OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[Newby]

What is your definition of a 'fundie'? All Christians? If not all, what distinguishes a 'normal' Christian from a 'fundie' Christian?

A fundie is a normal christian.

In fact many christians would tell you a fundamentalist christian is the only true christian.

Fundamentalist are essentially those christians who believe the bible as it is written in it's entirety. 6 day creation, the miracles were actual events, etc...

They often talk about the fundamentals of the faith. They vary slightly but here is a list I found in a 30 second google search.

The Five Fundamentals of the Faith.

- The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ
- The Virgin Birth
- The Blood Atonement
- The Bodily Resurrection
- The Inerrancy of the Scriptures

My parents are fundamentalist. As was I at one time.

Yeah, that should pretty much describe every Christian if you go by those 5 things.

 

[koshergrl]

What is your definition of a 'fundie'? All Christians? If not all, what distinguishes a 'normal' Christian from a 'fundie' Christian?

She defines Oxford researchers as "fundies" lol.

 

[koshergrl]

And you ran for the exits when my earlier post put you in your place.

When I see folks like you, I'm always disappointed then their pants don't actually burst into fire.

I'm never surprised that religious zealots use their gods as a vehicle to promote hate.

Why do you keep referring to multiple gods when referencing Christians?

And you do realize she's referring to the "liar liar pants on fire hanging from a telephone wire" vernacularism...right? I'm not sure where God comes into THAT particular little saying.

 

[koshergrl]

Science doesn't attack religion. Religion attacks science from the time the church put Galileo under house arrest under threat of heresy, burned witches and persecuted Jews and heretics, up till the modern time when Muslims stone people to death, chop off hands or declare Fatwas because some infidel dared draw a cartoon they found offensive. Who is attacking WHO here?

Let's be accurate here. The church did so at the behest of the government....which is what happens when the church comes under the power of the government. The government uses it towards no good end.

Joan of Arc was not burned at the stake because the church hated her. She was burned at the stake because the English needed her dead, and they brought in the church to do their dirty work.

Likewise, Bloody Mary cut a swath through the country side when she determined that Protestants were not to be borne in England....this was not the church acting independently to seek out and destroy Christians. It was a leader falsely claiming authority via the Church to persecute a particular sect of believers.

Sort of like atheists today strive to draw in the government to persecute Christians...and Nazis employed the government to justify atrocities against Jews, Catholics and the Rom....and the Communists outright declared war on Christianity.

Fascists seek to lay blame at the door of Christianity for all sorts of ridiculous atrocities that in reality, they themselves have committed...and bolstered by those lies, they continue to commit atrocities.

 

[koshergrl]

Even the crusades, which of course were perfectly justified, were undertaken by political leaders, who roped in the Pope to help them defend Europe (and the Holy Land, which was at that time CHRISTIAN) from encroaching Islamic marauders, who were beating literally at the doors of France and had completely taken over the middle east...which had been primarily Christian since the disciples time.

 

[Underhill]

What is your definition of a 'fundie'? All Christians? If not all, what distinguishes a 'normal' Christian from a 'fundie' Christian?

A fundie is a normal christian.

In fact many christians would tell you a fundamentalist christian is the only true christian.

Fundamentalist are essentially those christians who believe the bible as it is written in it's entirety. 6 day creation, the miracles were actual events, etc...

They often talk about the fundamentals of the faith. They vary slightly but here is a list I found in a 30 second google search.

The Five Fundamentals of the Faith.

- The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ
- The Virgin Birth
- The Blood Atonement
- The Bodily Resurrection
- The Inerrancy of the Scriptures

My parents are fundamentalist. As was I at one time.

Yeah, that should pretty much describe every Christian if you go by those 5 things.

I'm simply saying they aren't abnormal.

Baptist, Methodist, Wesleyan and others...

These are the original fundamentalist although some have become more or less liberal with time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religion and superstition was behind the attack on 911. Not rationality or science. When science "attacks" something, well, it means intellectually, not we are gona murder ya kids or murder ya if you don't DO everything we SAY. Unlike religion, they actually did burn people at the stake and they actually DO stone heretics to death now. They crash planes into buildings and strap bombs on themselves in an effort to keep non-believers in line. THAT is what religion does VS. SCIENCE.

Islam was behind the attack of 911.

And science and "rationality", sans morality and Christianity, are responsible for the most disgusting practices of the nazis and the communists.

