RE: If faith works how every religion says it works......
August 8, 2010 at 3:23 pm
(This post was last modified: August 8, 2010 at 4:02 pm by RAD.)
Omnussint one:
Jefferson was neither a Christian or a deist. He was his own man, although he wanted a library worse than he did freed slaves. And he more than liked Jesus' teachings I'm afraid. of Jesus he said, "he pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man" in ways no other philosophy could do.
When you arbtrarily claim non-Christians are smarter, it's special pleading or a similar fallacy
In the quantity of trial-free murders and intentional overwork and starvation, he was far worse, not to mention Mao. I'm afraid atheists have a history that appears to include a consistent end-justifies-the-means philosophy. Just a coincidence? Really? I really don't think "modern killing methods" explains the problem. Mao's troops used some pretty crude methods to kill millions, and it doesn't take much to intentionally cut off the food supply to a whole region either.
Well thankfully "Christian Civilization" and folks like Solenzenitzen brought an end to the madness.
You could, if atheists had a leader with specific moral standards we could compare their behavior with. You don't, so you have a false analogy or premise. That's why i said if a Communist isn't doing what Marx said, then I agree that person is no a Communist. BTW Flew made up NTS out of thin air, so people could arbitrarily assert Hitler was a Chrisitian.
40 million innocent dead vs a couple abortion doctors? That's not a very convincing argument to get rid of Jesus hoping the world will become more civilized. That would be a rather vain hope, no?
Well I don't claim to explain the apparent contradictions in the old and new Testaments. I don't think any Christian can do that. i also have serious doubts about the flood and any assertion that Genesis disproves evolution. Adams said the Jews civilized the ancient world, for intelligent reasons.
Very few, and generally way behind the Christians.
And he argued for what that Fox, who spent more time in jail,had not already?
So then if it was Christians, that's only because virtually everybody was a Christian. No, my argumet is that it only matters who did it first. The rest can be called copycats, regardless of who did it. Right? Is it possible some Christians reading the New Testament for the first time decided to actually follow Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4? Also I don't see where you answered the question about who Jefferson called the most enlightened of all? Th enumber of coincidences you have faith in keep piling up here, don't you think?
Which means you haven't read Luke 4. He's all about liberty and ending oppression, and that is his mission statement, no less. No if you want to argue he didn't give a hoot for political solutions, you can. His approach was that the carnal followed the spiritual change, and so it has. There is a fine book out on how George Whitefield and the Great Awakening produced the Democratic spirit because the lowly were given a voice for the first time in forever.
Fine, but you asked what about Jefferson, et al.
I am merely saying that without these "theories" like string theory and parallel universes, you can't really explain anything, and you can't make any scientific sense out of all the phemomena you do observe. Is that a fair statement?
The Nazi's were Pagans, clearly
BTW for those of you who want to get rid of religion by non-violent means, know that I will be of considerable help.
Quote:What seems subjective? What's special pleading? Undoubtedly, most people were theists in the past. Plus, Jefferson was most likely a deist, not a Christian, though he liked Jesus' teachings.
Jefferson was neither a Christian or a deist. He was his own man, although he wanted a library worse than he did freed slaves. And he more than liked Jesus' teachings I'm afraid. of Jesus he said, "he pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man" in ways no other philosophy could do.
When you arbtrarily claim non-Christians are smarter, it's special pleading or a similar fallacy
Quote:Clearly Stalin was a nutter. Whether he was worse than the Inquisitors or not, or worse than the persecution of Catholics and Protestants in Tudor England, or worse than the crusades, or the religiously motivated anti-semites throughout world history is, of course, an open question. My point was that more might have been killed in these circumstances had the religious fanatics had modern technology.
In the quantity of trial-free murders and intentional overwork and starvation, he was far worse, not to mention Mao. I'm afraid atheists have a history that appears to include a consistent end-justifies-the-means philosophy. Just a coincidence? Really? I really don't think "modern killing methods" explains the problem. Mao's troops used some pretty crude methods to kill millions, and it doesn't take much to intentionally cut off the food supply to a whole region either.
