Poll: How did human life come about?

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction.

And what indications are there that Gen 2:17 is not to be taken at face value, other than the fact that on its face it contradicts another verse?

There shouldn't be any. I don't read Hawthorne or Shakespeare and and take it all literally. "My love is a rose". "Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks". I don't get pissed and discount it because he says one thing one time and another some other time.

Shakespeare is fiction, just like your holy book.

No, Shakespeare uses literary devices, as does the Bible.

Then why do some people who preach in a church not know which ones are literary devices and which aren't? Why do some people say it's all true, and some don't, and everybody doesn't seem to agree on which are and which aren't? If it was so obvious, then you wouldn't have people arguing about the interpretations.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Garth
But you haven't provided any reason why we should believe that a literary device was used in this instance. You can't. Rather, you need it to because its the only way you can rationalize the obvious contradiction to yourself.

The need of devices of apparent in everything. Nothing would make sense if there wasn't any. Do you want an asterick everytime something is not literal?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Then why do some people who preach in a church not know which ones are literary devices and which aren't? Why do some people say it's all true, and some don't, and everybody doesn't seem to agree on which are and which aren't? If it was so obvious, then you wouldn't have people arguing about the interpretations.

Find me a group of English professors than can all solely agree on the meanings behind a particular work.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Juddog

Then why do some people who preach in a church not know which ones are literary devices and which aren't? Why do some people say it's all true, and some don't, and everybody doesn't seem to agree on which are and which aren't? If it was so obvious, then you wouldn't have people arguing about the interpretations.

Find me a group of English professors than can all solely agree on the meanings behind a particular work.

If the work is a biographical study, or a historical recount, then you will find much less disagreement then you would about a work of fiction that was open to literary devices, as you put it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?




No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?

Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...

Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.

Sorry, I'm not the one who's arrogant here. You're just an ignorant bigoted asshole who thinks his prejudices are the laws of nature, and I just call it like it is.

Again, you think very highly of yourself. I have the right to have my own opinion. You think YOUR opinion must be accepted by everyone.. that is what makes you arrogant.. and name calling only reinforces how immature you are.

Uh... you might want to pay attention here... you made this personal, not I (and you should leave this personal attack BS in P&N). And my response is that you're a bigot. What little intelligence you have is overruled by your emotional prejudices.
There's a reason the humanist crowd is increasingly separating itself from the evangelical atheist crowd. You people are sick and delusional. Dictating to people what they should believe is harmful, whether it's religion or atheism. You cite the harms caused by religion, I ask you, how many people died in religious wars last century? None, there weren't any. OTOH how many people did authoritarian atheism ala communism kill last century? Over 100 million.
Maybe now you might understand. I personally don't like religion. But authoritarian evangelical atheism certainly not the answer. Ask yourself, why do you care about other people's personal beliefs? What does it really matter if, despite our massive education efforts, a largish percentage of people insist on clinging to traditional beliefs even when those beliefs are scientifically wrong? Why do you care? Why do you want to force those people to change their beliefs?

I stated an opinion. Then, you asked a question, made up your own answer for me and then told me to "stfu"... that made it a personal attack on me.

I have the right to an opinion that you may not like. That doesn't mean you act aggressive and rude to me. You need to learn to deal with that without lashing out.

Your opinion was a crock of ignorant intolerance. I exposed its flaws in a logical manner, and you took offense to such, as bigots always do (as their intolerance always lacks the grounding of a logical premise).
I've quoted the whole chain of posts here, so kindly don't pretend that things happened differently than what is documented here.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"I ask you, how many people died in religious wars last century? None, there weren't any. "

That is your opinion. Not fact. I view things differently.

Do you know what a bigot means? "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Having an opinion that the bible is one of the biggest cons in history is a simple opinion. Unless I act prejudicial, it does not make me a bigot. However, your subsequent attacks on me(making up questions, then assuming an answer, then telling me to stfu, then calling me an asshole and a bigot) is what a bigot is. The irony is strong.

I am married to a christian btw. How could I be a bigot when I am tolerant enough of my wife's religion to marry her and have a baby?

Tolerance is not about opinion, it is about actions. Your actions were those of attacks. That is the definition of intolerance. You need to learn to accept other peoples' opinions.

It is a fact that there has not been a single religious war this past century. If it is not fact, then why don't you tell us which was it was that was fought over religion? C'mon, let's hear it.