So try again.

Murder is not science.
Creationists claim their religious beliefs are just like the Nazis claimed their medical research was.

"Murder is not science."
This post, as so often yours do, shows a remarkable lack of not only insight....but, in fact, any of the most elementary indicia of thought.



1. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled."
If this is so, why would anyone be so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting?
One of Obama's 'science advisors,' Dr. Singer, actually suggested that it would be perfectly all right to produce foetuses for the express purpose of harvesting organs. You OK with this 'science' concept?
How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?
[Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion]





2. What makes men good? Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion? Well, "Perhaps," Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God."
Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? - Yahoo! Answers

Why, then, the need for criminal law? Our friend, the scientific atheist, Sam Harris, gives his view of human morality: “Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is.” Harris believes this to be an objective claim about the human mind.
You too?





3. If you are a philosophical naturalist (="nature" is all that there is), then what sense do you make of ethics? Is morality natural?
"As the philosopher Simon Blackburn puts it in his 'Ruling Passions,' “the problem is one of finding room for ethics, or of placing ethics within the disenchanted, non-ethical order which we inhabit, and of which we are a part.”… "The task before us is to try to squeeze morality into the “disenchanted” natural world; as Blackburn says, this “is above all to refuse appeal to a supernatural order.”
John Piippo: Naturalistic Ethics & Boiling Babies for Fun

a. But, examples of morality intrinsic in nature are as rare as hens teeth. What is left?
"God is the source of morality, because morality is grounded in the character of God… the moral law is a feature of God’s nature. Morality, … is ultimately grounded in the perfect nature of God." (Ibid.)

b. So, what of Blackburn’s order to find ethics, but “above all to refuse appeal to a supernatural order”? Isn’t this as if an accomplished horseman were to decide that his chief task were to learn to ride without a horse?

c. If moral statements have a place, a role, in human existence, then the universe is not quite as science suggests.
As physical theories have nothing to say about God, then they say nothing about right or wrong, about good or evil.
Careful now….for, to admit this, would be to admit that the physical sciences offer an inadequate view of reality.





4. Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive

While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The overthrow of Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being notwithstanding, the tendency of history is that of religion attacking science.

Quite true. History demonstrates that.

The Church kept most of Europe under the boot heel of fear and superstition for centuries. It was called the Dark Ages.

Unfortunately, fundie christian zealots who want to introduce creationism into the public school system would like nothing more than to strip away science and knowledge with the introduction of their fundamentalist beliefs.

We simply cannot allow christian madrassahs to be put in place where children require real education.

Fundies can pray to their gods, worship them, make ritual animal sacrifice to them, beg money for them, hallelujah down the street to them if you want, teach your children about flying winged men in nightgowns, fat naked babies playing harps, chariots of fire cruising through the clouds, that seas part and books predict the end of the world, teach them all of that nonsense if you want to, believe in them all if you must, but you will never force that fear and superstition on others.

We saw that first hand here in Georgia when they first wanted evolution banned from being taught then the disclaimer on science books about evolution and then they wanted no distinction in definition of scientific theory versus all other forms of theory.

Science is not attacking religion but science is attacking IGNORANCE.
And we have plenty of it in America when it comes to science. People claiming the earth is 6000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs NEED TO BE POINTED OUT AND LABELED AS IGNORANT.
If they are religious then so be it, they are ignorant and we are at war with them.
Real easy to hide behind religion in ignorance and then claim victim status.
You can not polish a turd.

1. Of course the boomerang here is that over half of scientists believe there is a God....

Turns out, it seems, that 'Ignorant' winds up back in your court.


Too bad you know so little about either science or theology.


2. "If they are religious then so be it, they are ignorant and we are at war with them."

Who is the "we"?
You and the other dim-wits?

 

[Underhill]

Islam was behind the attack of 911.

And science and "rationality", sans morality and Christianity, are responsible for the most disgusting practices of the nazis and the communists.

So try again.

Murder is not science.
Creationists claim their religious beliefs are just like the Nazis claimed their medical research was.

"Murder is not science."
This post, as so often yours do, shows a remarkable lack of not only insight....but, in fact, any of the most elementary indicia of thought.



1. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled."
If this is so, why would anyone be so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting?
One of Obama's 'science advisors,' Dr. Singer, actually suggested that it would be perfectly all right to produce foetuses for the express purpose of harvesting organs. You OK with this 'science' concept?
How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?
[Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion]





2. What makes men good? Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion? Well, "Perhaps," Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God."
Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? - Yahoo! Answers

Why, then, the need for criminal law? Our friend, the scientific atheist, Sam Harris, gives his view of human morality: “Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is.” Harris believes this to be an objective claim about the human mind.
You too?





3. If you are a philosophical naturalist (="nature" is all that there is), then what sense do you make of ethics? Is morality natural?
"As the philosopher Simon Blackburn puts it in his 'Ruling Passions,' “the problem is one of finding room for ethics, or of placing ethics within the disenchanted, non-ethical order which we inhabit, and of which we are a part.”… "The task before us is to try to squeeze morality into the “disenchanted” natural world; as Blackburn says, this “is above all to refuse appeal to a supernatural order.”
John Piippo: Naturalistic Ethics & Boiling Babies for Fun

a. But, examples of morality intrinsic in nature are as rare as hens teeth. What is left?
"God is the source of morality, because morality is grounded in the character of God… the moral law is a feature of God’s nature. Morality, … is ultimately grounded in the perfect nature of God." (Ibid.)

b. So, what of Blackburn’s order to find ethics, but “above all to refuse appeal to a supernatural order”? Isn’t this as if an accomplished horseman were to decide that his chief task were to learn to ride without a horse?

c. If moral statements have a place, a role, in human existence, then the universe is not quite as science suggests.
As physical theories have nothing to say about God, then they say nothing about right or wrong, about good or evil.
Careful now….for, to admit this, would be to admit that the physical sciences offer an inadequate view of reality.





4. Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive

While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

So much fallacy in one post.

Morality is not about god.

First, the facts. Criminals are overwhelmingly religious. The numbers of non religious vary study to study, but none of them claim it is above 10-15% which is roughly the same ratio of non religious to religious we see outside prisons.

If god were inherently better for morality sake, wouldn't you think the number of religious people would be far lower?

Religion in Prisons: A 50-State Survey of Prison Chaplains - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Second, I would point out that the golden rule is innately logical. The fact that virtually every religion on the planet has a similar moral code means that it's not about religion at all, but about a sensible code that benefits all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Murder is not science.
Creationists claim their religious beliefs are just like the Nazis claimed their medical research was.

"Murder is not science."
This post, as so often yours do, shows a remarkable lack of not only insight....but, in fact, any of the most elementary indicia of thought.



1. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled."
If this is so, why would anyone be so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting?
One of Obama's 'science advisors,' Dr. Singer, actually suggested that it would be perfectly all right to produce foetuses for the express purpose of harvesting organs. You OK with this 'science' concept?
How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?
[Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion]





2. What makes men good? Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion? Well, "Perhaps," Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God."
Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? - Yahoo! Answers

Why, then, the need for criminal law? Our friend, the scientific atheist, Sam Harris, gives his view of human morality: “Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is.” Harris believes this to be an objective claim about the human mind.
You too?





3. If you are a philosophical naturalist (="nature" is all that there is), then what sense do you make of ethics? Is morality natural?
"As the philosopher Simon Blackburn puts it in his 'Ruling Passions,' “the problem is one of finding room for ethics, or of placing ethics within the disenchanted, non-ethical order which we inhabit, and of which we are a part.”… "The task before us is to try to squeeze morality into the “disenchanted” natural world; as Blackburn says, this “is above all to refuse appeal to a supernatural order.”
John Piippo: Naturalistic Ethics & Boiling Babies for Fun

a. But, examples of morality intrinsic in nature are as rare as hens teeth. What is left?
"God is the source of morality, because morality is grounded in the character of God… the moral law is a feature of God’s nature. Morality, … is ultimately grounded in the perfect nature of God." (Ibid.)

b. So, what of Blackburn’s order to find ethics, but “above all to refuse appeal to a supernatural order”? Isn’t this as if an accomplished horseman were to decide that his chief task were to learn to ride without a horse?

c. If moral statements have a place, a role, in human existence, then the universe is not quite as science suggests.
As physical theories have nothing to say about God, then they say nothing about right or wrong, about good or evil.
Careful now….for, to admit this, would be to admit that the physical sciences offer an inadequate view of reality.





4. Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive

While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

So much fallacy in one post.

Morality is not about god.

First, the facts. Criminals are overwhelmingly religious. The numbers of non religious vary study to study, but none of them claim it is above 10-15% which is roughly the same ratio of non religious to religious we see outside prisons.

