Total Posts:170|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion's last stand.

Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:21:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.
Christianity tends to work in similar fashion to wildfires. It may appear to die in one area (lower church attendance, the embracing of various spiritualist beliefs, etc.), and end up spreading elsewhere (China, Africa, Latin America). We also have to consider historical revivals (which you won't find in your average news outlet), than can happen really anywhere, at any time.

http://www.revival-library.org...
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:03:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:21:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.
Christianity tends to work in similar fashion to wildfires. It may appear to die in one area (lower church attendance, the embracing of various spiritualist beliefs, etc.), and end up spreading elsewhere (China, Africa, Latin America). We also have to consider historical revivals (which you won't find in your average news outlet), than can happen really anywhere, at any time.

http://www.revival-library.org...

This is not like the last secular movement the enlightement. This will include the internet and the common man. It will have a much longer lasting effect as our knowledge and communications rises exponentially.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Dogknox
Posts: 5,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 12:27:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

Lordgrae thus you get many people declaring "It does not matter what church I go to, the 'All out doors' are now my new religion"!

You are right to a point... The Catholic Church is still growing, most all other churches are continually dividing and fragmenting, into yet even smaller bodies! The reason is, people get frustrated from looking for truth; they will never be home until they cross the Tiber! Over 1.2 BILLION Catholics today!

Acts 5:38
Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.
39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."


For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail

The Catholic Church is two Thousand years old, "These Men" in the verse (above) are CATHOLICS!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 2:07:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

From the armchair, this makes sense. If you take a look at the news, you can't be sure. With religious parties dictating with weapons of mass destruction, and extensive control over the freedom of expression - it seems unlikely that religion will die out at all until those freedoms are irrevocably granted.

But it's for the above reasoning that I would expect Christianity to die out much more rapidly than Islam in particular. The main 'Christian countries' are generally more secular in their statute with freedom of expression and therefore the level of control needed to keep the population outside the loop is not present.

In any case, I don't expect religions to completely die out even in a millenia, they will always exist as a fringe society, much like the flat-earthers, worshipers of Zeus and the believers of Elvis's reincarnation are today.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
TheSquirrel
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 2:15:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

I sincerely hope so. I do not think we will survive the next millennium if this ridiculous irrationality is allowed to rule our people.
Jersey
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 2:34:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well since I'm new to this I just want to spark some conversation. I believe this is religion's last stand per se, I am a christian. Protestant, to be more specific. I do not think religion is the problem, I think people are the problem. I am a christian, I believe in the separation of church and state. Equal rights for everyone, the problem is people don't do things to help each other anymore. It is bad to be christian now, you are seen as a moron, a hateful person among other things. This is religion's last stand but I believe its because the world is going to end soon.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 2:58:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You gaytheists know there's a whole forum where you can circlejerk over your smug sense of superiority because you don't believe in a higher power, right? www.debate.org/forums/personal
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:10:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A time will indeed come when Christianity is nearly eradicated, with only a few faithful left. However, this will not be a good thing. Christianity's influence has been waning in the US for the past 50 years and since that trend has begun, our society has made many immoral things acceptable and it will only continue to get worse. The brutal histories of Nazism and Communism have shown us that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war, so the eradication of religion will not solve war, even if does reduce the number of conflicts. Humans have the capacity for aggressiveness and violence, so as long as humans remain humans there will always be war and murder. In fact, I'm predicting that there will be many, many wars in the 21st century.

Here's the thing: you cannot disprove God. You can disprove a religion by disproving some of its doctrines, but the concept of God itself cannot be proven or disproven. Is there really a BoP on either side of this issue? What if God is concealing Himself for His own reasons? Therefore, as long as people keep this fact in mind, as long as there is freedom there will always be people who follow some sort of religion or believe in some type of deity. At least one person will remain religious, even when everybody else becomes an atheist.

Then again, if atheism becomes the state religion like it did in the days of the Soviet Union, and religion is targeted by a secular government that claims to be tolerant, then religion may very well be eradicated.
But until that time when the atheists become intolerant and the religious people are fighting for their beliefs, religion will continue to thrive.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:19:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:10:40 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
A time will indeed come when Christianity is nearly eradicated, with only a few faithful left. However, this will not be a good thing. Christianity's influence has been waning in the US for the past 50 years and since that trend has begun, our society has made many immoral things acceptable and it will only continue to get worse. The brutal histories of Nazism and Communism have shown us that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war,

While I would certainly agree that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war, it's worth noting for clarity's sake that the Nazi regime was an explicitly Christian one, lest you think it was an atheist one.

so the eradication of religion will not solve war, even if does reduce the number of conflicts. Humans have the capacity for aggressiveness and violence, so as long as humans remain humans there will always be war and murder. In fact, I'm predicting that there will be many, many wars in the 21st century.

