Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad

Slav, the reason I left out the Serbian genocide was not lack of awareness but I simply did'nt want to muddy the waters by bringing the Nazi element into it.

This is not to say that the Serbs have not done terrible things in their own right, but there is no doubt that Croatia has always been given somewhat of a free ride in the main because of their catholicism, the examples you mentioned, their facilitating the escape of Nazis after the war, and their behaviour in the break-up of Yugoslavia. If Frano Tuchman had survived he may been/should have been tried for war-crimes but you never hear his name mentioned in that light.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Tommy, ISAW has some kind of thing that allows him to remember points, facts etc. made by all sorts of writers, historical, and indeed contemporary too, it translates itself to boards too in his own way - in detail - point, by point - everything from many years, everything he ever read, every description, name and comprehension of same, he seems to absorb and talk about - he is not your average poster. He's like a super poster I don't think it's fair to assume he is tiresome, when so many want to debate him tirelessly? no?

I like reading through anyways.

It's not 'whataboutary' - it's fact! People may argue that times move on, etc, Stalin, Mao had the means of wiping out millions -

It doesn't matter about the 'cause' it's the lesson that is most important, every person with any kind of sense of freedom agrees.

All human beings are made in the image of God, everybody gets a fair chance - God is both Mercy and Justice - he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.

Sorry Imaopml, I can't agree with your eulogy to ISAW, to me it is a distortion of terminology, a constant whataboutery , and the relentless use of sources like wikepedia which ( to me anyway) has the effect of making some of his posts unreadable.

I half suspect at this stage that it is a deliberate tactic as if he was engaged in some holy war and to give an inch or actualy participate in a discussion where we may even learn from each other is anathema to him

On your final point - the cause always matters- if you don't try to understand the cause you will never learn the lesson.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

ISAW, I think your being pedantic about the extent that something can be attributed to atheism or catholicism.

Nope! I'm only pointing out that atheistic regimes I define as those with "There is no God" as a central principle.
Roman Catholicv is fairly much well defined by but I have offered "According to The Vatican , the Pope , a Council of the Church, or a widespread policy among the bishops having their Imprimatur and nihil obstat," as a central principle. It is fairly broad and takes in the fact that you might do away with the Vatican or a pope and still have a fairly agreed to set of "Roman" Catholic principles.

I'm just saying if you look at history atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions.
There are usually two responses by atheists to this.

1. They were not "atheistic regimes"
2. Catholics/the church killed people too.

To 1 i say "look at the definition I gave you " They WERE atheistic regimes.
To 2 i say "Well go on then list the killings and we can compare them to atheistic regimes"

Especially galling when all along everyone has been pointing out that your attributing of atrocities to atheism isn't consistent with any attribute of atheism.

Attribute of atheism ="There is no God"
atheistic regimes ="There is no God" as a central principle.

Care to please explain the inconsistency you insist exists above?

Anti theism is the windmill you should be tilting at.

And it is! Antitheistic ATHEISM. I mean wher are all the anti theistic theists? I have been quite clear that agnostics or atheists who do not attack the Church or regard the Bible as silly or even dangerous or behave as "evangelical" atheists are fine by me. It is only the ones proposing atheism as a superiour belief or proposing it as a principle by which society should live with which I have a crow to pluck! Not alone that but fundamentalists may also be religious. I don't debate fundamentalist Jews, Muslims, Christians or Nazis in this thread either but i am quite happy to elsewhere.

Everybody condemns genocide and ethnic or sectarian killings,

you speak for "everybody" now do you? Well you would be wrong. fundamentalists ( whether they be atheistic or whatever DON'T condemn it and rather applaud it)

however being unwilling to admit that thees events happen in a context that contributes to both their scale and nature isn't helping define the problem.

What exactly do you mean by "these events" and " a context that contributes to both their scale and nature"

Unfortunately Christianity has in some contexts contributed to appalling acts, as has anti theism which comes from a reaction to theism rather than atheism.

Aha! back to 2 above.Care to list where christianity contributed to appalling acts and list how many dead and compare it "in context" to atheistic regimes?

Yes you can describe a regime thats anti theistic as atheist but that leads to misatribution of the cause.

And that is back to "they are real atheists but atheism didn't cause it" but how can you then attribute "Christians contributed " when you don't accept the same for atheists "Atheists didn't contribute" apparently?