If god were inherently better for morality sake, wouldn't you think the number of religious people would be far lower?

Religion in Prisons: A 50-State Survey of Prison Chaplains - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Second, I would point out that the golden rule is innately logical. The fact that virtually every religion on the planet has a similar moral code means that it's not about religion at all, but about a sensible code that benefits all.

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive.
Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer.
Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.


2. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
Mamet, “Secret Knowledge”

a. What atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have done is appropriated religious dialogue for themselves. They have kidnapped our way of speaking and said what was rooted in God doesn't need God any longer.
Can We Be Good without God

 

[Underhill]

So much fallacy in one post.

Morality is not about god.

First, the facts. Criminals are overwhelmingly religious. The numbers of non religious vary study to study, but none of them claim it is above 10-15% which is roughly the same ratio of non religious to religious we see outside prisons.

If god were inherently better for morality sake, wouldn't you think the number of religious people would be far lower?

Religion in Prisons: A 50-State Survey of Prison Chaplains - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Second, I would point out that the golden rule is innately logical. The fact that virtually every religion on the planet has a similar moral code means that it's not about religion at all, but about a sensible code that benefits all.

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive.
Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer.
Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

No, without god, good and evil are a matter of what is best for the culture at large. Murdering children puts my children at risk, so obviously it is wrong regardless.

2. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
Mamet, “Secret Knowledge”

You can try to make that argument. But you would be incorrect. Laws have been around long before the bible. The Chinese and Japanese had no western religion and yet had laws. Buddhism doesn't even teach that there is a god and their moral code is similar to ours.

a. What atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have done is appropriated religious dialogue for themselves. They have kidnapped our way of speaking and said what was rooted in God doesn't need God any longer.

That is complete nonsense.

An atheist still feels pain. We still love our friends and family and care about their future. The only real difference between an atheist and a religious person is the foundation of our morality.

For example, the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I can see where it may be less preferable in some ways. But I do not see any reason it would be wrong as it doesn't harm anyone.

The bible says marriage is sacred. Again, I can see where marriage can be a benefit when raising kids and the relationship can certainly have it's advantages. But I do not see divorce as inherently evil.

Rape, murder, theft... these things and others are obviously wrong as they harm others and thus have the potential to harm me. So who in their right mind would ever, regardless of belief or lack of belief, think they are okay?

It's absurd.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So much fallacy in one post.

Morality is not about god.

First, the facts. Criminals are overwhelmingly religious. The numbers of non religious vary study to study, but none of them claim it is above 10-15% which is roughly the same ratio of non religious to religious we see outside prisons.

If god were inherently better for morality sake, wouldn't you think the number of religious people would be far lower?

Religion in Prisons: A 50-State Survey of Prison Chaplains - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Second, I would point out that the golden rule is innately logical. The fact that virtually every religion on the planet has a similar moral code means that it's not about religion at all, but about a sensible code that benefits all.

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive.
Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer.
Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

No, without god, good and evil are a matter of what is best for the culture at large. Murdering children puts my children at risk, so obviously it is wrong regardless.

2. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
Mamet, “Secret Knowledge”

You can try to make that argument. But you would be incorrect. Laws have been around long before the bible. The Chinese and Japanese had no western religion and yet had laws. Buddhism doesn't even teach that there is a god and their moral code is similar to ours.

a. What atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have done is appropriated religious dialogue for themselves. They have kidnapped our way of speaking and said what was rooted in God doesn't need God any longer.

That is complete nonsense.

An atheist still feels pain. We still love our friends and family and care about their future. The only real difference between an atheist and a religious person is the foundation of our morality.

For example, the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I can see where it may be less preferable in some ways. But I do not see any reason it would be wrong as it doesn't harm anyone.

The bible says marriage is sacred. Again, I can see where marriage can be a benefit when raising kids and the relationship can certainly have it's advantages. But I do not see divorce as inherently evil.

Rape, murder, theft... these things and others are obviously wrong as they harm others and thus have the potential to harm me. So who in their right mind would ever, regardless of belief or lack of belief, think they are okay?

It's absurd.

Of course, you are incorrect.

And history has proven you so.

So...here is your remedial, complete with links and sourced material, so that you may continue your study.



