History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWhy believe in God?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>
Author
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 21:08
 
Quote Carcharodon
The main ideology in communism was not atheism, it was Marks ideas about class struggle. And the Nazis racial ideology was not a product of atheism either.


The Soviet Union was an atheist state, it supported an atheist ideology and taught this in the education system.

How about the Khmer Rouge, another atheist state, one of the worst recent cases of crimes against humanity.

Are all atheists to blame for these crimes or just the perpetrator? can be blame atheism for their crimes?





      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 21:09
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

No it isn't, no matter how hard people like Dawkins and Hitchens try and pull that one. Atheism is the belief there are no gods (it has nothing to do with 'supernatural beings' in general, one way or the other)
 
Many atheists are not as active in their atheism as Dawkins  an his fellows, many just don´t belive in something which existence has never been proven. It´s just critical thinking.
 
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 21:20
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

 
The Soviet Union was an atheist state, it supported an atheist ideology and taught this in the education system.

How about the Khmer Rouge, another atheist state, one of the worst recent cases of crimes against humanity.

Are all atheists to blame for these crimes or just the perpetrator? can be blame atheism for their crimes?
 
As I said, the important ideological ground for the communists was not atheism but the struggle of classes.
 
In a theocracy the fundament of it´s ideology and the main rationale of it´s opressive acts are religious in it´s nature.
 
A religious oppressor says: "I do this in the name of God."
 
A communist or nazi opressor doesn´t say. "I do this because there are no God."
 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 22:43
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

 
The Soviet Union was an atheist state, it supported an atheist ideology and taught this in the education system.

How about the Khmer Rouge, another atheist state, one of the worst recent cases of crimes against humanity.

Are all atheists to blame for these crimes or just the perpetrator? can be blame atheism for their crimes?
 
As I said, the important ideological ground for the communists was not atheism but the struggle of classes.
 
In a theocracy the fundament of it´s ideology and the main rationale of it´s opressive acts are religious in it´s nature.
 
A religious oppressor says: "I do this in the name of God."
 
A communist or nazi opressor doesn´t say. "I do this because there are no God."
 


While I agree that the reality of God plays a much more central role -- indeed, the central role -- in the Christian tradition, I think you underestimate it's role in informing, among other things, Marxist ideology. After all, taking a strictly materialistic view of the world requires a rejection of historical Christian consciousness, and is one of the primary reasons Marxist regimes feel a need to persecute the Church.

-Akolouthos

P.S. Constantine, I'll respond to you eventually. Credit my unfortunate tendency to be scatterbrained for my tardiness, and accept my apologies. I do want, as always, to give myself time to think through what you have written. Smile


Edited by Akolouthos - 10-Jun-2009 at 22:44
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 23:13
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:


While I agree that the reality of God plays a much more central role -- indeed, the central role -- in the Christian tradition, I think you underestimate it's role in informing, among other things, Marxist ideology. After all, taking a strictly materialistic view of the world requires a rejection of historical Christian consciousness, and is one of the primary reasons Marxist regimes feel a need to persecute the Church.
 
One other reason for the persecution of the churches is the part these (or similar religious bodies) had in the old feudal societies that the marxists wanted to replace. The churches was seen as a part of an old repressive system that must be eradicated.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 23:18
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:


While I agree that the reality of God plays a much more central role -- indeed, the central role -- in the Christian tradition, I think you underestimate it's role in informing, among other things, Marxist ideology. After all, taking a strictly materialistic view of the world requires a rejection of historical Christian consciousness, and is one of the primary reasons Marxist regimes feel a need to persecute the Church.
 
One other reason for the persecution of the churches is the part these (or similar religious bodies) had in the old feudal societies that the marxists wanted to replace. The churches was seen as a part of an old repressive system that must be eradicated.


I believe you, but I think we should look a bit deeper. Why were they able to do this? Did they possess a predisposition to do this which was prejudiced by their ideology? Were they more likely to look upon the Church as "an old repressive system that must be eradicated" because they were so staunchly atheist? While I agree with your initial statement, these are the questions that I think it would be productive to examine in light of the current discussion.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 23:21
Concerning the racial theories of the Nazis they relied of cource heavily on social darwinism but also on older western traditions of slavery and colonialism, traditions that were interwoven with christian belief.
 
