patrick.net

michaelsch says

curious2 says

To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

In a way I would agree with this, though with one clarification: in this sense the worst of all religions yet invented is atheism. No ideology in human history caused such atrocities as atheism. Not yet as least.

This is just bs semantics. Communism, national socialism, whatever you name work the same as religions, it is something people can believe so strongly in that they will take its orders to oppress - and in the worst case - kill those who don't "believe" in it and want to be free. It's how you apply religion and -isms is what counts. There are people who get great strength out of it and help others and those who kill in the name of it. Whether you believe in a theory to be infallible or a higher power so that you execute their demands/manifesto without questioning, it's all the same result. Dogmas are inherently problematic and nothing is absolute, from then on just proceed heeding the prime directive and you won't be dangerous to others ;)

michaelsch says

No ideology in human history caused such atrocities as atheism.

That is totally false and has been discussed previously. Bottom line, Stalin's atrocities had nothing to do with atheism; as you say, he happened to be a former seminary student, and he later happened to be an atheist. His actions can neither be blamed on the seminary nor on atheism.

The French revolution included a combination of good principles that are still celebrated and honored today, together with some bad results (e.g. the Terror and the mistreatment of Marie Antoinette and her children). Most of the bad resulted from the thirst for revenge and redistribution, and the quest for power. These are human tendencies, one wonders what the OWS movement would do if they actually got power, how would they contain the anarchists within the group, etc. To blame atheism for the actions of mostly Catholic French people is inaccurate and a distraction.

The Nazis however, whom you mentioned, were officially Christian. Their disagreement with the Vatican had to do with who would control Christianity, and is entirely predictable within the history of religious people fighting over who will control the "one true religion." It is best addressed in Dan's earlier thread about how monotheists come to believe that they are God, partly because God agrees with them about everything.

Atheism is irrational. Pascal's wager.

Peter P says

Pascal's wager

...doesn't really prove anything, and is best answered by Homer Simpson's decision to stop attending church: "What if we've chosen the wrong religion, and every Sunday we're making the real god angrier and angrier?" Remember the 10 Commandments, specifically the first two; you can have all the gay sex you want (so long as it isn't adultery) and it wouldn't be nearly as bad as going to the wrong church.

curious2 says

...doesn't really prove anything, and is best answered by Homer Simpson's decision to stop attending church: "What if we've chosen the wrong religion, and every Sunday we're making the real god angrier and angrier?"

LOL!

This is why people ought to believe in their own personal religions. There needs not be a middleman between me and my god.

curious2 says

you can have all the gay sex you want (so long as it isn't adultery) and it wouldn't be nearly as bad as going to the wrong church.

What about having gay sex IN the wrong church? Does that cancel each other out?

Peter P says

What about having gay sex IN the wrong church?

AF had a thread about sex in churches. He particularly recommended Catholic women on an altar.

mell says

This is just bs semantics. Communism, national socialism, whatever you name work the same as religions, it is something people can believe so strongly in that they will take its orders to oppress - and in the worst case - kill those who don't "believe" in it and want to be free.

That's right, but this includes believe in freedom, believe in science etc. French revolutioneries believed in "reason", for that believe they had murdered hundreds of tousands of their opponents, mostly Roman Catholic.

They even invented the barge sinking for the mass murder. Therefore, the religion of "reason", the religion of atheism, which Dan confesses is no better that any other religion and in any historic application is more cruel and more inclined to commit mass murder than others.

Please note: my whole argument is about Dan's statement: "Religion kills in mass.", which is absolutely false in the way Dan understands it.

There is a well known statement of 1940 attributed to Albert Einstein.

"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks…

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

It was broadcasted several times in USA and Einstein never denied it. In the context of German religious situation it's obvious he meant Catholic Church.

michaelsch says

There is a well known statement of 1940 attributed to Albert Einstein.

Actually it is a well-known abuse of his words, drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own, to enlist his name for a cause he did not support personally.

Michael, if you are going to invoke the memory of Albert Einstein on this thread you might point out that he was an advocate of gay rights, having been one of the most famous signers of Magnus Hirschfeld's petition on the subject. Also, Einstein was never Catholic; he was ethnically Jewish and is usually considered to have been an atheist or possibly a deist. [Updated - agnostic - thanks michael - see below.]

michaelsch says

That's right, but this includes believe in freedom, believe in science etc. French revolutioneries believed in "reason", for that believe they had murdered hundreds of tousands of their opponents, mostly Roman Catholic.