1. The putative father of fascism, the French Revolution, turned politics into a religion, replacing Christianity with a secular faith in the Jacobin agenda. “The Jacobean atheism was integrated with rationalism, …and with the dismissal of Judeo-Christian scriptures.”
Differences between Left & Right in their Psycho-Philosophic background



2. Robespierre’s view was based on Rousseau’s theory of the general will: individuals who live in accordance with the general will are ‘free’ and ‘virtuous’ while those who defy it are criminals, fools, or heretics.
Rousseau: Political Economy




3. You say: "Second, I would point out that the golden rule is innately logical. The fact that virtually every religion on the planet has a similar moral code means that it's not about religion at all, but about a sensible code that benefits all."

Exactly the view of Robespierre and Rousseau!

“For the rulers well know that the general will is always on the side which is most favorable to the public interest, that is to say, the most equitable; so that it is needful only to act justly to be certain of following the general will.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “The Social Contract and Discourses,” trans. G.D.H.Cole, p. 297




4. And, what if any don't agree with the 'general will,' or your 'golden rule'?

Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will.
Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68



And, the sentence for any who disagree?

c. Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.” Himmefarb, , Ibid.


Such is morality without God.



5. The comparison? The American Revolution, with the protagonists who were religious.

“The French Revolution occurred almost simultaneously with the American Revolution. While sharing many similarities, there was one glaring difference. The French were not Christian and attempted to introduce a godless humanistic government. The result is amply recorded in history books. Instead of the liberty, justice, peace, happiness, and prosperity experienced in America, France suffered chaos and injustice as thousands of heads rolled under the sharp blade of the guillotine.” Religion and Government in America: Are they*complementary? ? The Mandate


I hope you enjoyed, and reflect on, this history lesson.

 

[koshergrl]

Already addressed.

It seems you're incapable if offering anything but juvenile whining.

Link the post where you described what you view as a 'christian zealot' and discussed any ideology with any depth at all. I havent' seen it.

Seek and ye shall find.

It's the will of the gods.

Translation: I'm a liar.

 

[koshergrl]

So much fallacy in one post.

Morality is not about god.

First, the facts. Criminals are overwhelmingly religious. The numbers of non religious vary study to study, but none of them claim it is above 10-15% which is roughly the same ratio of non religious to religious we see outside prisons.

If god were inherently better for morality sake, wouldn't you think the number of religious people would be far lower?

Religion in Prisons: A 50-State Survey of Prison Chaplains - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Second, I would point out that the golden rule is innately logical. The fact that virtually every religion on the planet has a similar moral code means that it's not about religion at all, but about a sensible code that benefits all.

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive.
Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer.
Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

No, without god, good and evil are a matter of what is best for the culture at large. Murdering children puts my children at risk, so obviously it is wrong regardless.

2. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
Mamet, “Secret Knowledge”

You can try to make that argument. But you would be incorrect. Laws have been around long before the bible. The Chinese and Japanese had no western religion and yet had laws. Buddhism doesn't even teach that there is a god and their moral code is similar to ours.

a. What atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have done is appropriated religious dialogue for themselves. They have kidnapped our way of speaking and said what was rooted in God doesn't need God any longer.

That is complete nonsense.

An atheist still feels pain. We still love our friends and family and care about their future. The only real difference between an atheist and a religious person is the foundation of our morality.

For example, the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I can see where it may be less preferable in some ways. But I do not see any reason it would be wrong as it doesn't harm anyone.

The bible says marriage is sacred. Again, I can see where marriage can be a benefit when raising kids and the relationship can certainly have it's advantages. But I do not see divorce as inherently evil.

Rape, murder, theft... these things and others are obviously wrong as they harm others and thus have the potential to harm me. So who in their right mind would ever, regardless of belief or lack of belief, think they are okay?

It's absurd.

The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that they do not recognize moral behavior as somethign to be sought after, and they do not believe in the validity, the purpose, or the innate good in seeking perfection in thought and action. Perfection as it applies to goodness, that is.

They'll all about maintaining things like perfect numbers of humans on the planet, and perfect health and perfect babies and perfect removal of all references to religion....but when it comes to the concept of perfect humanity and a perfect God, they put their feet down..because those concepts interfere with their desire to exert power over the masses in order to bring things about to their OWN definition of perfection.

 

[Gadawg73]

Christians always hold their religious beliefs above their political beliefs.
Not the case here with KG, PC and their followers.
They hold their political beliefs above their supposed religious beliefs.
Love thy neighbor is the most quoted statement in the Bible but these wannabe "Christians" forget that.