The christian participation in racial ideological thinking can be exemplified by the Virgina judge when confronting the Loving couple claimed that God hade made the races different and created them to live on different continents. So it would be a crime against God for people to engage in interracial marriage.
 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 00:15
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Concerning the racial theories of the Nazis they relied of cource heavily on social darwinism but also on older western traditions of slavery and colonialism, traditions that were interwoven with christian belief.
 
The christian participation in racial ideological thinking can be exemplified by the Virgina judge when confronting the Loving couple claimed that God hade made the races different and created them to live on different continents. So it would be a crime against God for people to engage in interracial marriage.
 


First, I didn't bring up the Nazi's, primarily because I don't believe that their genocide had a great deal of religious motivation; I mentioned Marxism. I do think that you'll have your work cut out for you if you wish to prove that Christian belief is wedded to the institution of slavery -- as we understand it in a Western context -- and colonialism. I'd be interested to see you discuss the subject; watching you pontificate about your dogmatic methodological presuppositiongs would be tedious. Second, I haven't the foggiest idea to what you are referring with regard to the case of your judge, which you haven't clarified, and have failed to tie to anything more than the straw man you continue to insist upon attacking. Thus, I don't see the relevance, but if it as something of substance -- rather than something you had in mind before ever we began conversing -- feel free to share it.

Would you care to respond to anything I actually did post? LOL

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 11-Jun-2009 at 00:16
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 00:56
Quote Carcharodon
As I said, the important ideological ground for the communists was not atheism but the struggle of classes.


The examples I gave had "state atheism", part of their ideology was atheism.

Quote Carcharadon
In a theocracy the fundament of it´s ideology and the main rationale of it´s opressive acts are religious in it´s nature.


No, oppression is carried out by power hungry people and tyrants, its doesn't matter what the ideology.
 
Quote Carcharadon
A religious oppressor says: "I do this in the name of God."
 
A communist or nazi opressor doesn´t say. "I do this because there are no God."


Communist oppressors have persecuted religious peoples as well, its naive to think religious leaders are bad while atheists are good...
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 00:57
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:


First, I didn't bring up the Nazi's, primarily because I don't believe that their genocide had a great deal of religious motivation; I mentioned Marxism. I do think that you'll have your work cut out for you if you wish to prove that Christian belief is wedded to the institution of slavery -- as we understand it in a Western context -- and colonialism. I'd be interested to see you discuss the subject; watching you pontificate about your dogmatic methodological presuppositiongs would be tedious. Second, I haven't the foggiest idea to what you are referring with regard to the case of your judge, which you haven't clarified, and have failed to tie to anything more than the straw man you continue to insist upon attacking. Thus, I don't see the relevance, but if it as something of substance -- rather than something you had in mind before ever we began conversing -- feel free to share it.

Would you care to respond to anything I actually did post? LOL

-Akolouthos
 
I was not only responding to your post, I was also taking up matters forwarded by other posters (for example the thing about the nazis).
 
As for slavery and colonialism, it was christian cultures and christian people who were involved in those phenomena and some of them rationalized their behaviour by stating that slavery was supported by the Bible or that is was a duty to civilize and christian the "savages" in other parts of the world.
 
At the same time there were also christians who were against slavery and opression. But of course  christians have had different views about many questions, like ethics, moral and other things. Yes, many christians haven´t even been able to unify in the interpretation of the sayings of the Bible about the nature of God, and how one shall look upon Jesus.
 
About the judge: This judge was a Virgina judge that forbid the Lovings to live as a married couple in that state. The couple later took their case to the high court where they finally won in 1967. So until that year it was actually illegal for a black and white interracial couple to be married in some of the states of the USA. The Virgina judge referd to the will of God when he refused the couple to live together as man and wife.
 
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 01:08
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

The examples I gave had "state atheism", part of their ideology was atheism.
 
Atehism was not the important part. Read Marx. Religion was disliked because it was seen as a part of an old oppressive system.

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

No, oppression is carried out by power hungry people and tyrants, its doesn't matter what the ideology.
 
Hunger for power and fanatic religiosity doesn´t exlude each other.

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

Communist oppressors have persecuted religious peoples as well, its naive to think religious leaders are bad while atheists are good...
 