Sure, even science should never be left unquestioned. However in earlier days science was more like a believe system since we did not really have the technology to study the nature of things without a doubt, hence a lot of pseudo-science and witch-hunts. I think there is at least hope or even grounds for reasoning that we evolved to a point where science significantly harder to be falsified and abused ;)

BTW now that we've mentioned adultery and the 10 commandments, it may be worth remembering that Leviticus condemned bisexuality (possibly only threesomes), not homosexuality per se. An earlier comment mentioned the link between promiscuity and HIV. If you look at the statistics, a majority of people with HIV are women and children. The women tend to get it from their cheating husbands, and most of the children were born with it. If there is overlap between Biblical rules and disease (remembering that the germ theory of disease was not understood during Biblical times), then disease might be one reason for the repeated prohibitions against adultery. There aren't any prohibitions against homosexuality per se until you get to Paul, who by his own account disagreed with nearly everybody, especially the early Christians. It is a sad irony that the Catholic church in particular seems to have become the church of Paul (e.g. no female priests), who persecuted the early Christians and disbelieved that Jesus was ever a living person; Paul's original mission of persecuting Christians seems to have been extended by those who preach in his name.

curious2 says

and is usually considered to have been an atheist or possibly a deist.

He was an agnostic and declared it several times. he was very critical of atheism. Just search for "Albert Einstein atheism" or something.

curious2 says

(remembering that the germ theory of disease was not understood during Biblical times),

lol .. go read Leviticus again, really close, and see what they are told to do when there is a sickness or a skin disorder to the clothes, bedding, and the bed. Remember a few other things about that silly old book of stories ... it got the ordering of creation correct, including life on this planet. And, oddly enough, did so before all the smart people were born and moved to Frisco.

Bap33 says

that silly old book of stories...got the ordering of creation correct, including life on this planet

LOL - how did they forget the giant ice dome in the sky?

curious2 says

Bottom line, Stalin's atrocities had nothing to do with atheism

I wonder if this is opinion. Dan, would you mind?

michaelsch says

He was an agnostic and declared it several times. he was very critical of atheism.

Fair enough, agnostic. He was very critical of religion, for example this: "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

curious2 says

Actually it is a well-known abuse of his words, drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own, to enlist his name for a cause he did not support personally.

Just read what this guy writes. He uses a textual analysis to claim these were not Einsteins words. At the same time he says it could mean lots of different things.
The whole argument sounds just like: "First I never took this pot from you, second, when I took it already had a crack in it, and third, I returned it intact."
He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement, which IMO means that even if the words were not exact the meaning was correct.

curious2 says

Bap33 says

it got the ordering of creation correct, including life on this planet

LOL - how did they forget the giant ice dome?

Well ... the details are not there for many things, like the gravity and energy that has made every atom, ever, keep "alive" with it's moving parts, all going light speed, missing each other, since day one. The Bible in not too into that stuff. lol

The ice, may be part of that "water were seperated from the waters" stuff, and the creation of the firmement, or some such thing. But, before you get all crazy, please make sure you do understand that all of the anti-God, super smart science guys say the fresh water on earth came from space. I know, huh!! go check and see.

This issue is not an arguing point for me. I really enjoy ancient stuff. Like, you know, pyramids, Mayans, Nazca lines, stuff like that.

michaelsch says

He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement

To the contrary, he writes that Einstein denied it and called it "drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own." (The quote being from the author's translation of Einstein's denial.)

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He was an agnostic and declared it several times. he was very critical of atheism.

Fair enough, agnostic. He was very critical of religion, for example this: "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

RE: Albert E. Smart enough to know somthing was there, and know he didn't know what it was, and know it is bigger than all mankind. And he was never, ever, stupid enough to make a case against creation due to the absolute order, that looks just like disorder to the unknowing, that he found all over the universe. Dude was very smart, and knew he did not have the God answer. And, as you know, the smart guys before him, you know Plato and Socrates, said the first step is knowing what you do not know.

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement

To the contrary, he writes that Einstein denied it and called it "drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own." (The quote being from the author's translation of Einstein's denial.)

lol .. but if 'ol Albert had wrote, "there is an absolute God responsible for this universe." .. then THAT would remove your doubt?? If so, explain. If not, explain.

Bap33 says

Albert E. Smart enough to know....

...yet he, too, never mentioned that giant floating ice dome in the sky. But of course you must be right Bap, because you put it there, then removed it with your hammer.

curious2 says

Bap33 says

Albert E. Smart enough to know

...yet he, too, never mentioned that giant floating ice dome in the sky. But of course you must be right Bap, because you put it there, then removed it with your hammer.

put down the pipe and/or the pint. You're fading fast.