Your as guilty of painting all with one brush as the anti theistic atheists that you disagree with so venomously.

I dont paint all atheists or all christians with the one brush!
The point is of anyone claims "Christianity was a terrible thing for the world and continued to be" ansd attacks Christians for their beliefs then they are open to " atheism was a terrible thing for the world" F they then respond "that was not atheism that was just some totalitarian atheists" how come christians can't sauy "that was not Christianity it was just some totalitarian Christians" ?
In other words if you are going to claim belief systems have nothing to do with it how can you then ever criticise Christianity or present atheism as a better way?

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

And it is! Antitheistic ATHEISM. I mean wher are all the anti theistic theists? I have been quite clear that agnostics or atheists who do not attack the Church or regard the Bible as silly or even dangerous or behave as "evangelical" atheists are fine by me. It is only the ones proposing atheism as a superiour belief or proposing it as a principle by which society should live with which I have a crow to pluck!

Let me give you an example.

The A&A forum has a number of stickies. I think every forum is restricted to six. One is usually the charter. That leaves five. what are they.
One is about laughing at and ridiculing religion.
One is about the dangers of religion.
One is about ongoing scandals (with the usual misinformed media myths about Vatican policy, and the tiny number of abusing clergy compared to the rest of society regularly trotted out)

ironingbored

lmaopml wrote: »

All human beings are made in the image of God

Although it may not seem like it, this is a serious question.

If we are made in the image of God, is this true for when we are straining on the toilet? Or when we urinate and procreate from the same orifice? Or is God like the aliens in Cocoon? I really don't understand how humans (with their inarguably badly "designed" bodies can be "as one" with the supreme creator of then universe.

lmaopml wrote: »

everybody gets a fair chance

This is a phrase that really irks me. Like hell everyone get a second chance; whether it be people born into famine-ravaged communities in Ethiopia or the AIDS-infected children of South African prostitutes.

PDN

ironingbored wrote: »

Although it may not seem like it, this is a serious question.

If we are made in the image of God, is this true for when we are straining on the toilet? Or when we urinate and procreate from the same orifice? Or is God like the aliens in Cocoon? I really don't understand how humans (with their inarguably badly "designed" bodies can be "as one" with the supreme creator of then universe.

Being made in the image of God does not refer to our physical appearence, but to our possession of a spirit, and the ability to make good moral choices. So, even when we are straining on the jacks, or urinating, or procreating, we have the ability to love others, and even to make sacrifices for others. So, yes, at those moments it is still true that we are made in God's image.

Of course that image has been horribly marred and defaced by making the wrong moral decisions (what we, on this side of the fence, call 'sin'). Which leads rather neatly to your next question.

This is a phrase that really irks me. Like hell everyone get a second chance; whether it be people born into famine-ravaged communities in Ethiopia or the AIDS-infected children of South African prostitutes.

I think she said 'a fair chance' not 'a second chance'.

And that all depends on what chance she's talking about. If she's talking about a chance to respond to God's love, then the New Testament indicates that God has a special compassion for the poor. So I fully expect heaven to be full of Ethiopian famine victims and the AIDS infected children of South African prostitutes. Indeed, Jesus indicated that their very presence will stand in stark contrast to the proud and self-satisfied cubs of the Celtic Tiger who refused to lift a finger to help them.

tommy2bad

ISAW you seen to mixing up forums. This is the Christianity forum not A&A.
When I said 'everyone' I was talking in the context of this thread, not the whole damned world.
Here we discuss christianity and alternatives and how they fit both us and the world we live in. Atheism is an option for people. Is it wrong to question our believes in the context of other options?
You have chosen Christianity and cant seem to see any value in anything else. OK I'm fine with that, but to dismiss atheism because of the things that some atheists have done is as off the wall as the dismissing of all theistic systems because of Muslim terrorism, Christian crusades or protestant witch hunts.
Atheism is the belief that their is no god. Full stop, it doesn't include any ideology of religion good or bad. It's all a human construct, the same as communism or liberalism or rave culture as far as an atheist world view is concerned.
Yet you continue to howl about the excess of regimes that used tactics to maintain power that would shame the devil himself. Tactics that were also used by theistic regimes at different times in history.
Evil is something that permeates every human endeavor, has done since a pink lady got bitten.

