Evidence for God from Science

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote:I think that Nazi Germany is a prime example of that. Basically you can be brain washed to do anything if your mind is open to it...

Nazi Germany was atheist? Godwin is knocking...

Did I say that? No.. But it was an ideology that effected millions who followed it.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote:I think that Nazi Germany is a prime example of that. Basically you can be brain washed to do anything if your mind is open to it...

Nazi Germany was atheist? Godwin is knocking...

Did I say that? No.. But it was an ideology that effected millions who followed it.

Absolutely - affected or at least desensitised.

(good post, Jac)

yep, bottom line

IF there is no God, then there is no right or wrong, only that which people agree to...

touchingcloth wrote: Absolutely - affected or at least desensitised.

Ok so then what is the problem here? Sorry, it's gotten too long and I'm tired.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: Absolutely - affected or at least desensitised.

Ok so then what is the problem here? Sorry, it's gotten too long and I'm tired.

To summarise -
Jac says atheism necessarily leads to bigotry and atrocities
Gman says (and I agree) that Nazi Germany is an example of how the ideology of the ruling classes can influence the masses...which seems a bit of a non sequitur given that it wasn't an atheist regime.

touchingcloth wrote: To summarise -
Jac says atheism necessarily leads to bigotry and atrocities
Gman says (and I agree) that Nazi Germany is an example of how the ideology of the ruling classes can influence the masses...which seems a bit of a non sequitur given that it wasn't an atheist regime.

I would say that Jac is right... Not that anyone who is an atheist is a bigot, but it could lead to that just like any other ideology.. As an example as an insult, "neanderthal" can refer to someone who acts in a primitive manner. On the Simpson's Homer's latin names'' is known as Homo Neanderthal'us. Yes it's a joke, but the underlying message of it is that Homer is primitive.

Gman wrote:I would say that Jac is right... Not that anyone who is an atheist is a bigot, but it could lead to that just like any other ideology.

I do agree with you there - any time a philosophy becomes an ideology bigotry, and worse can follow. But that wasn't Jac's statement. Jac's position is that atheism necessarily leads to bigotry. There's a big difference there.

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote:I would say that Jac is right... Not that anyone who is an atheist is a bigot, but it could lead to that just like any other ideology.

I do agree with you there - any time a philosophy becomes an ideology bigotry, and worse can follow. But that wasn't Jac's statement. Jac's position is that atheism necessarily leads to bigotry. There's a big difference there.

You mean if you are an atheist you are a bigot or the doctrine is?

Jac, is that what you are saying?

I would say at the heart of the argument is that there is nothing in the atheist worldview that necessarily prevents him or her from acting in a bigoted manner, and, in fact, there is plenty of ammunition for them to rationalize prejudice (why should I care about the other person?)

Whether or not it is the case, Jac is arguing that the worldview leads to that conclusion.

You may behave ethically, but those ethics are merely the result of your own thinking....and your thinking is no more right than another persons (according to an atheistic evolutionary model)

When a dictator rises up, there is nothing but the current morality that feels offended...but there is no real reason to declare him or her immoral save the popular mode of thinking...

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

Gman wrote:I would say that Jac is right... Not that anyone who is an atheist is a bigot, but it could lead to that just like any other ideology.

I do agree with you there - any time a philosophy becomes an ideology bigotry, and worse can follow. But that wasn't Jac's statement. Jac's position is that atheism necessarily leads to bigotry. There's a big difference there.

You mean if you are an atheist you are a bigot or the doctrine is?

Jac, is that what you are saying?

From what I can glean Jac is saying that in all cases atheism will lead to bigotry at best and atrocities at worst...back up with some paltry evidence from Nitezsche...

If that isn't, in fact, Jac's view then I will be hugely glad to have grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

zoegirl wrote:I would say at the heart of the argument is that there is nothing in the atheist worldview that necessarily prevents him or her from acting in a bigoted manner, and, in fact, there is plenty of ammunition for them to rationalize prejudice (why should I care about the other person?)

There's nothing in the atheist worldview that prevents someone from acting in an unbigoted manner, either.

Bigotry isn't a me-against-everyone-else ("why should I care about the other person") view, it's an us-against-them view...

I am certainly not saying that all atheists are going to be uber-evil (or any more evil than any other *person*). However...

The point, though, is that there is nothing in the worldview that prevents it...you are simply the current fashion success with regard to morality. You are fortunate to be born in this mixture of genes and population, where your genes and your thinking matches what is in vogue.

Woe to the current nice people, however, if the tide turns, because there is *nothing* that allows you to say they are wrong.

In my family there are nominal Christians, a few atheists and a rabbi. At family get-togethers whenever the subject of religion comes up, I cringe. As the only born-again believer of the group, all the others are in a league against me, like a confederacy of dunces, so it seems. The rabbi - as a religious professionnal - gets respect even from the atheists. I only get snickers!

Jac3510 wrote:I'm going to step back from this discussion a bit and ask some of the others here to take a wack at your objections.

I have made a contract with myself never to start a «religious» discussion with an atheist because I know from experience that such a discussion is pointless.

If you look over the discussion Jac had with TC and hatsoff, you'll see what I mean. Jac explained over and over again his points, provided links which neither read at first and all Jac has to show for it is this:

touchingcloth wrote:No evidence to show that it necessarily results in all of the things [Jac] claims it does.

and this:

hatsoff wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:It seems to me you are just trying to play games, which certainly makes one of us a troll . . .

Well, I have my answer then.

And just as in my family gatherings,

Jac3510 wrote:I certainly don't think I'll change either of your minds.

...the big talking atheists are impossible to satisfy with debate. While they give lip service to Reason and Knowledge, they don't practice these when considering faith & religion; they don't even consider reason. Read what God says in Ps 14:1. How can you expect sense from one who is nonsensical?

In my family gatherings, the loudmouths just want to be loud and spew their hatred of God. I answer their questions as calmly and as intelligently as I am able to. I am not really speaking to them, as they are incapable of sense. Rather, my answers are for the edification of that person who sits calmly by and listens without participating. That person can see the emptiness, that person can see the hatred of the atheists; and that person can see my hope and faith.

So, Jac, you did this more for those who didn't participate and whom you may never know. As for the loud ones, to Hell with them...for that's where they're headed.

FL

I must confess I am cringing a bit here.

As far as atheist loudmouths. I wou;dn't place TC or hatsoff in that category yet. (although it is very frustrating because it does seem like we have explained things over and over). I have had plenty of worse interactions.

I doubt our arguments will convince...but I don't think I would classify this as an aggressive interaction...

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:In my family gatherings, the loudmouths just want to be loud and spew their hatred of God.

And there is absolutely no reason to have a hatred of God. None... I have faced the most difficult passages with no problems. Unfortunately no one wants to read about it and no one really cares anyway... They oppose it just because it is there to oppose. It's just an automatic reflex or response.