 

[Gadawg73]

1. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. But God is necessary for morality to survive.
Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer.
Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

No, without god, good and evil are a matter of what is best for the culture at large. Murdering children puts my children at risk, so obviously it is wrong regardless.



You can try to make that argument. But you would be incorrect. Laws have been around long before the bible. The Chinese and Japanese had no western religion and yet had laws. Buddhism doesn't even teach that there is a god and their moral code is similar to ours.

a. What atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have done is appropriated religious dialogue for themselves. They have kidnapped our way of speaking and said what was rooted in God doesn't need God any longer.

That is complete nonsense.

An atheist still feels pain. We still love our friends and family and care about their future. The only real difference between an atheist and a religious person is the foundation of our morality.

For example, the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I can see where it may be less preferable in some ways. But I do not see any reason it would be wrong as it doesn't harm anyone.

The bible says marriage is sacred. Again, I can see where marriage can be a benefit when raising kids and the relationship can certainly have it's advantages. But I do not see divorce as inherently evil.

Rape, murder, theft... these things and others are obviously wrong as they harm others and thus have the potential to harm me. So who in their right mind would ever, regardless of belief or lack of belief, think they are okay?

It's absurd.

The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that they do not recognize moral behavior as somethign to be sought after, and they do not believe in the validity, the purpose, or the innate good in seeking perfection in thought and action. Perfection as it applies to goodness, that is.

They'll all about maintaining things like perfect numbers of humans on the planet, and perfect health and perfect babies and perfect removal of all references to religion....but when it comes to the concept of perfect humanity and a perfect God, they put their feet down..because those concepts interfere with their desire to exert power over the masses in order to bring things about to their OWN definition of perfection.

Total Bull shit which is typical for you. You have no idea what it is to be Christlike.
You are a witch.
My neighbor is an atheist and I never knew it until 20 years after I knew him. He was always the first one out to clear the road of downed trees, taking food to elderly neighbors and other chores.
You dumb asses talk a mean game but you are all HOT AIR.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Christians always hold their religious beliefs above their political beliefs.
Not the case here with KG, PC and their followers.
They hold their political beliefs above their supposed religious beliefs.
Love thy neighbor is the most quoted statement in the Bible but these wannabe "Christians" forget that.

Gee.....why the heck didn't you tell me that I had to follow the protocol that you've set out!

Based on our past interactions, you must know the high esteem in which I hold you....I would've hopped right to it!

I mean...you being so much smarter an' all....




Now...in truth.....why would anyone follow the instructions of a dim-wit like you?
I mean...be serious.
You don't see it....but I'll bet there's lots of eye-rolling and giggling behind your back.


But...to be fair....I'm not really good at following anyone's orders....I'm kinda like Pavlov's cat......

Heck, dense as you are, you probably won't get that reference, either.




This plan never occurred to you..but some of us think things through, using insight, experience and learning....and judge each situation on its own merits.
You might try that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think the idea that science and faith are not mutually exclusive is more commonly exhibited by "scientists" than the "faithful".

 

[Gadawg73]

Christians always hold their religious beliefs above their political beliefs.
Not the case here with KG, PC and their followers.
They hold their political beliefs above their supposed religious beliefs.
Love thy neighbor is the most quoted statement in the Bible but these wannabe "Christians" forget that.

Gee.....why the heck didn't you tell me that I had to follow the protocol that you've set out!

Based on our past interactions, you must know the high esteem in which I hold you....I would've hopped right to it!

I mean...you being so much smarter an' all....




Now...in truth.....why would anyone follow the instructions of a dim-wit like you?
I mean...be serious.
You don't see it....but I'll bet there's lots of eye-rolling and giggling behind your back.


But...to be fair....I'm not really good at following anyone's orders....I'm kinda like Pavlov's cat......

Heck, dense as you are, you probably won't get that reference, either.




This plan never occurred to you..but some of us think things through, using insight, experience and learning....and judge each situation on its own merits.
You might try that.

Smart enough here to see a Republican Christian instead of a Christian Republican.
You proudly proclaim your political ideology above your religious beliefs.
Unlike what Jesus commanded us to do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As an example, let's take the following two statements:

A.) "Evolution proves that the Bible is wrong"

B.) "The Bible proves than evolution is wrong"

Which of those two statements is a more commonly held belief?

I would say B.