In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century. Theism or atheism, it doesn't really matter which one is "right." It's when you try to force people to believe like you do because you believe you're right that harm is done. That's the danger. So leave it alone. Who cares how many people believe in stupid religious traditions? The only important thing is that our system of government be limited enough that the rights of every single individual is respected. As I know well from P&N, you don't believe in such a system, which is why fear the beliefs of others so much.

And yeah, you expressed a bigotry. There's no irony, you're just so wrapped up in being right about your prejudices that you can't see it. But oh... when you switched the discussion from the substance of your statements to my character, that wasn't a personal attack, right? But I attacked you when I told you to STFU if you're going to keep making stupid statement, right?

And whooptie, you married a Christian! What's so big about that? 99% of them are decent people with decent values, despite the whacky beliefs and occassional brainwashing. And I'm sure you share your desires for moral authoritarianism in common.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?




No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?

Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...

Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.

Sorry, I'm not the one who's arrogant here. You're just an ignorant bigoted asshole who thinks his prejudices are the laws of nature, and I just call it like it is.

Again, you think very highly of yourself. I have the right to have my own opinion. You think YOUR opinion must be accepted by everyone.. that is what makes you arrogant.. and name calling only reinforces how immature you are.

Uh... you might want to pay attention here... you made this personal, not I (and you should leave this personal attack BS in P&N). And my response is that you're a bigot. What little intelligence you have is overruled by your emotional prejudices.
There's a reason the humanist crowd is increasingly separating itself from the evangelical atheist crowd. You people are sick and delusional. Dictating to people what they should believe is harmful, whether it's religion or atheism. You cite the harms caused by religion, I ask you, how many people died in religious wars last century? None, there weren't any. OTOH how many people did authoritarian atheism ala communism kill last century? Over 100 million.
Maybe now you might understand. I personally don't like religion. But authoritarian evangelical atheism certainly not the answer. Ask yourself, why do you care about other people's personal beliefs? What does it really matter if, despite our massive education efforts, a largish percentage of people insist on clinging to traditional beliefs even when those beliefs are scientifically wrong? Why do you care? Why do you want to force those people to change their beliefs?

I stated an opinion. Then, you asked a question, made up your own answer for me and then told me to "stfu"... that made it a personal attack on me.

I have the right to an opinion that you may not like. That doesn't mean you act aggressive and rude to me. You need to learn to deal with that without lashing out.

Your opinion was a crock of ignorant intolerance. I exposed its flaws in a logical manner, and you took offense to such, as bigots always do (as their intolerance always lacks the grounding of a logical premise).
I've quoted the whole chain of posts here, so kindly don't pretend that things happened differently than what is documented here.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"I ask you, how many people died in religious wars last century? None, there weren't any. "

That is your opinion. Not fact. I view things differently.

Do you know what a bigot means? "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Having an opinion that the bible is one of the biggest cons in history is a simple opinion. Unless I act prejudicial, it does not make me a bigot. However, your subsequent attacks on me(making up questions, then assuming an answer, then telling me to stfu, then calling me an asshole and a bigot) is what a bigot is. The irony is strong.

I am married to a christian btw. How could I be a bigot when I am tolerant enough of my wife's religion to marry her and have a baby?

Tolerance is not about opinion, it is about actions. Your actions were those of attacks. That is the definition of intolerance. You need to learn to accept other peoples' opinions.

It is a fact that there has not been a single religious war this past century. If it is not fact, then why don't you tell us which was it was that was fought over religion? C'mon, let's hear it.

In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century. Theism or atheism, it doesn't really matter which one is "right." It's when you try to force people to believe like you do because you believe you're right that harm is done. That's the danger. So leave it alone. Who cares how many people believe in stupid religious traditions? The only important thing is that our system of government be limited enough that the rights of every single individual is respected. As I know well from P&N, you don't believe in such a system, which is why fear the beliefs of others so much.

And yeah, you expressed a bigotry. There's no irony, you're just so wrapped up in being right about your prejudices that you can't see it. But oh... when you switched the discussion from the substance of your statements to my character, that wasn't a personal attack, right? But I attacked you when I told you to STFU if you're going to keep making stupid statement, right?

And whooptie, you married a Christian! What's so big about that? 99% of them are decent people with decent values, despite the whacky beliefs and occassional brainwashing. And I'm sure you share your desires for moral authoritarianism in common.

Religious wars?

