYTHING. In every tribe there are people with authority that tell you what to believe and most of you do just that. The only fair way to say for yourself, that science is CLOSER to the truth, is because science gives you a SMALL THEORY to EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. It's called Occam's Razor: the most simple explanation is most likely to be most correct. Again, that's not rational: but its a common aspect of human thinking.
5. Science does not contain beliefs. WRONG
Typical assumptions of science:
1. we see, feel and hear the true world around us. We trust our sences. The matrix played this card: its not rational.
2. nature behaves uniform: there are consistent laws we just have to discover. Yesterday doesn't prove tomorrow. Think about the turkey.
3. there exists something called causality. Translation correlation to cause and effect is not rational. And proved to be wrong many times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Still, I believe science has a better chance of getting to the truth as close as we can get to it. But in the process we sacrificed lots of important things:
- we sarcrificed rationality. We have assumptions. Ouch.
- we don't ask questions we can't answer. We can't explain the primal cause of everything. Any 4 your old, that keeps asking WHY knows this.
But, guess what? In no way does this make religion a science, or closes to the truth. They too, don't really answer why (why does God exists, who created him?) . They too have assumptions.
I prefer the assumptions of science. But its not completely RATIONAL. It's not PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT. - MeneerR, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Why do I get modded down? It's just a crash course philosophy of science?
Or is digg only about opinions without arguments? - redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@gojeda
It was typed: "Hitler, as was often the case, said one thing and acted in another way. He never had a cozy relationship with the Church and, in many cases, persecuted Catholics "who got in his way"."
- He also murdered many atheists that got in his way. Refer to Soviet Union for more information. I do agree that he allowed a few Catholic priests to be executed that got into "his" way. For instance, Catholic priests that defended Jews were executed. Christian prayers made mandatory in schools in the 1930's didn't seem to help stop the executions. I suppose it may have something to do with Christians believing their god executed millions of people for a "higher purpose" and trying to live up to his image.
It was typed: "You also sort of shot yourself in the foot a bit when you said, "wanted to create a Unified Church". Did it ever occur to you that he wanted a Unified Church for the simple reason he was not happy with the one that was extant?"
- I didn't shoot myself in the foot at all. I don't claim to be able to think exactly like Hitler, nor a Christian that wishes to create a unified church. The fact remains that he wanted to create a unified church. My foot seems to be fine.
It was typed: "No, Hilter was not athiest......but he hardly fought for his Reich under the banner of the church."
- I'm glad you acknowledge that he wasn't an athiest. I hope you also acknowledge that he wasn't an atheist either. I don't think that people need the banner of the church behind them to claim to be Catholic or Christians generally. I think the claim is enough. Christian literature is too polluted with inconsistencies and contradictions to allow anyone to really claim to be a perfect christian. Each must ignore many contradictory stances to fool themselves into believing the are a perfect christian.
In November 1933, 20,000 German Christians assembled in Berlin to demand the resignation of all pastors that were not in favor of the 3rd Reich. During the same meeting, Krause, regional Church administrator, called for the removal of Jewish Old testament from the Christian bible. There were many Christians waiving the banner of the church for the Reich. There were many that weren't, but the majority backing the Nazi party were from major German churches. Also, the Catholic Youth Group was based on political principles drawn from the Nazi Youth movement. Again, my main point was that Hitler was not an atheist. I think we both agree there.
It was typed: "What is more interesting, however, is that you failed to mention Stalin, Chairman Mao, or Pol Pot - three of the more destructive atheists of the 20th century."
- I also didn't mention the crusades, GWB, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Bin Laden, Hussein or many other leaders that held religious views during leadership. My original post was directed to a post regarding Hitler not being religious. I don't think the others really have anything more to add to this conversation. They also all had two arms, but I don't think arms were the reason for the decisions during the wars. - macmcrae, on 10/23/2007, -5/+5#11 you might be a retarded fundamentalist Christian if you are a digg moderator who censors someone for having an unpopular opinion or for introducing you to concepts that you don't understand.
- ferkranus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I was raised protestant and at this point in my life I retain my belief in God, but refuse to associate myself with fundamentalists. The religious right in the US is killing Christianity.
When fundamentalists come out spewing their bigotry and intolerance, it hurts everyone.
People often forget that Jesus was a poor man, he spent his time with prostitutes and lepers. He was an outcast. When people say they are "living the life of Jesus" it rarely means that they push against what is popular or reach out to those in pure need.
Fundamentalists use the Bible to put people down, which is the exact opposite of Christian behavior.
That being said, non-religious people lash out at the religious because they are quite often only exposed to a certain type. When I was in Christian school we were never taught to hate gay people or to be intolerant of people's personal choices. However, since the view of hating gay people and pretty much everyone else is such an EXTREME view that it receives plenty of attention. Meanwhile, all over, there are Christians who really do believe that we are all equal and really do believe that judgment is reserved for God alone.
I could not possibly say who will or will not go to hell, it is not for me to judge.
We can go back and forth trying to prove our separate points, we can try and convince people of our point of view and we can (both atheists and the religious) put people down and try and hurt each other. OR we can accept that each of us is entitled to our opinions.
The fundamental commonality between atheists and the religious is a belief in something that cannot be pr oven.
As a Christian it would be foolish of me to try and prove that God exists, I simply do not know. Faith defined is belief without knowledge. An atheist on the other hand, cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
So we can bicker back and forth and put each other down and fight for our point of view. Or Christians AND atheists can be smart about our opinions and realize when we're dealing with someone from a fundamentalist view point - and fundamentalist view points are often very black and white, leaving little for Grey - which is what life is based on.... that Grey area. - breckinloggins, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@wunderdog
"This statement conveys that you know very little about Christian doctrine. I don't know who, if anyone, teaches this but it is so wrong. If you killed a man, raped his wife, and drowned their children you would not go to heaven. If you change your life, repent your sins, and follow Christ's example, you will. That's what being a Christian is, pure and simple."
There are a couple of issues I'd like to point out with your post:
First, there is really no such thing as "Christian Doctrine." Which Christianity do you mean? Catholicism? Orthodox? Protestantism? Calvanism? Gnosticism? They're all VERY different, and many of them don't even agree on the basics.
Second, you may believe it is wrong (as do I), but I assure you there are PLENTY of people who believe it. In my part of the world south of the Mason-Dixon line, I would say that at least a simple majority believe just that. The core fundamentalist protestant tenet of "faith alone" means just that: it is ONLY by faith in Jesus Christ that one is saved, that is IT. Not only can no other good work or repentance of sin save you, but no amount of BAD work can destroy you; as long, that is, that you still believe that Christ died on the cross for you.
Now, as an agnostic, I think all of this is nonsense, but I think a major problem we have today with the Religious Right taking over politics and business is that most mainstream people truly don't realize a) how seriously screwed-up these people's beliefs are and b) just how MANY of them there are.
Trust me, there are a lot of them, and it scares me. - codmate, on 10/23/2007, -3/+8"Why do I get modded down? It's just a crash course philosophy of science?
Or is digg only about opinions without arguments?"
Maybe it's the fact that you claim science is a religion, when it bears none of the characteristics of one.