Of course noone thinks that all atheists are good. But it´s not a part of atheism to persecute dissidents. But some religions actually encourages the belivers not to tolerate people that don´t believe in their God, or are adherents of other religions.
 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 01:17
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

I was not only responding to your post, I was also taking up matters forwarded by other posters (for example the thing about the nazis).


Gotcha. Just wanted to clarify.

Quote As for slavery and colonialism, it was christian cultures and christian people who were involved in those phenomena and some of them rationalized their behaviour by stating that slavery was supported by the Bible or that is was a duty to civilize and christian the "savages" in other parts of the world.

At the same time there were also christians who were against slavery and opression. But of course  christians have had different views about many questions, like ethics, moral and other things. Yes, many christians haven´t even been able to unify in the interpretation of the sayings of the Bible about the nature of God, and how one shall look upon Jesus.


I think when you refer to slavery, you are generally referring to slavery post-colonialism -- which, perhaps, I should have inferred, given your juxtaposition of colonialism with the topic of slavery. Still, slavery was not unknown in the ancient world either, and this is the world in which Christianity was incubated. It seems, then, that it would profit us to examine in what sense Christians considered slavery justified or unjustified, and in what sense those Christians who considered it justified understood it. The intersection of the timeless faith with culture which, of necessity, must exist in time is the proper context in which we can seek to gain an understanding of the relationship between unchanging doctrinal tenets and changes in the way they were applied. There are, of necessity, disagreements with regard to the application of the Christian worldview, as there are in so many other areas of philosophical discussion. That said, this does not mean that all of these perspectives are created equal -- or evolve equally, if you prefer. Wink

You have touched on some of this above. An expansion would include references to some of the ancient fathers as well as Scriptural perspectives on slavery; the Pauline corpus -- and specifically Philemon -- would be a good place to start.

Colonialism is a separate matter entirely. You will often find both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches at odds with the structures of imperial/secular colonial authority during the Early Modern Era.

Quote About the judge: This judge was a Virgina judge that forbid the Lovings to live as a married couple in that state. The couple later took their case to the high court where they finally won in 1967. So until that year it was actually illegal for a black and white interracial couple to be married in some of the states of the USA. The Virgina judge referd to the will of God when he refused the couple to live together as man and wife.


I repudiate his judgment; it is that simple. He would have an impossible time proving the case from Scripture. Surely anyone may take anything out of context, but we do have the consensus patrum to turn to, as well as the writings of Scripture, and both demonstrably refute the judge's opinion. As for whether or not this can be used as a testimony against all theists, or even all Christians, one would just as soon ascribe the acions of the "Cult of Reason" during the French Revolution to all atheists. In effect, such an equivalency is precisely the sort of thing that goes on in these "You guys did it more!" threads. Painting with so broad a brush is always dangerous, and almost always untenable.

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 11-Jun-2009 at 01:20
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 01:22
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Regardless of the learning curve, how do the natural sciences reject divinity?


A very worthy question. The most direct and valid answer is that despite everything we have learned about the natural sciences, none of that provides evidence for a belief in the existence of a divinity. To believe something in the absence of any evidence is simply flawed.

While most of these belief systems will claim an interventionist role played by a divine power (i.e. an example of its manifestation), we are yet to have reliable evidence to observe such a thing. Until someone can demonstrate a valid and realiable manifestation of divinity, we must conclude that everything we have learned about the natural sciences points towards their operation occurring within universal laws but not with the design or intervention of a divine power.



Thanks for your answer CXI, I forgot to respond till now. I certainly see the difficulty in examining divinity or the "unknown". I wonder about the particular type of evidence we are gathering and whether it is acceptable in order to conduct research on divinity. Do we reject divinity because we fail to commonly accept what divinity calls to itself? Can't holy books be accepted as evidence of examples of divinty's work? Isn't a numerically structured book evidence? What about divine books that tell us that time is relative or that the universe is continually expanding? Would we reject evidence from a book that taught us that the Earth's atmosphere is a protective sheild; that wind pollinates plants; that water is the main ingredient to life and that life is created in stages and evolves? Why should we dismiss such evidence especially when the evidence was brought to us long before the advent of tools currently used to measure these phenomena?

Maybe I am more perplexed now than I was a few minutes ago. Not only had I previously wanted to know about how the natural sciences reject divinity, but now I also want to know what passes as acceptable criteria for the scientist.

If books that mention geological, physical, chemical and behavioral facts of our world are not accepted as evidence of someone or something's field of work then aren't we short changing our research?