marienbad

tommy2bad wrote: »

ISAW you seen to mixing up forums. This is the Christianity forum not A&A.
When I said 'everyone' I was talking in the context of this thread, not the whole damned world.
Here we discuss christianity and alternatives and how they fit both us and the world we live in. Atheism is an option for people. Is it wrong to question our believes in the context of other options?
You have chosen Christianity and cant seem to see any value in anything else. OK I'm fine with that, but to dismiss atheism because of the things that some atheists have done is as off the wall as the dismissing of all theistic systems because of Muslim terrorism, Christian crusades or protestant witch hunts.
Atheism is the belief that their is no god. Full stop, it doesn't include any ideology of religion good or bad. It's all a human construct, the same as communism or liberalism or rave culture as far as an atheist world view is concerned.
Yet you continue to howl about the excess of regimes that used tactics to maintain power that would shame the devil himself. Tactics that were also used by theistic regimes at different times in history.
Evil is something that permeates every human endeavor, has done since a pink lady got bitten.

Hitler -catholic/Rudolph Hoess-catholic/Himmler-Catholic/Heydrich-catholic/Klaus Barbie -catholic
Hess- Protestant/Bormann-Protestant/Heinrich Muller-Protestant/Speer-Protestant/Eichman-Protestant

I could go on.. and on .. and on.

What would that tell us about christianity?

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

ISAW you seen to mixing up forums. This is the Christianity forum not A&A.

TommyYou seem to be mixing up logic and reason with something else.
You proposed something about atheism not being anti theistic.
I pointed out i am only referring to anti theistic elements.
I pointed you to the nearest "atheist" forum.
I pointed out that they are not unduly focused on how the world can be made a better place due to positive atheism.
I pointed out there is a huge focus on
1. Trying to show how the Church is illogical/unreasonable silly
2. Claims about how dangerous belief is
3. Focusing to an extreme degree on abuse by a tiny minority of clerics in particular which happens to a vanishingly small degree ( one or two single cases per decade compared to thousands and thousands by non clergy) and using this as a stick to beat the church.


I am a member and have been to irish skeptics meetings. I have met religious people there. I don't view religion as anti skeptic . But there is an element who view skepticism as something which has to preach atheism and views belief as a social "evil"

When I said 'everyone' I was talking in the context of this thread, not the whole damned world.

When I stated "history" I was referring to the history of the human race and when I stated atheistic "atrocities" I was referring to atheistic regimes and not just the element of anti theist atheists in the A&A or any other forum.

Here we discuss christianity and alternatives and how they fit both us and the world we live in. Atheism is an option for people. Is it wrong to question our believes in the context of other options?

Given this id the thread for discussing atheism in the Christianity forum don't blame me for pointing out fundamentalist atheism killed hundreds of millions.

You have chosen Christianity and cant seem to see any value in anything else.

I almost never if at all mention my personal beliefs. They have nothing to do with the issue. If you look at the thread on "what do you believe in" I specifically state that I prefer to keep my personal beliefs out of the discussion and objectively discuss the claims made by other people.

I don't claim my personal beliefs are superior in value to others so don't try to drag the discussion into that. I don't claim anything at all about my personal beliefs. This is about what atheists claim!

OK I'm fine with that, but to dismiss atheism because of the things that some atheists have done is as off the wall as the dismissing of all theistic systems because of Muslim terrorism, Christian crusades or protestant witch hunts.

Well now having stated this is about Christianity i note you slipped in Islam. As for crusades to which Protestant ones do you refer? From my recollection most of the posting here attacking is attacking two elements
1. Fringe elements of fundamental Christians who are not mainstream and most would not even consider christian such as Creationists and Westboro Baptist types.
2. The Roman Catholic church ( and their clergy in particular) . This anti Catholic element isn't restricted to just the Christianity forum as I have stated. The overspill of it is found in politics and afterhours even to the extent that criticising politicians by pointing to their atheism is considered a "sin"

Atheism is the belief that their is no god. Full stop, it doesn't include any ideology of religion good or bad.

A central principle of atheistic regimes is "there is no God"

It's all a human construct, the same as communism or liberalism or rave culture as far as an atheist world view is concerned.

Please don't divert into the failed theory of memetics or into sociological constructivism.