Religion includes acts of worship, ritual and belief in the supernatural.
Science is simply the practice of the scientific method, which is highly empirical.
Another reason for digging you down might be that you come across as a radical sceptic (you claim that the evidence of our senses cannot be trusted).
Sure, in philosophical terms you can't absolutely trust your senses, or any kind of evidence.
This attitude is as useless in philosophical argument as it is in life. It is a total dead end.
You have to accept some things into your life as valid, or you are a non-entity, or at the very least insane/paranoid.
The scientific method is all about providing checks and balances, so that evidence is as empirical as possible, and can be trusted. If the scientific method didn't have an extraordinarily high degree of success you wouldn't be able to post on digg.com at all. - nigh7dagger, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2Before you digg me up or bury me, please read the full contents of my comment. I have *attempted* to methodically but without hostility refute the list. Before I do so, I will tell you the real meaning of fundamentalist: All it means is that you want to go back to the foundations of said beliefs. It doesn't mean that you are a nutjob handing out pamphlets in an airport. With that said, please actually read my post.
"10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours."
I would say this is unfair. People of all religions (and for the sake of argument, I will classify evolutionism as a religion since the followers of it are extremely devoted) will say their religion is right and other religions are wrong. A tribesman in the middle of the Amazon will kill you for saying his tiki god (a wooden statue is wrong), a Muslim will attack a country because he thinks his religion is right. This doesn't apply to any form of Christianity any more than it does to any other religion or system of beliefs.
"9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt."
Don't know where the dude got his quote. I know I don't feel "insulted and 'dehumanized' when scientists say" that but I just think it's wrong.
"8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God."
I *don't* laugh at polytheists and the Trinity is one god, but with 3 parts.
"7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!"
Atrocities of Allah? Having not read the Koran (I may get to it eventually), I can't say anything about what the Muslims believe their god has done (what they do in the name of their God is a different story) but if you read closer, God tells people what they are doing is wrong. He tells them the punishment is death (or death of the firstborn, not of all babies; for that matter, most of these firstborn could've been adults). If the people continue to do it, all he is doing is keeping his promise. Do you flinch when a crack dealer keeps getting caught and sentenced?
"6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky."
Again, I don't laugh at others' beliefs. And this reeks of errors. The Holy Spirit *did* impregnate Mary, and if you believe that the Holy Spirit is one form of an omnipotent God, there isn't a problem with that. Then she gave birth to God in human form who got killed (for what we do wrong, I might add), came back to life and ascended into heaven (not the sky). And if you believe that God is omnipotenet, you won't have a problem believing that either.
"5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old."
If your great-grandpa was the first man on Earth, you can very easily figure out how old the Earth is. Especially when the length of their lives are recorded.
"4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving.""
A denomination is not a "rival sect." It is a group of people with a mostly academically different approach to how they think God should be worshiped. And my religion is tolerant because anyone can just say a simple little prayer to go to heaven. It is loving because Jesus gave his life for everyone to be able to go to heaven if they believe in him. We don't have to pray five times a day or meditate or whatever.
"3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity."
Actually, to my knowledge, Christianity has not been proven or disproven by scientific means (geology, biology, and physics), History (and archaeology) have proven many things that Christians believe (while not enough to prove Christianity itself). Some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues doesn't prove Christianity. I personally think that rolling around speaking in tongues is pretty weird but if someone thinks it gets them closer to God, hey, let them do it.
"2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God."
And 65.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. Actually, on most prayers, there is a 50% theoretical probability of it working. I will either find my car keys or I won't. That doesn't necessarily prove or disprove God. Prayers' success rate can be shown with an old joke: A man had a job interview and was circling the building for 15 minutes to find a parking space. He started praying, "God, if you help me find a parking space now, I'll go to church every Sunday, give up my alcohol addiction, stop cheating on my wife, everything." Immediately a space opened up. The man said, "Oh, never mind, God, I found one."
In the current argument though, God will answer all prayers. Sometimes he just says no. And I don't see why a "no" answer isn't the will of God.
"1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian"
I will admit that I don't know much about that compared to many people. Some atheists have doctorate degrees in church history or theology. What lets me call myself a Christian is that I believe in Jesus as my savior. By your logic, if I know all about atheism (which isn't hard, considering all it is is believing there isn't a God) then I am an atheist, even though I'm a Christian. That doesn't make too much sense, now does it. - ScreaminIke, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4@doddilus
Godwin's Law!
Fundy Xians FTW! - nestafett, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Im confused, the first post seems to be responding to something mouseman said, but how is that if its the first post?
- nestafett, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2wait, never mind i just read a post that said digg censored it wtf????
anyone know what it said? from the responses it doesnt sound like it was positive but thats messed up it was censored! - maiku00, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1rofl, mouseman is ***** insane
- crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4God, I'm so sick of all the immature Christianity bashing on this site.
- arunsjunk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@codmate
You are essentially providing support for his statement of "opinions without arguments."
"Maybe it's the fact that you claim science is a religion, when it bears none of the characteristics of one."
Science is based on empirically-derived belief. Religion can be defined broadly as a belief system describing our relationship to the universe.
"Religion includes acts of worship, ritual and belief in the supernatural.
Science is simply the practice of the scientific method, which is highly empirical."
Religion does not have to have worship, ritual and belief in the supernatural. A great mathematician Pythagorus created a ritual out of geometry, so science is not immune to such practices. Religion can also be the practice of an empirical method, that of people's experiences. Selecting one set of experiences over another is biased (this is the primary reason for arguments).
"Another reason for digging you down might be that you come across as a radical sceptic (you claim that the evidence of our senses cannot be trusted)."
This is precisely an "opinion without an argument." What has this to do with truth other than pigeonholing someone.
"Sure, in philosophical terms you can't absolutely trust your senses, or any kind of evidence. This attitude is as useless in philosophical argument as it is in life. It is a total dead end."
It is not a dead-end, and it is precisely why new theories arise to replace older less empirically accurate ones. It is a dead-end to those who think they know. It is in fact impractical to walk blindly thinking you know, rather than seeing and understanding that you may not know.
"You have to accept some things into your life as valid, or you are a non-entity, or at the very least insane/paranoid."
This sounds very much like a religious statement.
"The scientific method is all about providing checks and balances, so that evidence is as empirical as possible, and can be trusted."
The scientific method is about deriving empirical theories from assumptions, no more no less. I do not see any need for trust in an objective system.
Just for background, I am agnostic, and I find ritualistic practices whether in common religions or in science to be a falsehood.
Just my 2c. - gojeda, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"He also murdered many atheists that got in his way."
Of course.....he murdered anyone that got in the way of his vision.
"Refer to Soviet Union for more information. I do agree that he allowed a few Catholic priests to be executed that got into "his" way. For instance, Catholic priests that defended Jews were executed. Christian prayers made mandatory in schools in the 1930's didn't seem to help stop the executions. I suppose it may have something to do with Christians believing their god executed millions of people for a "higher purpose" and trying to live up to his image."