Sudan?
Afghanistan?
Bosnia?
The Taiping Rebellion (okay, that was in the 19th century, but still modern)
India / Pakistan?
All the wars between Israel and its neighbors?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
No. The only thing that the fossil record provides, is that there have been other lifeforms, some of which, have some similarities to humans. This in no way is evidence of evolution. There is not a single fossil found, that demonstrates any evolutionary process. Of course, if you believe in spontaneous evolution, where there this happens all at once, in giant leaps of transformation, then I wouldn't know what to say, because you would be too far gone for hope.

So suppose that the gawis skull is scientifically verified and nearly conclusively demonstrated to be an intermediary skull between homo erectus and homo sapiens. Would this be sufficient evidence for you? I would guess not. We do already have plenty of evidence that homo sapiens experienced significant changes over time.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
But you haven't provided any reason why we should believe that a literary device was used in this instance. You can't. Rather, you need it to because its the only way you can rationalize the obvious contradiction to yourself.

This is confusing coming from you, Garth. Practically the entire Bible, as with most religious texts, is literary devices. That's why it's so ridiculous to insist on a literal interpretation.

Consider: despite the repeated use of the word "spirit" in the Bible, there is no word for in Ancient Hebrew that has the same meaning as we give that word in modern English (i.e. supernatural soul, etc.). The word used in the ancient texts mean "breath" or "to breathe." Now follow me on this next part, 'cause here's where it gets a little wierd. That's also the original Old English (derived from Latin) meaning of the word "spirit," to breathe. That's how we get words like inspire or perspire, etc. So even the original translators knew what they were writing, and it is in more modern times when we have decided to change the meanings into someting more fantastical.
So when people who insist on a literal interpretation say "We have a spirit/soul, the Bible says so right here," they are wrong. But then, so are the people who insist on using a literal interpretation to condemn the Bible. It is all allegory and parable, with a sprinkling (very small) of some factual ancient history. However, the most important part of the Bible, from a scientific standpoint, is that it tells how and what ancient peoples were thinking, their philosophies and psychologies, in a way that very few suriving texts can. And in that regard, it is priceless.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
But you haven't provided any reason why we should believe that a literary device was used in this instance. You can't. Rather, you need it to because its the only way you can rationalize the obvious contradiction to yourself.

This is confusing coming from you, Garth. Practically the entire Bible, as with most religious texts, is literary devices. That's why it's so ridiculous to insist on a literal interpretation.

Consider: despite the repeated use of the word "spirit" in the Bible, there is no word for in Ancient Hebrew that has the same meaning as we give that word in modern English (i.e. supernatural soul, etc.). The word used in the ancient texts mean "breath" or "to breathe." Now follow me on this next part, 'cause here's where it gets a little wierd. That's also the original Old English (derived from Latin) meaning of the word "spirit," to breathe. That's how we get words like inspire or perspire, etc. So even the original translators knew what they were writing, and it is in more modern times when we have decided to change the meanings into someting more fantastical.
So when people who insist on a literal interpretation say "We have a spirit/soul, the Bible says so right here," they are wrong. But then, so are the people who insist on using a literal interpretation to condemn the Bible. It is all allegory and parable, with a sprinkling (very small) of some factual ancient history. However, the most important part of the Bible, from a scientific standpoint, is that it tells how and what ancient peoples were thinking, their philosophies and psychologies, in a way that very few suriving texts can. And in that regard, it is priceless.

So basically you're saying that Seekermiester is being ridiculous in his literal interpretation of the Bible, correct?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So
Religious wars?

Sudan?
Afghanistan?
Bosnia?
The Taiping Rebellion (okay, that was in the 19th century, but still modern)
India / Pakistan?
All the wars between Israel and its neighbors?

ethnic != religion

Those are opposing ethnic groups fighting over resources (land). They're not trying to convert with the sword.

If you took away religion from the earth, they'd just find another reason to divide themselves into groups and fight amongst themselves. The divisiveness in this thread alone could serve as proof of that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Juddog
So basically you're saying that Seekermiester is being ridiculous in his literal interpretation of the Bible, correct?

Pardon me, but have you actually been reading this thread? He and I have already stated our negative opinions of each other several times over. And I condemned the idea of a literal interpretation several times before now.

What I'm basically saying is that the Bible does not support the position of the theists, and science does not support the position of the atheists. The Bible is allegory, and science does not hold nor support an opinion on God (neither pro or con).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: So

Religious wars?