Yet you continue to howl about the excess of regimes that used tactics to maintain power that would shame the devil himself. Tactics that were also used by theistic regimes at different times in history.

Rarely used by the Roman Catholic Church and never to the extent atheistic regimes. And the Church East and West also provided stability, education, architecture etc. What did atheism supply?

Evil is something that permeates every human endeavor, has done since a pink lady got bitten.

So you agree in natural law with respect to morals whether or not atheism is true or false?

tommy2bad

What did atheism supply?

I think we are talking past each other here tbh.
Anyway.....
Atheism supplies nothing, its a non belief not a belief. Atheists work from something else, humanist values, belief in democracy, belief in authoritarianism whatever. Their is no atheist bible or ten commandments of atheism* or book of the dead.
What an atheist dose is based on the assumption that this is all their is. Christians believe that their is a heaven and hell, that this world is not the end of the story.

*http://
reason.com/blog/2011/10/31/penn-jillettes-10-commandments
Well OK their is but you get my point

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Hitler -catholic/Rudolph Hoess-catholic/Himmler-Catholic/Heydrich-catholic/Klaus Barbie -catholic
Hess- Protestant/Bormann-Protestant/Heinrich Muller-Protestant/Speer-Protestant/Eichman-Protestant

I could go on.. and on .. and on.

Hitler -excommunicated I believe. Nazis , 29 papal encyclicals when hitler was in power - ALL were anti Nazi. RCC clergy persecuted because ofg anti Nazi stance. Catholics didnt vote for Hitler.
I could go on and an.

What would that tell us about christianity?

It would tell us the roman catholic church opposed Naziism always.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

I think we are talking past each other here tbh.
Anyway.....
Atheism supplies nothing,

Thank you for that. Cases closed.

What an atheist dose is based on the assumption that this is all their is. Christians believe that their is a heaven and hell, that this world is not the end of the story.

Slightly simplistic. Christians don't necessarily do things because of a promised reward or punishment. They do them because it is the good and right thing to do out of love for other people.

tommy2bad

They do them because it is the good and right thing to do out of love for other people.

Risking another Scotsman but some do and some don't. Christian, Muslim and Jew, even atheists.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

Risking another Scotsman but some do and some don't. Christian, Muslim and Jew, even atheists.

REad the preceding sentence "don't necessarily do things" i.e yes some do but you have fallen into your own trap. Your counter argument for atheists committing atrocities was "that isn't all atheists only the fundamentalist/anti-theist ones"

Let me raise a relaed point. Let us ( since we agree on natural law or an overarching sense of "good" ) just classify all the nasty people ( whether atheist or Christian or not and whether they get to Hell or Heaven or not) as the group who destroy socvieties and the "good" people as thise who don't and who instead conbtribute to society. How is it historically speaking that the overwhelming majority of the nasties are atheistic and almost all the good group are believers?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Hitler -excommunicated I believe. Nazis , 29 papal encyclicals when hitler was in power - ALL were anti Nazi. RCC clergy persecuted because ofg anti Nazi stance. Catholics didnt vote for Hitler.
I could go on and an.


It would tell us the roman catholic church opposed Naziism always.

As you say yourself- simplistic and as far as I am aware Hitler was never excommunicated.And to my knowledge never renounced his catholicism. And in all the various oaths that the nazis were so fond of, hitler and god always had pride of place.

Again your reading of history is flawed, Catholics did'nt initially vote for Hitler but that soon changed .It was the staunchly catholic Von Papen and the catholic party that finally enabled Hitler to get his mitts on power and this at a time when the nazis were losing votes .Despite serving in various roles for the nazis throughtout the war Von Papen had his papal titles restored by the Pope in the late 50's.

Don't get me started on Heydrich Himmler and Tiso ( a serving catholic priest !) and the rest of that murderous gang.

I could go on and on and on.

But what does this say about Christianity ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

As you say yourself- simplistic and as far as I am aware Hitler was never excommunicated. And to my knowledge never renounced his catholicism. And in all the various oaths that the nazis were so fond of, hitler and god always had pride of place.

Well let me inform your awarweness and conscience

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72543673&postcount=101

all members of the Nazi party were excommunicated in 1930 by the conferrence of German bishops and catholics were forbidden to join the party.