The difference between the Catholic and the Jew, in Hilter's eyes, was that the Jew was to be dealt with the utmost expediency while the Catholic would be dealt with if he fell out of line. However, even Hitler knew the Church had to be controlled from the onset in order for him to meet his objectives. This is why soon after Hitler ascended to power that Mein Kampf was found on the altar next to the Bible.
The Nazi Party moved swiftly to neutralize the influence the Church had in Germany:
1. 1933 - Goering bans Catholic newspapers in Cologne because their commentary was political in nature.
2. Alfred Rosenburg, famous anti-semite and anti-Christian, publisheds "Myth of the 20th Century" with Hilter's blessing. In that book he claims that Christianity was a bastard tradition from the semitic tribes, and that Aryans were tricked out of their pagan faith by Christians. The Catholic Church, in his eyes, had propagated this swindle over many centuries. Lastly, he said Jesus, himself, was the frist Aryan duped by the Jews of the time.
3. Thousands from the Catholic Centre Party were in concentration camps by the end of 1993.
...etc etc...
"I didn't shoot myself in the foot at all. I don't claim to be able to think exactly like Hitler, nor a Christian that wishes to create a unified church. The fact remains that he wanted to create a unified church. My foot seems to be fine."
OK, so you foot is fine, however, you still mitigated your point.
If Hitler was so much the Christian and willing follower of the Holy See.....then there would be no need to create "a unified Church". That is the point you inadvertantly made.
It is a matter of historical record that the Concordat was made under duress by the Church in Germany for fear that the SA would be unleashed on Catholics in that country (and indeed, German Catholics did get a taste of that in a few isolated incidents).
"I'm glad you acknowledge that he wasn't an athiest."
He wasn't an athiest, but he wasn't particularly God-fearing either. I think he behavior, in particular towards the Church, says as much.
" I hope you also acknowledge that he wasn't an atheist either. I don't think that people need the banner of the church behind them to claim to be Catholic or Christians generally. I think the claim is enough. Christian literature is too polluted with inconsistencies and contradictions to allow anyone to really claim to be a perfect christian. Each must ignore many contradictory stances to fool themselves into believing the are a perfect christian. "
You are rambling here...and I fail to the saliency of your underhanded remarks to the topic at hand.
"In November 1933, 20,000 German Christians assembled in Berlin to demand the resignation of all pastors that were not in favor of the 3rd Reich. During the same meeting, Krause, regional Church administrator, called for the removal of Jewish Old testament from the Christian bible. There were many Christians waiving the banner of the church for the Reich. There were many that weren't, but the majority backing the Nazi party were from major German churches. Also, the Catholic Youth Group was based on political principles drawn from the Nazi Youth movement. Again, my main point was that Hitler was not an atheist. I think we both agree there."
- I think I mentioned earlier that thousands from the Catholic Centre Party were in concentration camps by the end of 1933.
- From 1935 and 1936, there was a wave of "corruption" trials where the clergy were charged with lurid acts and preying on innocents. The NY Times ran a story that, in 1936, one favorite tactic was frantic phone calls for Last Sacraments to be administered by visitors at a hotel. When the priest showed up, the caller turned out to be a prostitute, a picture was conveniently taken of the whole affair, and the clergyman ended up in prison. That article cited more than one hundred pastors and several thousand clergymen ended up behind bars.
- The Cardinal of Munich was shot in 1938.
- Catholic attendance at schools in Munich dropped 20% from 1934 to 1935.
- 3000 Catholic schools in the Rhineland were abolished by decree.
I can go on, but needless to say, I am not sure where you got this notion that the Church (and Catholics) had a priviledged position in Germany during this time, when in fact, it was exactly the opposite. It was an extremely trying time for the Church in Germany.
"I also didn't mention the crusades, GWB, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Bin Laden, Hussein or many other leaders that held religious views during leadership. My original post was directed to a post regarding Hitler not being religious. I don't think the others really have anything more to add to this conversation. They also all had two arms, but I don't think arms were the reason for the decisions during the wars."
The Crusades was the last major military conflict fought in the West that had anything directly to do with religion. That ended in 1291. There have been episodes here and there since them, with religious overtones......but nothing overtly or particularly religious in tone.
Your utterance of Roosevelt and Eisenhower is truly ponderous. Neither men waged war on the premise of religion unless you are talking about some alternate history in an alternate universe?
GWB is a religious man, as are and were most of the Presidents. What is the point here? Because they are members of, say, the Episcopalian - that means if they send troops into combat makes it a religious war?
Surely you can't be serious.
That being said, I will again refer you to the three men I have mentioned who were overtly atheist.
1. Soviet Russia, it has been estimated, has killed 62 million between 1917-1986....20 million plus (if not much more) of those under Stalin
2. In China, 40 million died under Zedong's watch.
3. Pol Pot killed 3 million in 3 years.
I suggest you go to this site, which catagorizes the worst atrocities in the 20th Century. You are going to find that the vast majority of those wars were not religious, but indeed very secular in nature.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
I want to clarify. I am not claiming that, atheism "intrinsically" drives people to kill. That claim is just as specious by those on your side that says religion kills. No, what I am merely illustrating, as a matter of history that the bloodiest affairs have been, more times than not, "non-religious" in nature. - cptn_cardboard, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Diggers hate religion for the same reason they hate windows: BSOD
(find a metaphor there and you get a cookie) - itsme92, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3@Mouseman
I was just confirmed a Catholic last night, and I couldn't help but laugh at your posts. Live and let live, man. - omnirusa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Im going to hell aparently and I couldent be happier about it.
I would rather live a fun life that I know I am in charge of, and go to hell then to live a boring life that 'god' oks. No god though so its a waste. - doddilus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ redpixie
"I am, of course, talking about the blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, trade unionists, gays, gypsies, communists, criminals, other political prisoners, people who tried to help the persecuted, the mentally ill, p.o.w's, the physically handicapped, etc..
Sorry, I just get really annoyed when the other groups are missed out."
i purposefully left them out, i was not pointing out all the people Hitler murdered, i was pointing out that the Christian god is not a just god because anyone who didn't believe in jesus goes to hell no matter their crimes, and anyone who did goes to heaven no matter their crimes.
All the other people Hitler murdered could possibly go to heaven, by Christian standards, but the Jews, who don't believe Jesus was their king/savior and don't repent, go to hell - Prefection, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@Mouseman
"How can you expect a Christian not to dismiss Atheists as crazies?"
Fair enough, considering that is exactly the same sort of statement most modern atheists make about Christians. I myself am an atheist, but I want to meet you halfway: respect my belief system as an atheist and I guarantee you that I will respect yours. You can take that to the bank because I swore an oath of service when I joined that Air Force to protect my nation and it's people from foes both foreign and domestic. I don't have to agree with you, but I have to die defending your right to believe it... and I volunteered for the job!
What do you say? - redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@gojeda
I appreciate the response. You have missed the point of nearly all of the material in my post to you. In fact, in many cases you go on and on and on (ramble as you call it) while actually paraphrasing a point that a critical reader would have realized was already made by me.
I'll try to keep this short, as the return on investment hasn't been that great for me in this discussion. Try your best to read critically before you write your next volume.
You typed: "Of course.....he murdered anyone that got in the way of his vision."
- This was my point.