If a witness were at the scene of a crime wouldn't the Judge want to hear what the witness had to say before prematurely dismissing his testimony?

...and what if the explanations from these books were factual, does that count as evidence?


Copyright © 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 01:59
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

  I think when you refer to slavery, you are generally referring to slavery post-colonialism -- which, perhaps, I should have inferred, given your juxtaposition of colonialism with the topic of slavery.
 
In this context I was mostly talking about the western powers trade with African slaves and also about the slaveholding in the Americas.
 
Some of the colonial endevours actually were morally defended by saying they where undertaken to end slavery (mostly indigenous and/or muslim slavery in Africa). Unfortunately the old slavery where in many places replaced by other forms of forced labour.

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Colonialism is a separate matter entirely. You will often find both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches at odds with the structures of imperial/secular colonial authority during the Early Modern Era.
 
At the same time many christian communities participated in the colonial enterprices by sending out missionaries who were, with or against their will, a part of these enterprices.

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 I repudiate his judgment; it is that simple. He would have an impossible time proving the case from Scripture. Surely anyone may take anything out of context, but we do have the consensus patrum to turn to, as well as the writings of Scripture, and both demonstrably refute the judge's opinion. As for whether or not this can be used as a testimony against all theists, or even all Christians, one would just as soon ascribe the acions of the "Cult of Reason" during the French Revolution to all atheists. In effect, such an equivalency is precisely the sort of thing that goes on in these "You guys did it more!" threads. Painting with so broad a brush is always dangerous, and almost always untenable.
-Akolouthos
 
At least the judge were not alone in his opinion eventhough he can be considered at odds with some christian thinkers. Religion (in this case christianity) can differ in different cultural, social and political circumstances. But historically it has unfortunately too often been used to justify different kinds of violence and opression.
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 11-Jun-2009 at 02:55
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 02:34
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


No it isn't, no matter how hard people like Dawkins and Hitchens try and pull that one. Atheism is the belief there are no gods (it has nothing to do with 'supernatural beings' in general, one way or the other)
 
Atheism does not imply scepticism let alone equate to scepticism. And scepticiem about the existence of gods is a specific variety of agnosticism.
 
If you don't know or are unconvinced or doubtful about the existence of gods then you're not atheist, and it would be doing everyone a favour, as well as contributibg to a sensible discussion if you didn't claim to be.
 
Otherwise you're like someone who doesn't really believe in the Trinity claiming to be Christian because it sounds good..


You're using too narrow a definition of atheism. Atheism has two categories, weak atheism and strong atheism. You are using strong atheism, the belief that there are no gods (0% chance) to apply to all of atheism. Weak atheism is the doubt in the existence of gods, but not to the uncertainty of agnosticism and not to the belief of strong atheism (it's a [0%(strong atheism)<weak atheism<50%(agnosticism)].

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 07:26
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Thanks for your answer CXI, I forgot to respond till now. I certainly see the difficulty in examining divinity or the "unknown". I wonder about the particular type of evidence we are gathering and whether it is acceptable in order to conduct research on divinity.


Hi Seko. No problems, this is a very long and convoluted thread. It is easy to lose track of replies here.

I have to admit I am having some difficulty trying to determine exactly what some of your questions are asking in practical terms, as some of them are conveyed in an abstract manner. So I will do my best to answer them piecemeal in the hope I do not miss a single question.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Do we reject divinity because we fail to commonly accept what divinity calls to itself?


If divinty claims a record of a distinct process of creation of the universe, and subversion of universal laws due to supernatural power (e.g. Jesus walking on water), then we must look for proof of the things which authorities on the divine claim the divinity has caused. If we find no empirical evidence of this, then we must reject divinity.

A common theme of divinity is the existence of a sentient power which can behave in a manner that bypasses universal laws. So it is evidence of this which we must look for.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Can't holy books be accepted as evidence of examples of divinty's work?


A competing theory is that such books were created by humans. And an especially plausible theory is that authority figures created them as a means of social control. The humanity created/inspired theory has a lot more evidence behind it. So which should we consider more convincing?

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Isn't a numerically structured book evidence?


Sorry but I don't know what you are getting at here.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

What about divine books that tell us that time is relative or that the universe is continually expanding?


