Why does science always upstage God?

[vulcanlogician]

 And you are?

Pray tell from whence  you get the quaint notion that I waste my time because you don't read my posts?  Can you say 'Narcissist'?

Muppet.

It thinks some of us are offensive and don't play fair.

Prolly cuz Nudger insists on coming out swinging like he does. I wish he would be a bit more cordial sometimes. I'm not saying he shouldn't ask hard questions. He's good at that, and I appreciate that. But, god damn, you don't always gotta be Mike Tyson ready to just pummel someone the second they step onto the mat. Give muthafuckas some time to adjust, man.

---

At work.

 And you are?

Pray tell from whence  you get the quaint notion that I waste my time because you don't read my posts?  Can you say 'Narcissist'?

Muppet.

Oh, hello there.

 I didn't see your post(s). I was just throwing my opinion of ayost at them.

 Not sure how we got our wires crossed.

 Me? I'm a nice 'Thulhu.  

 Cheers.

I don't think you guys have your wires crossed. I think Oldie's comments were directed toward ayost. Not you.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Ah, the quote function strikes again.

[Deesse23]

Speaking of, Hitler was voted in.

This is a common misconception. He was appointed.

He was never voted in after a free and fair election. Later "elections", in which he was "elected"/confirmed, were neither free or fair.

[pocaracas]

Speaking of, Hitler was voted in.

This is a common misconception. He was appointed.

He was never voted in after a free and fair election. Later "elections", in which he was "elected"/confirmed, were neither free or fair.

Really?... you learn something new every day.
How did he get appointed?

[Deesse23]

This is a common misconception. He was appointed.

He was never voted in after a free and fair election. Later "elections", in which he was "elected"/confirmed, were neither free or fair.

Really?... you learn something new every day.
How did he get appointed?

By the president, Hindenburg, as usual per constitution. The Weimar chancellor was never elected!

In Weimar the chancellor was not elected but appointed, by the president (much like in a parliamentary democracy today, but with the president having the most power, not parliament, quite similar to what we have in France today). The chancellor however was suposed to be responsible to the parliament (Reichstag) as well and to step back once he had lost a majority of support. But what if he didnt want to...and had the support of the president? See below....

In the last free and fair election, in 1932, the NSDAP had the most votes (33%), but no coalition could be formed with a >50% majority (SPD and KPD held 36% together as well !). So, no potential chancellor could have been backed up by a majority of the Reichstag. Now, how can (and has been for the past two years before 1932!) Weimar be run?

In order to avoid stalemates like this (which was the case since 1930!), it was possible for the President to take over matters and rule by himself (Article 48) and just appoint a chancellor to his liking (originally his position was intended to be only a kind of overseer), dissolve the reichstag and call for new elections (in the hope of a decisive result) while reigning direclty himself per decree via chancellor (chancellor was the "puppet" to sugeest a new law, and president deciding to sign or not, until the new Reichstag was formed). This loophole was abused to make Hindenburg appoint Chancellors (without having the backup of a majority) and constantly dissolve the Reichstag. What if elections had no decisive result? --> rinse and repeat. This practice was called "Präsidialkabinett". 

Hitlers appointment in January 1933 was such an attempt by the "Kamarilla" around the aging Hindenburg to install a "puppet" chancellor (Hitler), since nooone was going to have the support of parliament anyway, and to control Hindenburg himself instead. But Adolf (and Hermann) was going to have none of that. Hindenburg died a year later and Hitler had himself elected as president too, while the big purge and oppression was already in full gear.

This fatal loophole of Weimar was fixed in post WWII western Germany, by stripping the president of all factual powers and making him a kind of "head of ceremony", like QEII in the UK. All power rests now in the parliament and the chancellor is now factually responsible to the pariament....with still a loophole being that if elections do not result in a new coalition, the current chanclelor remains......which actually happend for the longest time ever in the 2016 elections, where Merkel stayed chancellor for months after new elections, because a new coalition could not be formed. This is the only case where the president has power left, since he could call out for new elections, but he can not appoint a chancellor at will.

Hitler/NSDAP never "won" a (free and fair*) election. Most of the time the party was a sideshow in the Reichstag (some 10%), only in the last two elections in July and November 1932 they gained 30%+ and became strongest party, but still having a majority oppose them (mostly KPD/SPD), and a NSDAP chancellor would never have had the support of a majority of Reichstag.


* until 1938 some "elections" were held, but that was Germany already being an authoritarian/dictatorial regime with the elections being a complete joke.

[pocaracas]

Very interesting and similar to what is still going on in many countries where people vote for the party and then the head of the party with the most parliamentary seats gets invited by the president to form a government.
In practice, when one party gets the most votes, by relative majority or plurality, the head of that party also becomes head of government.