You typed: "1. 1933 - Goering bans Catholic newspapers in Cologne because their commentary was political in nature."
- Does this prove that Hitler wasn't religious? It seems to make sense to ban publications. Propaganda doesn't need competing literature. I never claimed that all Catholics supported Hitler's views. I doubt any group was 100% in agreement with the Nazi views. My only claim is that of Hitler being a Catholic/Christian. Hitler claimed throughout his life that he was Catholic. Just because Hitler didn't like the way some Catholics placed religion above the Reich doesn't provide evidence that Hitler wasn't a Catholic.
You typed: "2. Alfred Rosenburg, famous anti-semite and anti-Christian, publisheds "Myth of the 20th Century" with Hilter's blessing. In that book he claims..."
- Christian reformation attempts don't quite prove that Hitler wasn't a Catholic/Christian. Popes provide major alterations/reformations quite often and they are rarely viewed as not being Catholic/Christian. In addition, Rosenberg's work were considered expressions of his personal view by leading Nazi officials. Rosenberg may have had permission to write a book, but permission doesn't mean reflection of views.
You typed: "3. Thousands from the Catholic Centre Party were in concentration camps by the end of 1993."
- Besides the "1993" part, I don't disagree. Thousands weren't. Opinions were varied within the party and those that held polar opposite views were obviously targeted. We can both agree that Hitler had atheists, christians, Jews, POWs, gypsies, artists, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. in camps. Hitler having political prisoners or artists in camps doesn't prove that Hitler wasn't involved in politics or art.
You typed: "OK, so you foot is fine, however, you still mitigated your point."
- My point has never changed. I think your original response wasn't relevant, thus allowing my foot to escape any damage. I'm not sure if atheists would push for a unified church. I also know many more religious people that attempt to swing the opinion of other religious people into their views. Many Catholics would love to have many Baptists convert into Catholicism and vice versa. I don't see how the desire for a unified church proves that Hitler wasn't a Christian.
You typed:"It is a matter of historical record that the Concordat was made under duress by the Church..."
- Saving ones own ass isn't a much publicized Christian virtue. I'm glad to hear of it. Protection for staying out of politics seems really noble to me. I wonder if the same deal was offered to the Jews.
You typed: "He wasn't an athiest, but he wasn't particularly God-fearing either..."
- Hitler Nazi Christmas celebration, 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews..The work that Christ started but could not finish, I, Adolf Hitler, will conclude."
Hitler to Engel, 1941 - "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,"
After escaping an assassination attempt in 1939, cardinal Michael Faulhaber, sent a telegram instructing that a Te Deum be sung in the cathedral of Munich "to thank Divine Providence in the name of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape."
The Pope also sent his personal congratulations for the escape.
The Pope also described Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "high-minded gallantry in defense of the foundation of Christian culture.
I don't know about God fearing, but these quotes seem to at least hint at Hitler being a Catholic/Christian.
You typed: "You are rambling here.."
- ditto
You typed: "- From 1935 and 1936, there was a wave of "corruption" trials where......"
- rambling..so what?
You typed: "- The Cardinal of Munich was shot in 1938."
- Faulhaber was shot at, not shot. Who shot at him? It was the same cardinal Michael Faulhaber who sent a telegram praising Hitler as earlier mentioned.
In 1937, over 1,000 priests and monks were awaiting trials on charges for sexual molestation of children. We both know that all of these charges were probably not fraudulent giving the news these days. Perhaps Hitler was trying to clean up a problem that still exists today. (I really doubt it, but the point has to be considered.)
You typed: "- Catholic attendance at schools in Munich dropped 20% from 1934 to 1935."
- I'm sure attendance dropped at all schools during war time. This stat is useless. Nearly all schools were turned into community schools, not just Catholic schools.
You typed: "I can go on, but needless to say, I am not sure where you got this notion that the Church (and Catholics) had a privileged position in Germany during this time..."
- I don't remember making that claim. Try to stick to my posts, rather than fabricate statements to address. It was a trying time for all organizations in Germany. Some had it tougher than others.
You typed: "The Crusades was the last major military conflict fought in the West that had anything directly to do with religion."
- The reason for my mention of the crusades and the leaders, was exactly this point. You brought up Stalin and your favorite atheist leaders, though they were not directly attacking due to a religious belief either. Atheists killed atheists, christians killed christians, etc.. I never claimed that Hitler attacked because he was a Christian. I never would accept that Stalin murdered so many because he was an atheist either. This entire thread was started because someone claimed that Hitler was not religious. No mention of Stalin, Roosevelt, etc. needed to be brought in because they are irrelevant to the point. I merely brought them in to show you how silly it could get. You obviously didn't understand.
You typed: "Surely you can't be serious."
- No, I wasn't. I was trying to point out why the shouldn't be brought up. Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, Bush and others have many other factors that work together to bring out their characteristics during war time. I don't think it can all be tied down to simply being religious or atheist.
You typed: "That being said, I will again refer you to the three men I have mentioned who were overtly atheist.......1,2,3...."
- rambling and irrelevant. See Above.
You typed: "I want to clarify. I am not claiming that, atheism "intrinsically" drives people to kill. That claim is just as specious by those on your side that says religion kills. No, what I am merely illustrating, as a matter of history that the bloodiest affairs have been, more times than not, "non-religious" in nature."
- I wasn't making that claim either. We should probably stay out of the discussion of effects of religion on behavior. Then we have to get into why sayings such as "there are no atheists in foxholes" exist. We should leave that for another day. My Digg volume is complete.
I do appreciate the discussion. It isn't often one can engage in a somewhat civilized debate within these forums. - MeneerR, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@CODMATE
Seeing my comment is burried upsets me.
You are defending SCIENCE. But attacking the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
NO SCIENTIST WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
By definition: science is the practice of questioning things.
Blind faith in ANY THEORY, INCLUDING SCIENTIFIC THEORY is a form of religious fundamentalism.
Science is the art of proving the previous scientific theory WRONG.
Newton once was the poster-child of science. He figured it all out. He was proved WRONG by Einstein.
So people who BELIEVED in Newton, without any doubt, were WRONG. Likewise, anyone, that without any doubt, believes Einstein's theories are correct is bound to make THE SAME MISTAKE.
I ASSUME EINSTEINS THEORY IS THE CLOSEST THING TO THE TRUTH.
I do not believe however, that it is the absolute and final truth.
I ASSUME EVOLUTION THEORY IS THE CLOSEST THING TO THE TRUTH.
I do not believe however, that it is the absolute and final truth.
Hence, claiming science is about facts, is turning SCIENCE INTO RELIGION.
Science is about saying: there are no facts.
We have competing theories and use experiments to determine which one is closer to the truth. - gojeda, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1You typed: "1. 1933 - Goering bans Catholic newspapers in Cologne because their commentary was political in nature."
- Does this prove that Hitler wasn't religious?
This, and many other episodes (some of which I have already alluded to....and you have conveniently ignored), I think prove rather succinctly that Hitler was not particularly religious.