Sudan?
Afghanistan?
Bosnia?
The Taiping Rebellion (okay, that was in the 19th century, but still modern)
India / Pakistan?
All the wars between Israel and its neighbors?

don't confused people fighting for self-determination, national pride, scapegoatism, etc., for religious wars. remember that it's all about who can benefit from the war.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: So

Religious wars?

Sudan?
Afghanistan?
Bosnia?
The Taiping Rebellion (okay, that was in the 19th century, but still modern)
India / Pakistan?
All the wars between Israel and its neighbors?

don't confused people fighting for self-determination, national pride, scapegoatism, etc., for religious wars. remember that it's all about who can benefit from the war.

I'm a strong believer that wars are fought for fundamentally economic reasons. But wars aren't justified based on those reasons. Those were just the wars that I can think of that were ostensibly fought for a religious cause.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: So
Religious wars?

Sudan?
Afghanistan?
Bosnia?
The Taiping Rebellion (okay, that was in the 19th century, but still modern)
India / Pakistan?
All the wars between Israel and its neighbors?

ethnic != religion

Those are opposing ethnic groups fighting over resources (land). They're not trying to convert with the sword.

If you took away religion from the earth, they'd just find another reason to divide themselves into groups and fight amongst themselves. The divisiveness in this thread alone could serve as proof of that.

See my other post. I agree that war is economic, but wars justified on religious basis are religious wars, whether or not the fundamental nature of all war is economic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: So

Religious wars?

Sudan?
Afghanistan?
Bosnia?
The Taiping Rebellion (okay, that was in the 19th century, but still modern)
India / Pakistan?
All the wars between Israel and its neighbors?

don't confused people fighting for self-determination, national pride, scapegoatism, etc., for religious wars. remember that it's all about who can benefit from the war.

I'm a strong believer that wars are fought for fundamentally economic reasons. But wars aren't justified based on those reasons. Those were just the wars that I can think of that were ostensibly fought for a religious cause.

True. But religion is not required as a cause, not is it the only cause. When Stalin murdered tens of millions to hold onto his political and economic power in the Soviet Union, he justified doing so on the basis of preserving the communist ideal. When Hitler stole the wealth from the Jews and murdered 6+ million of them in the process, he justified doing so on German nationalism. But was that the actual reason in either case? No. And excuses are easily made up. We're not going to save the world by ridding evil people of one of their excuses when they can easily make up another one -- just as plausible, just as influential to the masses, and just as wrong.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Vic
In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century.

Atheist regimes didn't kill in the name of Atheism. Religion on the other hand killed in the name of God.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: So

Religious wars?

Sudan?
Afghanistan?
Bosnia?
The Taiping Rebellion (okay, that was in the 19th century, but still modern)
India / Pakistan?
All the wars between Israel and its neighbors?

don't confused people fighting for self-determination, national pride, scapegoatism, etc., for religious wars. remember that it's all about who can benefit from the war.

I'm a strong believer that wars are fought for fundamentally economic reasons. But wars aren't justified based on those reasons. Those were just the wars that I can think of that were ostensibly fought for a religious cause.

True. But religion is not required as a cause, not is it the only cause. When Stalin murdered tens of millions to hold onto his political and economic power in the Soviet Union, he justified doing so on the basis of preserving the communist ideal. When Hitler stole the wealth from the Jews and murdered 6+ million of them in the process, he justified doing so on German nationalism. But was that the actual reason in either case? No. And excuses are easily made up. We're not going to save the world by ridding evil people of one of their excuses when they can easily make up another one -- just as plausible, just as influential to the masses, and just as wrong.

Oh, I don't think religion is the cause of war, or ending religion would end war. War and cruelty is a part of the human condition. The problems caused by religion, IMO are more a part of domestic society than international politics. That said, who knows, religion may keep enough would be criminals in line to negate the benefits from a society where the public's attitude towards progress is not constrained by supernatural belief.

I think Matt & Trey said it best: "isms" are the real problem. If evangelists stopped pushing their agenda on the public (i.e. bush) and atheists did the same (like that guy who made a big stink about the word god in the pledge :roll we'd all be better off

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: So
I'm a strong believer that wars are fought for fundamentally economic reasons. But wars aren't justified based on those reasons. Those were just the wars that I can think of that were ostensibly fought for a religious cause.

i don't think wars are fought for even economic reasons. that may be necessary to discuss why a war happened, but it isn't sufficient.

imho, the real reason wars are fought is because one side or all sides can not properly estimate their ability and their opponents/allies' ability to fight and sustain fighting.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: So
I'm a strong believer that wars are fought for fundamentally economic reasons. But wars aren't justified based on those reasons. Those were just the wars that I can think of that were ostensibly fought for a religious cause.

i don't think wars are fought for even economic reasons. that may be necessary to discuss why a war happened, but it isn't sufficient.

imho, the real reason wars are fought is because one side or all sides can not properly estimate their ability and their opponents/allies' ability to fight and sustain fighting.