This may be evidence of an insight, though I don't see how it evidences the existence of a divinity. With all the 'holy books' of the world, there is bound to be some profound wisdom.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Would we reject evidence from a book that taught us that the Earth's atmosphere is a protective sheild; that wind pollinates plants; that water is the main ingredient to life and that life is created in stages and evolves?


I don't know. It depends if the book explains how these things occur in a way which is convincing and which can be subjected to empirical testing to confirm its hypotheses.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Why should we dismiss such evidence especially when the evidence was brought to us long before the advent of tools currently used to measure these phenomena?


Why should we dismiss what evidence of what exactly?

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Maybe I am more perplexed now than I was a few minutes ago. Not only had I previously wanted to know about how the natural sciences reject divinity, but now I also want to know what passes as acceptable criteria for the scientist.


Seko, I am sure you went through this in post-grad Smile. We must develop a hypothesis which we can test. In order to test it, we must develop measures of the phenomenon under scrutiny which enjoy the qualities of validity and reliability. With this done, the phenomenon under scrutiny must be studied in the most controlled environment possible, so that as best as we can we are able to measure the relationship between independent variable(s) and the dependent variable(s).

We do not assume the existence of something when no evidence of its existence exists.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

If books that mention geological, physical, chemical and behavioral facts of our world are not accepted as evidence of someone or something's field of work then aren't we short changing our research?


It depends on whether those books contain findings which were generated through correct research procedures. There are plenty of poor physics and chemistry research papers which are not evidence of much.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

If a witness were at the scene of a crime wouldn't the Judge want to hear what the witness had to say before prematurely dismissing his testimony?


Certainly. Though the judge would not take the witness' evidence at face value automatically. The validity and reliability of the witness' recollection and character must be taken into account when deciding how precise they are in speaking the facts.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

...and what if the explanations from these books were factual, does that count as evidence?


I am sure the Bible does contain some correct historical information about ancient Palestine. Does that prove the existence of divinity?

Clearly not.


Edited by Constantine XI - 11-Jun-2009 at 07:29
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 12:33
Quote Carcharodon
Of course noone thinks that all atheists are good. But it´s not a part of atheism to persecute dissidents. But some religions actually encourages the belivers not to tolerate people that don´t believe in their God, or are adherents of other religions.


There have been groups of atheists who persecuted dissidents, it was part of their understanding of their belief. Does this mean all atheists are bad and evil?

Most religions don't actively encourage believer not to tolerate others, in fact most religions teachings are humanitarian, ethical and for the benefit of society. However, people hungry for power will use, abuse and distort anything for their personal power. The actions of these people and people who claim to be religious should not be confused with religion, the two are seperate.

Most people who believe in God arn't interested in burning people who don't believe in God, most atheists don't want to throw the devout into gulags LOL
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 13:42
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

No it isn't, no matter how hard people like Dawkins and Hitchens try and pull that one. Atheism is the belief there are no gods (it has nothing to do with 'supernatural beings' in general, one way or the other)
 
Many atheists are not as active in their atheism as Dawkins  an his fellows, many just don´t belive in something which existence has never been proven. It´s just critical thinking.
 
It's a misuse of the word 'atheist'. If you mean 'agnostic' that's what you should say.
 
It's not just a misuse from a technical point of view, it also confuses the hell out of the issues and makes it almost impossibole to discuss them sanely.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 13:45
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Concerning the racial theories of the Nazis they relied of cource heavily on social darwinism but also on older western traditions of slavery and colonialism, traditions that were interwoven with christian belief.
 
What's particularly 'western' about them?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 13:52
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 As for slavery and colonialism, it was christian cultures and christian people who were involved in those phenomena and some of them rationalized their behaviour by stating that slavery was supported by the Bible or that is was a duty to civilize and christian the "savages" in other parts of the world.
It wasn't only Christians as your phraseology indicates. The majority of the modern slave trade was carried out by Muslims, but of course the Chinese, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians...all had their share. And of course atheists.
Quote
At the same time there were also christians who were against slavery and opression. But of course  christians have had different views about many questions, like ethics, moral and other things. Yes, many christians haven´t even been able to unify in the interpretation of the sayings of the Bible about the nature of God, and how one shall look upon Jesus.
So there's not a grteat deal of point bringing slavery and colonialism into it, is there, since they have absolutely no correlation with varieties or religious beliefe - including atheism?
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.