"It seems to make sense to ban publications. Propaganda doesn't need competing literature. I never claimed that all Catholics supported Hitler's views. I doubt any group was 100% in agreement with the Nazi views. My only claim is that of Hitler being a Catholic/Christian. Hitler claimed throughout his life that he was Catholic. Just because Hitler didn't like the way some Catholics placed religion above the Reich doesn't provide evidence that Hitler wasn't a Catholic."
I never claimed Hitler wasn't Catholic. I claimed that Hitler was not particularly religious....and have provided ample evidence to support the view.
I think, and I repeat, that what you have just inadvertantly admitted (again) that Hitler was Catholic "in name only" and clearly did not have a comfortable relationship with the Church in Germany.
"Christian reformation attempts don't quite prove that Hitler wasn't a Catholic/Christian."
Clearly Rosenburg's book was not a "Christian Reformation" book. It was a book that denounced Catholicism and made spurois claims about its core beliefs.
To call Rosenburg's book "Christian Refmormation" would be like calling Pol Pot's antics in Cambodia as "aggressive agrarian reform".
Please debate this issue honestly or do not debate it at all.
"Popes provide major alterations/reformations quite often and they are rarely viewed as not being Catholic/Christian."
This response does not even make sense.
"In addition, Rosenberg's work were considered expressions of his personal view by leading Nazi officials. Rosenberg may have had permission to write a book, but permission doesn't mean reflection of views."
Rosenburg was a confirmed anti-semite and anti-Christian. The book was written and published widely with the blessing of the Nazi party.
"Besides the "1993" part, I don't disagree. Thousands weren't. Opinions were varied within the party and those that held polar opposite views were obviously targeted. We can both agree that Hitler had atheists, christians, Jews, POWs, gypsies, artists, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. in camps. Hitler having political prisoners or artists in camps doesn't prove that Hitler wasn't involved in politics or art."
The Nazi part was, indeed, involved in politics and art. As a matter of fact, they involved themselves into the very fabric of German life, and that is partly the reason they were able to consolidate power so quickly.
But that wasn't really my point.
The reason why this was brought up was, again, to illustrate the point that Hitler was not particularly religious as he was able to jettison whatever little faith he may have had in order to acheive the goals of the Nazi party.
"I'm not sure if atheists would push for a unified church."
You are backtracking here now, as this was a claim you made previously.
"I also know many more religious people that attempt to swing the opinion of other religious people into their views. Many Catholics would love to have many Baptists convert into Catholicism and vice versa. I don't see how the desire for a unified church proves that Hitler wasn't a Christian. "
Again, I never said Hitler was or wasn't Christian. I said he was not religious. Again, the evidence has been provided to support that view.
"Saving ones own ass isn't a much publicized Christian virtue. I'm glad to hear of it. Protection for staying out of politics seems really noble to me."
Which, of course, was something the Reich did not particularly follow through on, but I digress....
"Hitler Nazi Christmas celebration, 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews..The work that Christ started but could not finish, I, Adolf Hitler, will conclude."
Hitler to Engel, 1941 - "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,"
It seems you are committing the same offense that you are accusing me off.
You will notice that I have provided tangible events (not just words) that prove catholic persecution in Germany in the 30s. However you claim that your position has more credence based on words uttered by Hitler (which may or may not have been correct for all we know)?
A very faulty line of reasoning you have there.
I have already addressed this in our first exchange. Hitler said many things, then proceeded to act in a totally different way. It seems to me, however, his actions spoke louder than his words.
"After escaping an assassination attempt in 1939, cardinal Michael Faulhaber, sent a telegram instructing that a Te Deum be sung in the cathedral of Munich "to thank Divine Providence in the name of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape."
The assasination attempt against Faulhaber came in Vienna. And the Cardinal of Vienna residence was also ransacked during this whole ordeal by the SA.
A lot of things were attributed to the Church, but in reality, either was taken out of context or fabricated entirely (see previous mention of priest entrapment). However, it is funny you bring up Faulhaber again because it was the same person who had a leading role in the most significant anti-Nazi encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" of 1937.
"You typed: "- From 1935 and 1936, there was a wave of "corruption" trials where......"
- rambling..so what?
OK, now you have reduced yourself to dismissing historical events that are inconvenient to your position. I think I have proven my point here.
"I'm sure attendance dropped at all schools during war time. This stat is useless. Nearly all schools were turned into community schools, not just Catholic schools."
Your history is quite confused. There was no war in 1935. World War II did not start until September 1, 1939 - the date of the invasion of Poland.
"The reason for my mention of the crusades and the leaders, was exactly this point. You brought up Stalin and your favorite atheist leaders, though they were not directly attacking due to a religious belief either."
Since you have obviously forgotten what you had previously said, I will remind you:
"Hitler was Catholic and defended his behaviour as being in accordance to the will of god"
It seems you are contradicting yourself here yet again. Just above you claim that Stalin, et al, were not attacking on the basis of religious belief (or disbelief as it were), yet you had claimed perviously that Hitler acted in accordance with the Catholic God.
"Atheists killed atheists, christians killed christians, etc.. I never claimed that Hitler attacked because he was a Christian. I never would accept that Stalin murdered so many because he was an atheist either. This entire thread was started because someone claimed that Hitler was not religious. No mention of Stalin, Roosevelt, etc. needed to be brought in because they are irrelevant to the point. I merely brought them in to show you how silly it could get. You obviously didn't understand."
And you had, in turned, claimed that Hitler was religious. When it was demonstated that he was not particularly religious, you are now resorting to "you did not understand".
It seems the one who does not understand is yourself.
"I wasn't making that claim either. We should probably stay out of the discussion of effects of religion on behavior. Then we have to get into why sayings such as "there are no atheists in foxholes" exist.
Indeed, and considering the origins of that phrase are unknown, the conversaton would be rather meaningless.
Suffice to say, as someone astutely said about that particular phrase, "It is not an argument against atheism, but an argument against foxholes."
"My Digg volume is complete."
As is mine.
"I do appreciate the discussion."
As do I. - redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I have to admit that every time I read your responses I giggle at your absurdity. I'm not sure if you are trolling me, or if you really just ignore the meaning of the words before your eyes. I'm tempted to just laugh it off and read a story about the iPhone, Ubuntu or Ron Paul, but for some reason I have to find out which it is.
You have decided to play semantics and equivocate to pretend as if you are making valid points, so I'll have to point out definitions. I really didn't think it would resort to this, but I gave you too much credit. I hope you won't sink so low as to deny the importance of definitions. I'll then have to come back with a long winded explanation of equivocation. Let's not go there.
You typed: "Again, I never said Hitler was or wasn't Christian. I SAID HE WAS NOT RELIGIOUS. Again, the evidence has been provided to support that view."
- This definitely deserves a definition of "religious". I am using the word to mean "having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity." This is the first definition given in the American Heritage Dictionary. It also fits the first definition given in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary which defines religion as "of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion."
Now, if you agree with those definitions, which are used by society in large and therefore assumed when used, you can't possibly believe that Hitler can be a Catholic, yet not religious. I have to laugh at you claiming that he was a Catholic but not religious. If you are claiming that as soon as a religious person does something against his religion, he is no longer religious, I have to disagree. We can disagree on that, but there will be no winning for either of us if that is your true stance.