That's true too, but that's another facet. Economics are why societies decide they want war, poor estimation is why people don't stop short of war.

IDK a better way to say it so:

Economics is the reason people go to war, inability to foresee the likely result is the reason people don't not go to war. (I know, it's awkward, but that's a flaw in the nature of the English language and its dislike of double negatives - there is a difference.)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Vic
In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century.

Atheist regimes didn't kill in the name of Atheism. Religion on the other hand killed in the name of God.

Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.

Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't think wars are fought for even economic reasons. that may be necessary to discuss why a war happened, but it isn't sufficient.

imho, the real reason wars are fought is because one side or all sides can not properly estimate their ability and their opponents/allies' ability to fight and sustain fighting.

That's true too, but that's another facet. Economics are why societies decide they want war, poor estimation is why people don't stop short of war.

like i said, may be necessary, but economics alone is not sufficient.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Vic
In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century.

Atheist regimes didn't kill in the name of Atheism. Religion on the other hand killed in the name of God.

Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.

Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.

Woah, woah. That doesn't make the crimes of Stalinist states the fault of atheism. The difference is that Stalinist regimes killed people for speaking against the state, not for speaking against the religious views. Medieval states killed people for speaking against religion specifically.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Vic
In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century.

Atheist regimes didn't kill in the name of Atheism. Religion on the other hand killed in the name of God.

Really? Prove this. Oops, you can't, because its premise is inverted from reality.

Authoritarian regimes, whether theist or atheist, dictate to people not just how they should act, but how they should think. Failure to hold and profess the proper belief system becomes a crime. A fundamental tenet of communism is atheism. If you speak out against atheism, you are thus subverting the communist state, and you can be killed. This is scarcely different than when the medieval monarchies were held in place by the "divine right" granted to them by the Church. Speaking out against the church became a subversion of the monarchy, thus a crime.
How it is that to you that the 2 are not similar simply represents prejudice on your part. Based on your statements, you prefer atheism, therefore you overlook its negatives even if allowed authoritarian power. OTOH, you hate religion, therefore you focus on its negatives even when prohibited authoritarian influence. The fact is that it is neither atheism nor religion that is either good or evil, but what is evil is the desire of people to inflict their personal beliefs on others through force.

Woah, woah. That doesn't make the crimes of Stalinist states the fault of atheism. The difference is that Stalinist regimes killed people for speaking against the state, not for speaking against the religious views. Medieval states killed people for speaking against religion specifically.

I clearly explained the reasons behind each. In both cases, the mandated belief system was used to prop up the authority of the state. Attacking the belief system became the same as an attack on the state.

edit: in the case of communism, the state was God. But that is not without historical precedent, so were the Roman emperors.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: bluemax
They don't call it the "Missing Link" for nothing.
And how's this for an egenda - every school under UN jurastiction is forced by law to teach Evolution or close. Period.
*FORCE*DOWN*THROAT!*ugh*push*

They may not call it the missing link for nothing, certainly there is some historical use of the term, but that doesn't mean it's really missing. See above in my point about 398 billion fossils not being needed. Lucy and hobbits (homo florienesis or however it is spelled) aren't good enough?

Lucy was monkey bones. Period. There's simply no difference. It wouldn't take much to kill every monkey in the world right now and find one whose bones are similar. Many of the other evolutionary steps were exactly the same story - one step made from a tiny fraction of skull plate (modern humans have deformities too) one from a single tooth (found to be a pig's tooth) another from what is exactly the same as an old man with bad arthritis. C'mon guys.... FACTS!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't think wars are fought for even economic reasons. that may be necessary to discuss why a war happened, but it isn't sufficient.

imho, the real reason wars are fought is because one side or all sides can not properly estimate their ability and their opponents/allies' ability to fight and sustain fighting.

That's true too, but that's another facet. Economics are why societies decide they want war, poor estimation is why people don't stop short of war.

like i said, may be necessary, but economics alone is not sufficient.

My opinion is that war is just armed robbery on a much larger scale. The economics and estimations are little different than the mugger casing out his victims.