Quote:So? She was atheist, but also an anarchist. Stalin was atheist, but also a paranoid nutter. You can't equate atheism with such atrocities unless you demonstrate that such acts are inevitable, or much more likely, given atheism alone, taking other factors like political beliefs into account.
Well thankfully "Christian Civilization" and folks like Solenzenitzen brought an end to the madness.
Quote:So, are you denying that Christian Nazis were true Christians? Or have I misunderstood you? If that's what you mean, then I can just deny that the Communists were true atheists.
You could, if atheists had a leader with specific moral standards we could compare their behavior with. You don't, so you have a false analogy or premise. That's why i said if a Communist isn't doing what Marx said, then I agree that person is no a Communist. BTW Flew made up NTS out of thin air, so people could arbitrarily assert Hitler was a Chrisitian.
Quote:I'm not denying that Christians have done good things. Probably the ones who do outweigh those who don't. It's just that blowing up an abortion clinic is more significant than running a church fete.
40 million innocent dead vs a couple abortion doctors? That's not a very convincing argument to get rid of Jesus hoping the world will become more civilized. That would be a rather vain hope, no?
Quote: And clearly the Nazis didn't follow Jesus' teachings. However, some of Jesus' actions were less than wonderful (Matthew 15:26; he refuses to help a non-Jewish woman). Plus, the OT is positively riddled with horrific examples of ethical guidance.
Well I don't claim to explain the apparent contradictions in the old and new Testaments. I don't think any Christian can do that. i also have serious doubts about the flood and any assertion that Genesis disproves evolution. Adams said the Jews civilized the ancient world, for intelligent reasons.
Quote:I wasn't talking about slavery, but the Enlightenment in general. Prominent figures in the Enlightenment were largely skeptics, either deists, agnostics, or sometimes atheists.
Very few, and generally way behind the Christians.
Quote:If we're talking about things like women's rights, then we must consider the contributions of people like the utilitarian John Stuart-Mill.
And he argued for what that Fox, who spent more time in jail,had not already?
Quote:Of course, religious people did argue for women's and slaves' rights before non-believers, but that was likely given that were no, or hardly any, non-believers around for most of history.
So then if it was Christians, that's only because virtually everybody was a Christian. No, my argumet is that it only matters who did it first. The rest can be called copycats, regardless of who did it. Right? Is it possible some Christians reading the New Testament for the first time decided to actually follow Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4? Also I don't see where you answered the question about who Jefferson called the most enlightened of all? Th enumber of coincidences you have faith in keep piling up here, don't you think?
Quote:Until recently, religion's hold has been only negative in terms of liberties, which is understandable given Biblical teachings on such matters. Exodus 21:21 allows the beating of slaves, while Paul says that women must be silent in church. Jesus, meanwhile, says nothing on such matters, when surely a little guidance would have helped.
Which means you haven't read Luke 4. He's all about liberty and ending oppression, and that is his mission statement, no less. No if you want to argue he didn't give a hoot for political solutions, you can. His approach was that the carnal followed the spiritual change, and so it has. There is a fine book out on how George Whitefield and the Great Awakening produced the Democratic spirit because the lowly were given a voice for the first time in forever.
Quote:Nope. Who cares? Jefferson doesn't speak for me.
Fine, but you asked what about Jefferson, et al.
Quote:I'm not a scientist, but, as I understand it, dark matter isn't really an explanation, just a name for whatever makes up most of the universe. If by 'particle theory' you mean string theory, then this is far from universally accepted.
I am merely saying that without these "theories" like string theory and parallel universes, you can't really explain anything, and you can't make any scientific sense out of all the phemomena you do observe. Is that a fair statement?
The Nazi's were Pagans, clearly
BTW for those of you who want to get rid of religion by non-violent means, know that I will be of considerable help.