As for your evidence to support that view; I haven't seen it yet. You feeling that he either wasn't religious at all, or just slightly religious (you claim both), isn't evidence. So far you have only really provided evidence about your feelings about his degree of religiosity, where as I have provided direct quotes from Hitler that contradict your claims based on feelings. If a man believes he is a religious man and tells the world he is, I find it hard to prove it otherwise. If you claim that you can think for Hitler and reduce all of his quotes to lies, then I'm all ears. Then I'll claim the Pope is really an atheist in funny clothing laughing himself to sleep at night. Both would be difficult to prove.
You typed: "To call Rosenburg's book "Christian Refmormation" would be like calling Pol Pot's antics in Cambodia as "aggressive agrarian reform"."
- I don't agree. You earlier stated "Lastly, he said Jesus, himself, was the first Aryan duped by the Jews of the time." I think this is about as direct of a Christian reformation as is possible. :)
You typed: "Please debate this issue honestly or do not debate it at all."
- I have debated every second honestly. I'm beginning to think this isn't a debate at all but just target practice. When a discussion regresses to someone trying to equivocate to aid their views, I have a hard time trusting it ever was an actual debate. Catholics aren't religious..come on. How about you debate with honesty. (you claim Hitler was catholic but not religious..don't forget that huge point)
You typed: " "Popes provide major alterations/reformations quite often and they are rarely viewed as not being Catholic/Christian."
This response does not even make sense."
- I expected too much. That was my fault. It is extremely on point given the context in which it was originally written.
You typed: "Rosenburg was a confirmed anti-semite and anti-Christian. The book was written and published widely with the blessing of the Nazi party."
- so what? Mandatory prayer in school was widely accepted by the Nazi party and enforced. I don't see how Rosenberg's personal views in literature provides evidence that Hitler wasn't religious. High level Nazi officials considered the work to be nothing more than expressions of Rosenberg's views. (source: The Third Reich in Power by Richard J. Evans, P.238 - quite a good book you may enjoy if you haven't read yet)
You typed: "The reason why this was brought up was, again, to illustrate the point that Hitler was not particularly religious as he was able to jettison whatever little faith he may have had in order to achieve the goals of the Nazi party."
- Here you switch to "not particularly religious", instead of totally without religion, and mention "whatever little faith he may have had". Is your stance that he was religious or not? Are we supposed to come to an agreement of his religiosity on a scale of 1-10? I would rather much stick to him being religious or not. I don't have a good way to weigh religiosity. Either a person is religious, or they aren't. Does a person sorta believe in a deity?
More in line with your point, I could also claim that he was able to jettison whatever little loyalty he had to the goals of the Nazi party (it wasn't him alone), in order to allow his belief in God to remain. There is a lot of evidence regarding mistakes he made due to his religious beliefs and hate of other religions based on his religious beliefs.
You typed: "You will notice that I have provided tangible events (not just words) that prove catholic persecution in Germany in the 30s. However you claim that your position has more credence based on words uttered by Hitler (which may or may not have been correct for all we know)?"
- I addressed this above regarding quotes as a tangible insight into a man's thinking. If you claim that you know the thinking behind all of Hitler's actions, then we have a problem. I won't believe you. You don't have to believe Hitler when he claims numerous times that he is a Catholic, but I do. As I said, I can't label someone as "sorta Catholic" based on actions. If you believe there are Catholics that follow every single principle laid out for them by Catholic "laws" if you will, then I have to question your sanity. I doubt you would claim those that don't follow every "law" are not religious. I don't think you should with Hitler either. Hitler acted in many ways that were atypical of most Catholics. I won't disagree with that. I just don't believe that immediately proves that he wasn't religious. His claim that he believes in God is proof enough for me that he thinks he believes in God. It is all I can really use.
Perhaps you are simply trying to say Hitler wasn't the poster child for Catholicism. I won't disagree there. Perhaps he wasn't the poster child for a religious person. Same agreement.
You typed: "It seems to me, however, his actions spoke louder than his words."
- You have to ignore a lot of actions and words to only hear the actions you want. (mandatory prayers, quotes involving doing god's work, attempted and actual partnerships with majorly catholic countries (Mexico, Italy) just to name a few). You are entitled to that opinion, though.
You typed: "The assassination attempt against Faulhaber came in Vienna. And the Cardinal of Vienna residence was also ransacked during this whole ordeal by the SA."
- You are wrong about this. He was shot at in Munich. You need to read your website more critically. The website which you have been parroting (catholic education . org) does not say he was shot in Vienna. Again, this goes back to my previous claim about you not reading critically. On your favorite website, it says "Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich was shot AT AND Cardinal Innitzer’s residence in Vienna was ransacked in October 1938." Shame on you for referring to a Catholic website as an unbiased source. Shall we talk about honesty in debate again?
You typed: "OK, now you have reduced yourself to dismissing historical events that are inconvenient to your position. I think I have proven my point here."
- I addressed all of the points you wish you had made. I see you dismissed the Catholic priests brought up on sexual molestation charges hint. Touchy subject? Is it possible that the Catholic's don't want to mention this point on their website just like they are doing in Ireland at the moment? There are trials underway right now where Catholic priests are attempting to sue their molestation victims. I digress, though. :)
You typed: "Your history is quite confused. There was no war in 1935. World War II did not start until September 1, 1939 - the date of the invasion of Poland."
- I never said there was a war in 1935. I did jump on that stat as irrelevant without noting the dates you placed. Back to the recently open wounds by Catholic priests, in 1937 children from one school claimed "we don't want to let the chaplain teach us any more!" in a report headlined "Entire School Class Defends Itself Against Sex Offender in Priest's Clothing". Given the rate of molestation being uncovered in the Catholic church in our recent open society, I don't think we can merely dismiss this claim as propaganda. Perhaps lowering attendance in Catholic schools was a good thing.
You typed: "...yet you had claimed perviously that Hitler acted in accordance with the Catholic God."
- I never said this. You need to read more critically, again. I said, and you even quoted me, "Hitler was Catholic and DEFENDED his behaviour as being in accordance to the will of god". He did defend his behavior by explaining that his actions were the will of god. His words were his defense. Nice try. (Honesty again) You refuse to acknowledge that I have made exhaustive attempts to explain that there was more to Hitler's actions than merely being religious. I try to lead you to the path of enlightenment by giving you examples of other leaders, but you are blinded by your need to win a debate based on equivocation. Read all comments as a text book passage rather than targets and you may see there really isn't much to disagree with. Emotions only taint critical reading, grasshopper.
You typed: "And you had, in turned, claimed that Hitler was religious. When it was demonstrated that he was not particularly religious, you are now resorting to "you did not understand".
It seems the one who does not understand is yourself."
- Are you drunk? Where was this demonstrated? (not particularly religious now..ok..looks for religious scale) Come on. Catholic/Christian = religious. - KMye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@nigh7dagger
I understand why some people have dugg you down; I'm sure it's just an expression of disagreement with your argued points. I disagree with all of them, as well, as far as they relate to my own personal belief system. But I wanted to applaud you for making clear, personally-honest arguments on each point, and doing so in a civil manner. I think anyone who reads them knows where you're coming from, and you did it all without a mountain of ad hominem, which I think many diggers, regardless of which side of an argument they're on, are guilty of. BTW, I've read through the entire New Testament, and it was fascinating, especially as an American, but I don't, and couldn't at this point ever accept Jesus as my savior, so I guess I'll be waving a friendly greeting up to you from the fiery pit. Don't worry, I'm okay with that; all my best friends will be there with me. ;)
- Imagin8, on 10/11/2007, -16/+172"Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian."