Here's the thing: you cannot disprove God. You can disprove a religion by disproving some of its doctrines, but the concept of God itself cannot be proven or disproven. Is there really a BoP on either side of this issue?

Yes, if you're going to claim you have any rational reason--and most theists don't like the implications of stating their position is irrational.

What if God is concealing Himself for His own reasons? Therefore, as long as people keep this fact in mind, as long as there is freedom there will always be people who follow some sort of religion or believe in some type of deity. At least one person will remain religious, even when everybody else becomes an atheist.

Then again, if atheism becomes the state religion like it did in the days of the Soviet Union, and religion is targeted by a secular government that claims to be tolerant, then religion may very well be eradicated.

Did the Sovs ever claim to be tolerant? I mean, I recognize your overarching point. I'm just wondering.

But until that time when the atheists become intolerant and the religious people are fighting for their beliefs, religion will continue to thrive.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:29:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:19:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:10:40 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
A time will indeed come when Christianity is nearly eradicated, with only a few faithful left. However, this will not be a good thing. Christianity's influence has been waning in the US for the past 50 years and since that trend has begun, our society has made many immoral things acceptable and it will only continue to get worse. The brutal histories of Nazism and Communism have shown us that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war,

While I would certainly agree that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war, it's worth noting for clarity's sake that the Nazi regime was an explicitly Christian one, lest you think it was an atheist one.

Hitler's religion is disputed even today, and I'm pretty sure some of the Nazis were atheists. At best, Christianity was used as a tool to control the masses. But it was not a Theocracy in any way, considering the fact that the Nazis felt free to revise Christianity to meet their own needs. Not to mention some of the prominent Nazis seeked to replace Christianity with Germany Paganism. Overall it was based on a political ideology (in this case a special kind of Fascism), not any religion. And even if it was, just consider Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Stalin.

so the eradication of religion will not solve war, even if does reduce the number of conflicts. Humans have the capacity for aggressiveness and violence, so as long as humans remain humans there will always be war and murder. In fact, I'm predicting that there will be many, many wars in the 21st century.

Here's the thing: you cannot disprove God. You can disprove a religion by disproving some of its doctrines, but the concept of God itself cannot be proven or disproven. Is there really a BoP on either side of this issue?

Yes, if you're going to claim you have any rational reason--and most theists don't like the implications of stating their position is irrational.

What if God is concealing Himself for His own reasons? Therefore, as long as people keep this fact in mind, as long as there is freedom there will always be people who follow some sort of religion or believe in some type of deity. At least one person will remain religious, even when everybody else becomes an atheist.

Then again, if atheism becomes the state religion like it did in the days of the Soviet Union, and religion is targeted by a secular government that claims to be tolerant, then religion may very well be eradicated.

Did the Sovs ever claim to be tolerant? I mean, I recognize your overarching point. I'm just wondering.

But until that time when the atheists become intolerant and the religious people are fighting for their beliefs, religion will continue to thrive.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:59:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:29:53 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:19:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:10:40 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
A time will indeed come when Christianity is nearly eradicated, with only a few faithful left. However, this will not be a good thing. Christianity's influence has been waning in the US for the past 50 years and since that trend has begun, our society has made many immoral things acceptable and it will only continue to get worse. The brutal histories of Nazism and Communism have shown us that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war,

While I would certainly agree that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war, it's worth noting for clarity's sake that the Nazi regime was an explicitly Christian one, lest you think it was an atheist one.

Hitler's religion is disputed even today, and I'm pretty sure some of the Nazis were atheists. At best, Christianity was used as a tool to control the masses. But it was not a Theocracy in any way, considering the fact that the Nazis felt free to revise Christianity to meet their own needs. Not to mention some of the prominent Nazis seeked to replace Christianity with Germany Paganism. Overall it was based on a political ideology (in this case a special kind of Fascism), not any religion. And even if it was, just consider Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Stalin.

I didn't specify Hitler specifically because of some folks's desire to ignore his Christianity. Nonetheless, the anti-semitism that had been ingrained in the church for rather a long time was definitely used as a tool, and the SS, after all, had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles.