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He was an agnostic and declared it several times. he was very critical of atheism.

Fair enough, agnostic. He was very critical of religion, for example this: "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

The whole post was about Dan's "Religion kills in mass."

I brought Einsteins veiws as an example of an intelectually honest man, who can see that there are other forces, especially non-religious forces that really kill "in mass" and often religous ones are the only ones that oppose them.

The fact that Einstein was against any organized religion and not a theist makes this even more valuable. Would he been an atheist his statement would be even more valuable, only he was not.

Bap33 says

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement

To the contrary, he writes that Einstein denied it and called it "drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own." (The quote being from the author's translation of Einstein's denial.)

lol .. but if 'ol Albert had wrote, "there is an absolute God responsible for this universe." .. then THAT would remove your doubt?? If so, explain. If not, explain.

cmon curious, answer this one. Thanks.

remeber, since you were not the one standing there listening to Albert, you will have to have FAITH that he really said what you have been told. So, what happens when he says, "oh ya, God is a for sure deal!"???

Bap33 says

answer this one.

Bap, I'm not interested in speculating about things people didn't say, nor your bizarre theology of a giant ice dome in the sky. You want everybody who doesn't conform to your absurd beliefs to be hanged. Therefore you have no respect for other people, and there is no reason why anyone should respect you enough to answer your questions. I have learned from both Dan and Michael, but you are for entertainment value only.

curious2 says

Bap, I'm not interested in speculating about things people didn't say

dude, you just made a big hubub about something Albert didn't say. my mistake. carry on.

curious2 says

You want everybody who doesn't conform to your absurd beliefs to be hanged

nope, what you wrote is untrue and pulled from your behind. What I want is for murderers, rapists, gangsters, and anyone else who now is placed on display in a human zoo for a long sentence/life, to not be tortured with confinement (that does no work to fix them or repay the debt), instead I want a conviction, an appeal, and a hanging (the green way), and each step should be modeled like the Tim McVey Express.

curious2 says

and there is no reason why anyone should respect you enough to answer your questions

what you dont respect is a non-conformist ... somthing the left used to stand for, you now hate. Irony,,,, still working like new.

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement

To the contrary, he writes that Einstein denied it and called it "drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own." (The quote being from the author's translation of Einstein's denial.)

Look, curious, I can give you a lot of reasons why this guys arguments are laughable. But for me just this: "And fourth, at least to another scientist like me..." is more than enough. LOL, the message of this guy is: "Albert Einstein and another scientist".

And finally he refers to an unpublished (sic) letter cited by (no indication he got a copy of this letter) Barbara Wolff at the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem (no explanation of the Wolffs position there). The letter was written in 1947, while it presumably refers to casual oral statements from the 30th. And after all it apparently states: "hardly any German intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom"

So, what we have here is a very unreliable source working for an institution with clear anti-church ideology -- the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (believe me I've studied there), which gives a watered down version of the published statement.

If you know all the Biblical arguments that repeated states that no man that has sex with another one can enter the kingdom of God, and you've rejected it because you dont believe in God, or the Bible, or think that people that do are crazy, theres nothing further that can be done to help you understand.
The only thing that remains for you is Heb 10:27...But a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

curious2 says

If you look at the statistics, a majority of people with HIV are women and children. The women tend to get it from their cheating husbands, and most of the children were born with it. If there is overlap between Biblical rules and disease (remembering that the germ theory of disease was not understood during Biblical times), then disease might be one reason for the repeated prohibitions against adultery.

Well, the Biblical meaning of adultery was a very clear one, it was a trespassing of a man's right over his wife. Cheating (what a stupid word) with another not maried women, for example with a prostitute was not considered adultery, neither is it considered such today in Orthodox Judaism. Even today Orthodox Jewish marriage is a one sided consecration of a mans usage of a woman.

The New Testament does condemn promiscuety using words like fornication but always mentions these two things separately.

At any rate Biblical rules would hardly limit the transmission of HIV the way you mention it.

Bap33 says

What I want is for murderers, rapists, gangsters, and anyone else...I want a conviction, an appeal, and a hanging

To sum up Bap's various posts, i.e. the Gospel according to Bap:
1) liberals and gay people are mentally defective;
2) mentally defective people cannot consent to sex, so sex with any of them is rape;
3) rapists (and all other threats to society) should be hanged. BTW, abortion is also murder, so anyone involved should be hanged.
Therefore, according to Bap, liberals and gays should all be hanged, along with anyone involved in abortion, and any other threats to society. BTW, "liberals" seems to mean "anyone Bap disagrees with," and spreading dangerous ideas might also be a threat to society, so basically everyone except Bap ends up hanged.