So I see what you're saying that the people didn't vote for Hitler, but they did vote for his party and that won, even if just by plurality.

[Deesse23]

Very interesting and similar to what is still going on in many countries where people vote for the party and then the head of the party with the most parliamentary seats gets invited by the president to form a government.
In practice, when one party gets the most votes, by relative majority or plurality, the head of that party also becomes head of government.

So I see what you're saying that the people didn't vote for Hitler, but they did vote for his party and that won, even if just by plurality.

The NSDAP "won" in the sense that it had the most votes in July 1932. However, in a parliamentary system, you need to be able to rally >50% of all votes under your coalition: While you can have a minority government but thats gonna be quite weak, like May in UK a few years ago. The NSDAP was, and probably never would have been able to form a coalition with a >50% majority. Ergo: Hitler would have never been a chancellor representing a majority of the Reichstag (and thus voters).....aaand he never would have been elected.

[brewer]

It thinks some of us are offensive and don't play fair.

Prolly cuz Nudger insists on coming out swinging like he does. I wish he would be a bit more cordial sometimes. I'm not saying he shouldn't ask hard questions. He's good at that, and I appreciate that. But, god damn, you don't always gotta be Mike Tyson ready to just pummel someone the second they step onto the mat. Give muthafuckas some time to adjust, man.

Considering all the shit christians have directed toward atheists it should have expected the Spanish Inquisition.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty sure he had his hand on his dick when he was fantasizing about jesus turning us into footstools.

[Ferrocyanide]

(in no particular order)
Theists tell me, why is it that everything that God has provided, created and bestowed upon us, co-incidentally always seems to have
an alternate natural, more feasible explanation?

Why cannot science objectively find just one example out of trillions, where we can say, yeah, that thing right there, it shouldn't happen like that but it does, repeatedly.
That thing goes against what is logical or possible in our universe.
Example: People go back to Fatima, pray en masse for a sundance and on queue the Sun dances! For all the world to see?

Maybe it is the work of a God? They prayed to a God and a God responded... Makes logical sense.

But if God is going to act exactly like he doesn't exist in our universe, theists, why on earth do you even assume that he does?
What compels you to go against the grain of logic and common sense and dedicate your life to a particular myth from millions of other man made myths?

We just need one tiny example for God to show us something, but even that is asking too much for a non existent God.
Funny how everything in the world seems to make more sense when you take any extra unnecessary baggage out of the picture. (Occams)

Yeah, the world is a cruel place for the most part, but how is believing in something not real going to help anything or anyone.
Have we really reduced our species to relying on false hope to get by? We must have: 80% of the world does it.

(Even at the quantum level, weird shit happens, that isn't God! Why would the creator of the universe need to hide inside of atoms while we're all outside?
That's how our universe has been for 14 billion years, we're just discovering it now (last 100 years -through knowledge and technology.)

Theists say that? That’s not something that I have ever heard from them.
It is atheists who say that.
It is part of my arguments set:
=================================
When a scientific explanation is provided and well accepted by the scientific community, eventually, the knowledge reaches the general population and nearly everyone sets aside the old religious superstitious explanation.
The reverse never happens. There isn’t a single case where a scientific explanation has been replaced by scientists or the general public with a religious superstitious explanation.
=================================

“We just need one tiny example for God to show us something, but even that is asking too much for a non existent God.
Funny how everything in the world seems to make more sense when you take any extra unnecessary baggage out of the picture. (Occams)”

==Whether you are talking about aliens or gods (or alien-gods), they are both in the same category:
Some humans have trouble explaining some aspect of nature or human culture so they insert their god or alien into it. This is called the argument from incredulity.

For example:
Example 1:
Why do humans have various languages?
According to the Bible, humans had a single language. They were building the Tower of Babel. Then the jewish god got pissed and he “confused” their languages. So, the construction stopped.
There is no mention of biological evolution or language or cultural evolution in the Bible.

It sounds like the ancient jews did not know about evolution and had a gap in their knowledge, so they inserted their god into the gap (God of the gaps).

Example 2:
How did humans build Pyramids in Egypt?
Eric Von Danicken says that they are too stupid and it is impossible. Therefore, he inserts aliens into his knowledge gap.
Eric Von Danicken has written 3 books, I think. They are all about inserting aliens here and there and claiming ancient humans were dummies.

You mentioned Occam’s razor. This is an important concept in science. We tend to go for the more mundane explanation:
1. Some humans have mathematical skill
2. Some humans are thinkers
3. Some humans are inventive
4. They have the time and energy to do hard work for their king or gods.
5. Most importantly, we remove extraordinary claims, such as gods and aliens. We replace them with mundane explanations.