Here's a few more...
11. You think everyone is persecuting you because is says so in the bible.(persecution complex)
12. Every tornado or earthquake is a sign of the end times, or god smiting sinners.
13. You think Richard Dawkins is the leader of some kind of satanic religious cult.- mouseman23, on 10/11/2007, -200/+12I am not brainwashed, I have accepted Jesus into my heart. Why don't you so you aren't brainwashed by Richard Dawkins?
- atdigg, on 10/11/2007, -15/+55Bible was written by charlatans and madmen, how can you believe that *****?
"and God came to me in a dream" -- yeah right! - thesauce, on 10/11/2007, -13/+345 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
This is why people should become Catholic. Catholics rock. Evolution > denial - xerus, on 10/11/2007, -10/+271. Internal Server Error
- Stonedonkey, on 10/11/2007, -30/+25Personally, I don't think Digg benefits from divisive articles like this. It's the kind of condescension that's best left to the militant atheist types. Of course, since this hit the front page, I guess I'm in the minority.
- MaximusIGN, on 10/11/2007, -6/+56Slight correction to #12
12. Every tornado or earthquake is a sign of the end times, or god smiting sinners unless it strikes down a church. Then that's just the weather. - acex23, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7@ stonedonkey
too bad you're getting dugg down for that. I hoped that was how a lot of us felt.
- smallestmills, on 10/11/2007, -29/+133blah blah blah, Christians v. atheists, blah blah blah, no side wins argument, blah blah blah. This ***** isn't boring yet?
- KMye, on 10/11/2007, -12/+41Amen
- Bartboy919, on 10/11/2007, -17/+49RAmen to that brother!
- carlrey0216, on 10/11/2007, -22/+6@atdigg: he came to him in a dream after he woke up from the daily nap right after the daily joint
- wetard57, on 10/11/2007, -14/+24Ramen!
- kidd3ckz, on 10/11/2007, -13/+26Noodles!
- gmprunner, on 10/11/2007, -37/+9No kidding. This topic isn't really even debatable, considering neither side has any evidence to support their claims. As far as I'm concerned, EVERYBODY is wrong.
Can I get a "Amen"? ;-) - DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -42/+91Atheists already won actually, it's just that the Christians won't admit they lost.
- slicedoranges, on 10/11/2007, -18/+16I think of it more as de-brainwashing people. It doesn't get boring to me.
- tensvb, on 10/11/2007, -23/+37Yeah, atheism won... -.- that's why 86% people in the world adhere to some religion (with 2.1 billion Christians in the first place).
- bewing77, on 10/11/2007, -19/+13Just because most of the people of earth are uninformed enough to be religious (remember that most of the religious people are poor and lacks education) doesn't mean that the theists have better arguments. Actually, there are no arguments at all and no real point in discussing: Agnostics and atheists base their arguments on logic, while theists belive in soemthing so firmly that no logic could shift that belief, and thus, any discussion with a theist is meeningless because:
a) You have already "won" before the discussion starts, since you are the only one who has any real arguments.
b) This doesn't matter, since the theists disregards any logic and perception and thus are incapable and/or unwilling to be affected by logic, and will continue to base their life upon belief end legends. - DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Like I said tensvb, they just don't want to admit it. Same with the flat earthers thousands of years ago. They round earthers (a minority) argued that the earth is round, and yet, for very long, the flat earthers dismissed it. And remained the majority belief for some time.
- deboosher, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4@smallestmills
amen brother. this atheist vs. christians stuff is getting mighty old.
Also, I'm not Christian, but how come these stories seem to attack only the Christian population? - coaxial343, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Why do we need a winner? Why can't we just co-exist and be happy?
I suppose I'm asking to much of this world for that to happen. - Setari, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@coaxial
There's no way people can co-exist because many have too much of a desire to be more right than the other guy. People on every side feel as if it is their duty to push their own personal philosophy onto others whether those others want it or not. - rholloway, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3atheists are fundamentalists.
- ThE0eNiGmA, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@deboosher
Why is there such a targeting of Christians? Lets see:
1.) Many of us diggers live in countries where Christians are the majority.
2.) Some of us live in countries where fundamentalist, evangelist Christians are trying to create a "Christians-Only" nation.
3.) Some of us have to put up with Christians harassing us, even if we did nothing to deserve it aside from being different. That is not to say that they are the only ones who do it, but remember, I am talking about the people who live where Christians are dominant.
4.) It's fun.
5.) Retaliation. "You attacked me, so now I will attack you."
6.) The Christian religion is full of so many flaws and inconsistencies, and the followers often share or magnify them.
7.) You wonder why most of us aren't attacking Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, all those other lovely -isms. The truth is that we are, but again, many of us live in countries where there is a prominent target. After all, how many of us diggers live in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Israel?
The point is, it is largely a matter of demographics and prominence. - cptn_cardboard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@tensvb
were still holding on the the 14 percent market share
- wonkavsn, on 10/11/2007, -93/+32Wow this obviously wasn't written by an unbiased party.
I'm not a fundamentalist Christian by any stretch of the imagination, but come on now.. let's grow up a little, shall we?- fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -34/+84Atheists have already done their growing up, it's now it's time for fundamentalist Christians to do their share.
- BassMastr, on 10/11/2007, -13/+48@wonk
That's really too bad that you don't recognize a joke when you see one.
People need to quit taking themselves so seriously... - fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -47/+17Atheists are done their growing up? That was quick. Seemed like just seconds ago they were being represented by arrogant teenagers who have no answers but are absolutely certain that even though they don't know the answer, it's not what anyone else thinks it is.
- acex23, on 10/11/2007, -18/+12and I quote, "Atheists have already done their growing up"
oh man, I didn't know we were in the 7th grade. - tensvb, on 10/11/2007, -21/+16The only thing atheists don't joke about is atheism.
- wreckosaurus, on 10/11/2007, -13/+20514. Despite the wars, disease, famine, and poverty, you believe the greatest threat to civilization and humanity in general is gay people getting married.
- wreckosaurus, on 10/11/2007, -17/+14915. You've only read one book, ever. Yet, you're still 100% ceratain all the other literature in the world is dead wrong.
- JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -9/+91@wreckosaurus
Funny they have a response to that:
"If you study one religion and you find it's true, why study any other religion or science for that matter?"