Enjoy!

michaelsch says

At any rate Biblical rules would hardly limit the transmission of HIV

I agree they aren't nearly as effective as evidence-based measures, for example condoms. That merely suggests the Biblical rules have become obsolete, at least with regard to preventing the spread of disease. They are also obsolete with regard to their endorsement of slavery and religious murder. You mentioned earlier the drownings at Nantes, but you omit the slaughter of thousands in Exodus for forgetting the sabbath, and what about worshiping the golden calf? I forget the exact numbers but IIRC they add up to more than Nantes, and besides the Terror was about counter-revolutionaries not religion per se; most on all sides were Catholic.

michaelsch says

And after all it apparently states: "hardly any German intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom"

That is not an endorsement of religion and certainly not of the Catholic church. It is more likely a reference to pastors like Martin Niemöller, who said:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

"Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."

This is often extended to include references to other target groups, e.g. Jews, homosexuals, etc. The courage of a few low-level pastors, what in the Catholic tradition might be called "fighting priests" who speak truth to power (see Fr. Bernard Lynch), stands in stark contrast to the Catholic church's complicity in the Holocaust.

curious2 says

liberals and gay people are mentally defective;

1) liberalism is a mental disorder that seems to be the RESULT of drug use and/or a fixation on deviant sex.
2) "gay people" do not exist. Perverts and those suffering from gland issues do exist. Both of these are curable birth defects.

curious2 says

2) mentally defective people cannot consent to sex, so sex with any of them is rape;

that is correct, moral, and the law. Do you disagree??

curious2 says

3) rapists should be hanged. BTW, abortion is also murder, so anyone involved should be hanged.

1) rapists should be hanged. abortion is murder. correct, correct.
2) "anyone involved" is open ended. The taxi driver was the one who drove the girl .... the Ford Mo Co built the car .... Ike built the road .... I would limit the charge of murder to anyone engaged in the act of abortion for wage or ransom. The mother will be harmed for life, no need to heap punishment.

curious2 says

That merely suggests the Biblical rules have become obsolete, at least with regard to preventing the spread of disease.

and that posts shows you have not read Leviticus

Bap33 says

that posts shows you have not read Leviticus

...in fact I have, including the parts that prohibit pork and shellfish and fowl ("abomination"), and handling pigskin (football), and wearing clothing of mixed fiber, and Jews dining with Gentiles. The list of abominations is quite long, and the reason for your fixation on one in particular is obvious to everyone but you.

curious2 says

most on all sides were Catholic.

Not really, mainly because of some stupid Catholic rules that completely separate lots of people from the Church.

In regards to the Biblical accounts I don't think I need to remind you that Old Testament was compiled much later from muliple sources, mainly from various Liturgical cycles originated in different cities in Canaan.

As you surely know even when they preserve some historic stories the numbers are wildly exaggerated in such chronicles.

For example Greek chronicles claim Xerxes brought in a force of three millions. Modern estimates talk about like 60,000 combatants, which even counting also all kind off additional logistics and support people means that they exaggerated it at least 20 times.

curious2 says

This is often extended to include references to other target groups, e.g. Jews, homosexuals, etc. The courage of a few low-level pastors, what in the Catholic tradition might be called "fighting priests" who speak truth to power (see Fr. Bernard Lynch), stands in stark contrast to the Catholic church's complicity in the Holocaust.

As I've mentioned, his source in extremely unreliable, BTW, I tried to search their archives and found nothing on the matter. Please remember Einstein's name is a very big token and both Jews and Atheists try to appropriate it, apparently as well as Catholics. Holosaust is another huge political token, and "Catholic church's complicity in the Holocaust." is another big one.

So, on the one hand we have a statement published many times, on another an obscure unpublished letter, in custody of a very interested party.

Quite frankly, I tend to believe that Einsteins statement was somehow exaggerated by journalists and even that there exists a letter, where he mentions this. However, apparently, it did not completely change the meaning of Einsteins statement, otherwise he would deny it openly. Also apparently it was not satisfactory for the ideological needs that archive supposed to serve, so we probably won't see it published in near future.

Regarding Martin Niemöller's verses, I do not think it was related. In any version Einstein speaks about few churchmen, he would mention Niemöller in his letter, rather than few churchmen, especially because Einstein was aware of the very bad colaborion of Lutheran church with Nazis and Niemöller was a Lutheran pastor. Also Einstein's statement was very likely earlier than Niemöller's, or at least earlier than Einstein could learn about Niemöller's.