See pages 8-9 and comment on the bottom of page 66 in
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise.pdf

Again your reading of history is flawed, Catholics did'nt initially vote for Hitler but that soon changed .

Nope! See page 22-26
And if you wish i can supply maps of voting patterns.

It was the staunchly catholic Von Papen and the catholic party that finally enabled Hitler to get his mitts on power and this at a time when the nazis were losing votes .Despite serving in various roles for the nazis throughtout the war Von Papen had his papal titles restored by the Pope in the late 50's.

see Chapter IV beginning page 33

Don't get me started on Heydrich Himmler and Tiso ( a serving catholic priest !) and the rest of that murderous gang.

Himmler saw Catholic allegiance to Rome as an ideological challenge to the SS Aryan Order, and regarded its influence on youth as pernicious. 'Heydrich pursued the SS vendetta against the Church with relentless venom.'
Source: Killing of Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich, C. MacDonald, 1989 p. 30 in the above p.61

I could go on and on and on.

As could I. I you have unsupported opinion. I have cited historical sources, meetings of roman Catholic Bishops etc.

But what does this say about Christianity ?

That the Roman Catholic church didnt vote for or support the Nazis.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Well let me inform your awarweness and conscience

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72543673&postcount=101


See pages 8-9 and comment on the bottom of page 66 in
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise.pdf


That is not a source ISAW- that is church history and is suitable biased, but I would ask you to read my post more carefully - I never said that catholics supported Hitles initially, some did , most did'nt ( But overall Christians enabled the the gutting of democracy and the rise of Hitler, presumably on the notion that anything was better than communism), But it was Von Papen that facilitated Hitlers final push to power, and the catholic parties rowed in behind that.

As for Himmler he was always a catholic and dragged in his own aryan mysticism crap into the mix. Heydrich' s family - his wife and children were all staunchly catholic and continued as such long after the war, his wife only died in the 80's.

Like Von Paper I notice you skip on Father Tiso , I wonder why ?

But you are answering any question but the question I am asking you,for at least the 3rd time, which is

what does the fact the all these nazi leaders were christian say about christianity ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW wrote: »

Well let me inform your awarweness and conscience

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72543673&postcount=101


See pages 8-9 and comment on the bottom of page 66 in
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise.pdf





That is not a source ISAW- that is church history and is suitable biased, but I would ask you to read my post more carefully

It IS a source and if you think it is biased care to show where the writer is academically dishonest?

I never said that catholics supported Hitles initially, some did , most did'nt ( But overall Christians enabled the the gutting of democracy and the rise of Hitler, presumably on the notion that anything was better than communism),

You didn't read the chapter on Van Pappen did you? when you do would you care to show where it is wrong?

But it was Von Papen that facilitated Hitlers final push to power, and the catholic parties rowed in behind that.

Where is the chapter on him in error?

As for Himmler he was always a catholic and dragged in his own aryan mysticism crap into the mix.

One cant be both a theosophist and a Christian!

Heydrich' s family - his wife and children were all staunchly catholic and continued as such long after the war, his wife only died in the 80's.

Now you are switching the claim. what war crimes did his family commit and we will see if the church supported them.

Like Von Paper I notice you skip on Father Tiso , I wonder why ?

Because I was researching the journal article below.

what does the fact the all these nazi leaders were christian say about christianity ?

You seem to have ignored the fact

Excommunicated and NOT chriostian deos not mean they were working for Rome or with the approval of the Vatican or even of the German bishops

You have not admitted you acknowledge the correction of your "nazis not excommunicated" statement.


Well let me inform your awarweness and conscience

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72543673&postcount=101

all members of the Nazi party were excommunicated in 1930 by the conferrence of German bishops and catholics were forbidden to join the party.

See pages 8-9 and comment on the bottom of page 66 in
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise.pdf

Again your reading of history is flawed, Catholics did'nt initially vote for Hitler but that soon changed .

And you evidence is?
here is mine:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/07/catholics-and-nazi-vote-1932.html


See page 22-26 in the pdf . By "see" I mean actually read them and tell me anything that is in error!

