If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Misto]

the creator of this thread trolls hardcore!

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by chtulu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is it ever fair to hold a historical figure personally responsible for all the future unbidden and unforeseeable consequences of all that he or she has said or done? Was Jesus responsible for the Inquisition or Muhammad for 9/11? Can we blame Newton and his laws of motion for the damage caused by cruise missiles? And even where one can establish a chain of causal links between scientific discoveries and their subsequent abuses, does this mean that we must belittle the discovery or close down future research?


Protestant Christians are on the shakiest ground when using this argument, as it allows us to indict Martin Luther for the Holocaust, with his On The Jews and their Lies (1543), which was avidly quoted by Hitler. Chillingly, the first of ten recommendations from Luther was “First to set fire to their synagogues or schools...” Should we really blame Luther for Kristallnacht?


In fact, Nazi ideology was derived from a range of ideas and beliefs, which included anti-Semitism, militaristic Nationalism, anti-Capitalism and anti-Communism. The Nazis also blended a distorted German Christian tradition with Nordic mythology and derived their zest for eugenics as much from ancient Sparta as from any modern sources. The influence of evolutionary thinking on Hitler was, if anything, very minor: nowhere in Mein Kampf does he mention Darwin, natural selection or biological evolution. In fact, in the first edition of the book, Hitler comes across as a young Earth creationist, claiming at one point that “this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men”.


The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

off of

http://www.zimbio.com/Richard+Dawkin...onomics+Hitler

You need to re-read that article, because it's not saying what you think it is. It's arguing that the abuses of scientific discoveries are not grounds for belittling or ceasing scientific exploration, and that you can't use events like the Holocaust to tarnish the theory of evolution.

I agree completely. It's exactly the point I've been making regarding religion. The fact that someone misinterprets something and uses it for evil does not make the entire institution evil. If the US government comes out with a law that "Man may not harm other man", and some asshole interprets that to mean crimes against women are legal, is the US government the problem? Of course not. When you talk about religion, you act as if it's some hyper-organized ruling party. Who determines what is "religion"? In the opinion of the vast majority of religious people in America, it's some combination of God (and His scripture), Jesus, and Mohammad. If you can find me a single quote in the Old or New Testament, or from the lips of Jesus or Mohammad, that addresses abortion or stem cell research, we can call off this argument. The fact is, no such quote exists. It's a Rorschach test. If you read the Bible and determine abortion is ungodly, it's because you were pro-life before you ever sat down with the book. Similarly, if you believe in ethnic cleansing and eugenics, it's because you were a bigot before you knew the difference between a dominant and recessive allele.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

No one who ever died has ever come back. Religions (basically) all claim that there is an immortal soul that does not die with the body. Since this rather central claim has never been upheld by observable evidence, the rational person is compelled to believe that the claim is in all likely-hood false. Fairy tales. Conjecture. Childish. Motivated primarily by Man's fundamental inability to cope with death.

[Chanus]

Originally Posted by DetroitVelvetSmooth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No one who ever died has ever come back. Religions (basically) all claim that there is an immortal soul that does not die with the body. Since this rather central claim has never been upheld by observable evidence, the rational person is compelled to believe that the claim is in all likely-hood false. Fairy tales. Conjecture. Childish. Motivated primarily by Man's fundamental inability to cope with death.

This is probably one of the dumber attempts at an argument I've ever read.

[AexDestroy]

Originally Posted by Chanus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is probably one of the dumber attempts at an argument I've ever read.

second that.

[AexDestroy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Qing_Yuen

For those with any spiritual sense about health and reality.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Just trying to boil down the issue to its fundamentals - one group of people believes in something very strongly for which there is no palpable reason to believe, while another group holds the threshold for belief to be rooted in observable phenomena. Simple, but not dumb. You're a dummy, dummy! Nya nya!

[Bones]

Originally Posted by Chanus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's no burden on me, I never claimed to believe in a god.

There is no harm in believing or not believing in whatever fanciful imaginings one can construct for him- or herself, yet for some reason so-called atheists can not sleep at night without demanding the existence of a god be proven.

There is no need to prove the existence of a god for people who believe. It serves no purpose; they already have their faith.

Why someone who doesn't believe must so vehemently attack the harmless faith of others is ludicrous.

You may claim faith causes war, genocide, bigotry, or any number of things, but the truth is those are caused by greed. Causality and correlation have distinct meanings. Often people who perpetuate evil upon others use their faith as a crutch, but it is their greed that truly motivates them.

There are as many, if not more people who are faithful and do acts of good... just as there are plenty who have no faith and go acts of good or evil.

Your crusade to prove to anyone with faith that he or she is wrong serves no purpose other than to reaffirm your own choices due to some insecurity in your beliefs or misguided anger toward those you feel have done wrong.

As entertaining as this thread has been, it should have stopped after this post.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

I agree. It's mean to tell children Santa Claus doesn't exist.

[vincin]

If you dont believe in god, then you also dont believe people have souls. You are also more likely not to believe other things without facts or evidence. Of course it makes logical sense that anything not visible to the human eye doesnt exist, but god is spiritual, not human, so arguing about something you dont have and cant back up doesnt make sense. Many famous scientists also say the universe is so perfect an complex that it would almost be impossible not to be created by a higher power. In conclusion, if you dont believe in a higher power, or an afterlife...then whats the point of living? Then evolution theories dont prove anything. They shouldnt even compare humans to animals, because its obvious humans have something animals lack....(a soul). Which a soul cant be scientifically tested so there is no proof of it, which leads me back to the top of the loop of confusion. END RESULT: Believer are not dumb for being spiritual and unbelivers arent dumb because they dont want to believe anything in life that they cant prove because they think their human brain can obtain the knowledge of everything.