This is how religion survives, on the back of arrogant stupidity. - jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -70/+8"Despite the wars, disease, famine, and poverty, you believe the greatest threat to civilization and humanity in general is gay people getting married. "
- I'm not a believer in God (an agnostic only because you can't prove that God doesn't exist) and I honestly think that anyone who believes in a God is a ***** idiot... but I do have a problem with gay marriage. I could take your same hyperbolic statement and say "you could be a Democrat if you think that, despite wars, disease, famine and poverty, that universal healthcare for Americans is the most pressing issue of our time" - wreckosaurus, on 10/11/2007, -7/+35@jcm
yeah but healthcare reform IS one of the most pressing issues of our time, it falls under that whole disease issue I was talking about. And gay marriage isn't going to affect you in any way, so get over it. - Hazardc, on 10/11/2007, -8/+28@jcm267
". I could take your same hyperbolic statement and say "you could be a Democrat if you think that, despite wars, disease, famine and poverty, that universal healthcare for Americans is the most pressing issue of our time"
Are you ***** serious or is that just bad sarcasm?
let me make a point to you
Universal healthcare has nothing to do with helping people living with disease and poverty? maybe not all around the world but at least it's a start, and it's aimed at HELPING people. what the ***** does banning gays getting married help? That was seriously the most ridiculous post ive seen on digg all day, and i have dugg you up just hoping more people see what a ***** toolbag you are. - jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -39/+6"yeah but healthcare reform IS one of the most pressing issues of our time, it falls under that whole disease issue I was talking about. "
- Umm no. Healthcare reform and Universal Health Care are completely different. Universal Health Care is socialist, healthcare reform can go either way.
"And gay marriage isn't going to affect you in any way, so get over it. "
- It affects society. I am affected by society. I don't care if you're gay, and I don't mind civil unions, but there are many problems with gay marriage. 1) There's the slippery slope. What's next? Polygamy? Incest? Will NAMBLA become mainstream down the road? 2) It implies that 2 people of the same gender can raise a child just as well as a man and a woman. I believe a child needs a mother and a father.
My position is not based in bigotry... as you might immediately think when you read a comment like the one I posted above.
@hazardc
- I was gonna type something here, but nevermind - partriv, on 10/11/2007, -8/+32@JCM
be warned: you are treading on bigotry.
>>It affects society. I am affected by society. I don't care if you're gay, and I don't mind civil unions, but there are many problems with gay marriage. 1) There's the slippery slope. What's next? Polygamy? Incest? Will NAMBLA become mainstream down the road?
if all parties involved are consenting and in sound body and mind to understand the decision, then what is so wrong with this stuff?
>>2) It implies that 2 people of the same gender can raise a child just as well as a man and a woman. I believe a child needs a mother and a father.
it is this attitude which prevents society from understanding new possibilities ('oh i believe x is not possible')
Newsflash: You are close minded. - partriv, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3@hazardc: hahaha, toolbag.
- jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -32/+9Call me closed minded, but humans did not evolve growing up with 2 effeminate men doing 100% of the child rearing. I expected to be dugg down here, but the least you people could do is try and throw some logic back at me. All I'm getting are negative diggs and people calling me names such as "bigot" and "***** toolbag".
The fact that you don't see a problem with incest, polygamy, or consentual love between grown men and pre-pubescent boys says something about you. This is why sometimes I (as a nonbeliever) think that maybe the decline of christianity as the moral compass of our society isn't so much of a good thing. - AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -8/+44@jcm267
"Call me closed minded, but humans did not evolve growing up with 2 effeminate men doing 100% of the child rearing."
Two problems with that argument:
1) Humans didn't evolve with wings to fly, either, but we managed to do that. Whether or not a particular aspect of our lives is evolved or manufactured by ourselves makes no difference. One option is not automatically "better" than the other.
2) I've known plenty of non-effeminate gay men, and plenty of effiminate straight men. The fact that you're stereotyping so matter-of-factly leads me to believe that you're more close-minded than you seem to think you are.
"The fact that you don't see a problem with incest, polygamy, or consentual love between grown men and pre-pubescent boys says something about you."
I'm reminded of the Sesame Street song, "One of these things is not like the others". I would agree that anything that takes place between *consenting adults* is fair game. Pre-pubescent boys can't consent to sex, so that's out. But for the other two, why are they inherently wrong? No, seriously. Other than social stigma, what's wrong with them?
"This is why sometimes I (as a nonbeliever) think that maybe the decline of christianity as the moral compass of our society isn't so much of a good thing."
Ah yes, the same Christian morals that allowed men to beat their wives and people to own slaves, right? Both of these are portrayed in a positive (or at least neutral) manner in the Bible. I'll take my morals from logical thought rather than books of mythology, thank you. - jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -25/+8@ AnteChronos
You see no problem with incest? I'm done with this thread. There's no point in arguing here... but please read up on the effects of incest on offspring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest - Kyderdog, on 10/11/2007, -18/+22@jcm you sound gay
- sneakerelph, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22"I believe a child needs a mother and a father."
I believe a child doesn't need a mother AND a father. Single moms, single dads, NO parents at all, kids turn out fine.
call me when you have facts to back that up.
People don't see that once they begin a sentence with "i believe x" that someone else can say "i believe y" and it carries just as much weight. - AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29@jcm267
"You see no problem with incest? I'm done with this thread"
So when I ask for a reason that incest is wrong, you just bow out of the discussion? Does that mean that you can't think of any reason? What about the rest of my post? Are you sure you're not just using the incest thing as an excuse to avoid responding? Here, I'll even go so far as to tell you why you *think* incest is wrong, and why is is and isn't wrong depending on the circumstances:
You *think* it's wrong because incestuous relationships, were they the norm, would lead to a stagnant gene pool. Thus, animals that had an aversion to incest were more adaptable, and so here we are, with a biological "ewwww" reflax to incest. "But incest can lead to deformities," I hear you say. Well, there are plenty of congenital diseases out there that have a higher chance of being passed on to offspring than the chances of incest between otherwise healthy siblings causing defects, but we don't go telling people with inheritable diseases that they can't have sex, right? It's the "ewwww" factor again.
But there's more to it than that. With relatives, you almost always have a level of social dominance, even if it's largely unconscious. This can lead to situations where "consensual" sex is less consensual than it seems. So that, at least, can be construed as a good reason to avoid incest. But what about siblings, half-siblings, cousins, etc who never knew each other, and grew up separately? The risk of birth defects in potential children really isn't that high, and is certainly not higher than other specific cases where we'd expect non-related partners to have offspring with congenital diseases. And what if one of the two is sterile? Is there really any reason to condemn this type of thing *other* than that built-in disgust that we've evolved? - askegg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5@ wreckosaurus
I dugg you up to spite the fact that most fundies have not actually read that book. - Lobster, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Fundamentalist atheists are just as fanatical. They also really care about what you think and do.
Each base their behaviour on the belief that the other person using logic or faith is wrong.
There is always another way
http://tmxxine.com/y/wikka.php?wakka=AnotherWay
Atheists and Christians, indeed all of us, are limited in thought and experience.
I suppose we can move towards understanding or find ways to relish the conflict
Or is there Another Way? - int3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@lobster
Fundamentalist Atheist?
They adhere strictly to the rules of not believing in any deity(s)? What rules are there in non-belief?
What a silly phrase. - yarukizero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You know, I would rather a kid got raised by a healthy gay couple than by a single mother who has to work two jobs, by a heterosexual couple with an abusive, alcoholic father, left to an orphanage, or eliminated by an abortion. An emotionally healthy mother and father might in fact be the opt