Addendum:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_fascism
According to Griffin, the use of the term 'clerical fascism' should be limited to "the peculiar forms of politics that arise when religious clerics and professional theologians are drawn either into collusion with the secular ideology of fascism (an occurrence particularly common in interwar Europe)
Roger Griffin, "The 'Holy Storm': 'Clerical fascism' through the Lens of Modernism", Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 8, N.2, 213-227, June 2007
Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions is an academic journal Griffin edited
http://history.brookes.ac.uk/staff/prof.asp?ID=584
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ftmp20/8/2
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14690760701321130
Gives you the first page where you will note "collusion" by some clerics rather than "synthesis" between Catholic and fascist philosophies mentioned at the bottom.

That IS a source in an academic journal!

marienbad

ISAW are you at all capable of answering a straight question ? What does it say about Christianity that all of these guys were Christians ? If you want to make it Christian upbringing or Christian at one time , lapsed christians a la carte christians - no problem.

What does it say about Christianity that it spawned this lot ?? Are you capable of answering that simple question ??

The Quadratic Equation

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW are you at all capable of answering a straight question ? What does it say about Christianity that all of these guys were Christians ? If you want to make it Christian upbringing or Christian at one time , lapsed christians a la carte christians - no problem.

What does it say about Christianity that it spawned this lot ?? Are you capable of answering that simple question ??

All we see is ISAW providing sources and facts, and yet you provide nothing to support your hysteria and prejudices.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry Imaopml, I can't agree with your eulogy to ISAW, to me it is a distortion of terminology, a constant whataboutery , and the relentless use of sources like wikepedia which ( to me anyway) has the effect of making some of his posts unreadable.

It wasn't a eulogy Marien, and by all means Wiki ( jaded as it may seem ) is quoted a heck of a lot by various people..:pac:

I half suspect at this stage that it is a deliberate tactic as if he was engaged in some holy war and to give an inch or actualy participate in a discussion where we may even learn from each other is anathema to him

No, I think it's rather ridiculous to engage in debate and then resort to ad hominem or personalised replies that scream, 'poor me, having to debate with you, the way you debate etc. - even though I am engaging freely with you..' sounds kind of silly to be honest, nobody is hitting the keyboard in response except you yourself really that responds - and not a little pleading imo too - Heck, don't do it so! Simple.

On your final point - the cause always matters- if you don't try to understand the cause you will never learn the lesson.

True, the cause is worth examination; but where difficulty arises and arguementation, then the effect is a universal truth that is undeniable - we can examine the effect and in general right it down to fundamentalism of some sort - and that my friend, comes in every variety. That was the lesson I suppose. Well, it's what I see anyway!

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

It wasn't a eulogy Marien, and by all means Wiki ( jaded as it may seem ) is quoted a heck of a lot by various people..:pac:



No, I think it's rather ridiculous to engage in debate and then resort to ad hominem or personalised replies that scream, 'poor me, having to debate with you, the way you debate etc. - even though I am engaging freely with you..' sounds kind of silly to be honest, nobody is hitting the keyboard in response except you yourself really that responds - and not a little pleading imo too - Heck, don't do it so! Simple.



True, the cause is worth examination; but where difficulty arises and arguementation, then the effect is a universal truth that is undeniable - we can examine the effect and in general right it down to fundamentalism of some sort - and that my friend, comes in every variety. That was the lesson I suppose. Well, it's what I see anyway!

No ad hominem at all , Impaoml , or special pleading , or poor me . Just responding to your description of ISAW's posting - you did, after all, bring it up so don't be too surprised when not everyone agrees with your critique.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

No ad hominem at all , Impaoml , or special pleading , or poor me . Just responding to your description of ISAW's posting - you did, after all, bring it up so don't be too surprised when not everyone agrees with your critique.

Well it's perfectly obvious that you don't agree with my critique! Or indeed my critique of anything in particular to do with Christianity, which is the forum I post on, on boards. So, that said - I wish you every success, but I don't subscribe and never will to your worldview - I hope you can accept that within your vision of a free society - that's your challenge, and mine Marien.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW are you at all capable of answering a straight question ?

yes

What does it say about Christianity that all of these guys were Christians ?

That question is what is called "loaded" . It is circular reasoning. If you already define all the bad people in the world as Christian and you then ask "Well what can you conclude about all these christians?" what kind of question is it?
I have already shown you
1.they were excommunicated
2. the Church preached against them
3. Clergy who opposed them were executed

But you still try to claim all the nazis were Christian when the church actually opposed nazism?

If you want to make it Christian upbringing or Christian at one time , lapsed christians a la carte christians - no problem.

i clearly defined atheist and Catholic above . christian is a bit broader maybe but still not responsible for atrocities on any scale comparable with atheistic regimes.

What does it say about Christianity that it spawned this lot ?? Are you capable of answering that simple question ??

Yes. As regards the Catholic Church it says that
1. they didn't spawn nazism- which has been explained here and in more depth elsewhere
2. They didn't support the nazism after Hitler got in power.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Well it's perfectly obvious that you don't agree with my critique! Or indeed my critique of anything in particular to do with Christianity, which is the forum I post on, on boards. So, that said - I wish you every success, but I don't subscribe and never will to your worldview - I hope you can accept that within your vision of a free society - that's your challenge, and mine Marien.

Just out of interest imaopml as you brought it up what do you think is my world view, everything here is so adversarial though I think you may be quite surprised.

marienbad

Isaw try listening carefully this time- my question to you is what does Hitler Himmler Klause Barbie Rudelf Hoess Goebels, Bormann Arthur Nebe heydrich- goering speer eichman Heinrich muller spawed as they were in staunch christian houshoulds- what does does that say about christianity ??


Could I have answer please

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Isaw try listening carefully this time- my question to you is what does Hitler Himmler Klause Barbie Rudelf Hoess Goebels, Bormann Arthur Nebe heydrich- goering speer eichman Heinrich muller spawed as they were in staunch christian houshoulds- what does does that say about christianity ??

Hitler Himmler Klause Barbie Rudelf Hoess Goebels, Bormann Arthur Nebe heydrich- goering speer eichman and Heinrich muller were not christians with the possible exception of Speer.

Stalin was laso brought up as a Christian. anyone brought up as a christian can reject it. Satan apparently rejected God too. Knowledge of Christianity and deciding to follow christ are two different things.

Could I have answer please

You already have. Ask and the door will be opened. when you see an open door you still can decide not to walk through it.
Your continuous attempt to claim cristianuity is the cause of atheistic ot non Christian atrocities is a bit weak.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Hitler Himmler Klause Barbie Rudelf Hoess Goebels, Bormann Arthur Nebe heydrich- goering speer eichman and Heinrich muller were not christians with the possible exception of Speer.

Stalin was laso brought up as a Christian. anyone brought up as a christian can reject it. Satan apparently rejected God too. Knowledge of Christianity and deciding to follow christ are two different things.



You already have. Ask and the door will be opened. when you see an open door you still can decide not to walk through it.
Your continuous attempt to claim cristianuity is the cause of atheistic ot non Christian atrocities is a bit weak.

Show me any attempt where I have tried to make such a claim ??

Now stop dodging and tell me what does the fact that these toads had a staunch christian ubringing say about christianity ?

Doc Farrell

Sorry, you can ignore this post, I'll leave it up but the word I was looking for was eisegesis.


Can somebody help me out here, my brain isn't working for some reason. I'm looking for the word that defines when someone in the present day interprets historical events according to their current philosophical outlook.
For example if a child says that Christopher Columbus was a very naughty man because he never stopped slave trading after the discovery of America.
Its not hermeneutics, exegesis, teleology, historiology.
There's another word for it.
Another example would be condemning a scientist for investigating nuclear energy at the turn of the previous century because that knowledge was later used to create a bomb.
I'm not trying to derail the thread, u can pm me if you like. Another example would be that the roman empire before Christ was somehow wrong because it wasn't Christian, a kind of naive ultra critical revisionism, what's the word please?

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

No, I think it's rather ridiculous to engage in debate and then resort to ad hominem or personalised replies that scream, 'poor me, having to debate with you, the way you debate etc. - even though I am engaging freely with you..' sounds kind of silly to be honest, nobody is hitting the keyboard in response except you yourself really that responds - and not a little pleading imo too - Heck, don't do it so! Simple

The only reason I engage in extended debate is because others might be reading the argument. Debating with ISAW is very tedious. His thesis on atheism and atrocities is easily dismissed with a cursory glance at the historical evidence. Though he has now retreated to the position of "non-Catholics" and "anti-theists". He is still wrong, but he is at least leaving atheism alone.