I don't, specifically, blame religion for Nazism. However, trying even obliquely to ignore its influence is disingenuous. The difference was that the Communistic regimes did not wage their awful crimes in the name of atheism, while Hitler most certainly did in the name of Christianity. And even among communist regimes: Stalin was raised in a fiercely religious milleau, and under his regime the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was reopened; Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist who studied under Catholic teachers; Mao was head of a personality cult, though AFAIK was otherwise fairly atheist--but he certainly did not appeal to atheism as a support for his crimes, but rather communism.

Which, again, is not to put religion to blame per se, except inasmuch as it often allows people to be manipulated in ways they might otherwise not be.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:08:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:10:40 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
A time will indeed come when Christianity is nearly eradicated, with only a few faithful left. However, this will not be a good thing. Christianity's influence has been waning in the US for the past 50 years and since that trend has begun, our society has made many immoral things acceptable and it will only continue to get worse. The brutal histories of Nazism and Communism have shown us that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war, so the eradication of religion will not solve war, even if does reduce the number of conflicts.

We who oppose religion never make the assertion that religion is the sole factor of those. But it unquestionably is the principle cause of many, and remains one of the largest threats to human civilization today. Get rid of the unnecessary baggage I say, or at the very least keep it out of politics. Essentially every nation that has secularized has better human quality of life indexes in most ways measured. Of course I agree it is not necessarily direct causation, but it does dispel the notion that a population will collapse into anarchy once religion disappears.

Humans have the capacity for aggressiveness and violence, so as long as humans remain humans there will always be war and murder. In fact, I'm predicting that there will be many, many wars in the 21st century.

Here's the thing: you cannot disprove God. You can disprove a religion by disproving some of its doctrines, but the concept of God itself cannot be proven or disproven. Is there really a BoP on either side of this issue?

Russel's teapot addresses this.

What if God is concealing Himself for His own reasons?

What's the difference between a universe in which a God doesn't manifest in reality, and one with no God whatsoever? None. So why build your entire worldview on sometime you cannot verify? A worldview that dictates in some fashion every aspect of your life, your view on origins, sexuality, women's & animal rights, difference of opinion, right to criticize ideas, just to name a few.

Surely your fellow species deserves better than to be subject to your actions based on such beliefs, since your beliefs don't occur in a vacuum, they affect everyone that you interact with in one way or another.

Therefore, as long as people keep this fact in mind, as long as there is freedom there will always be people who follow some sort of religion or believe in some type of deity. At least one person will remain religious, even when everybody else becomes an atheist.

Agreed

Then again, if atheism becomes the state religion like it did in the days of the Soviet Union, and religion is targeted by a secular government that claims to be tolerant, then religion may very well be eradicated.

*Groan*. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, nothing else. It doesn't lead to anything by itself. A further ideology is needed to lead to any sort of outcome, and if you actually look at the ideologies in place in the soviet union and with the nazi's, you'll quickly realize they were very much akin to religion in the way they were done.

But until that time when the atheists become intolerant and the religious people are fighting for their beliefs, religion will continue to thrive.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:26:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

It depends how you define religion. I believe atheism and agnosticism are religious views. They also attempt to answer the question 'Who are we?' 'Why are we here?', 'What difference does it make?', 'What happens to us when we die?'.

They are as much a way of looking at the world as any other religious belief. The difference is that man now substitutes himself as God, the final authority on all matters.

The problem is which man, which group of men claim the right to act as God?
The problem without God is what objective source is there? If there is no objective source then throw morality out the window. It now becomes personal or group preference and whatever the group likes and can force on the masses becomes law. Its a law of might makes right. The Law of identity is lost. Now A=A is no longer true. Good or right becomes whatever is enforced. It can and does mean two totally opposite things depending on where you live. What right do you have to say a group that opposes what you believe is wrong, except by the barrel of a gun? In Russia homosexuality is considered wrong, whereas in the USA it is becoming the main view that homosexuality is right. Without God it all depends on which subjective person of group controls the rest.

When you say that you will not force people to leave their faith what do you in your finite intelligence have to offer that is any better. What is your hope for a future? Why is what you believe true? Without God you have nothing but a blind faith. It rests on nothing.

Peter
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:28:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:26:47 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

It depends how you define religion. I believe atheism and agnosticism are religious views. They also attempt to answer the question 'Who are we?' 'Why are we here?', 'What difference does it make?', 'What happens to us when we die?'.

They are as much a way of looking at the world as any other religious belief. The difference is that man now substitutes himself as God, the final authority on all matters.

The problem is which man, which group of men claim the right to act as God?
The problem without God is what objective source is there? If there is no objective source then throw morality out the window. It now becomes personal or group preference and whatever the group likes and can force on the masses becomes law. Its a law of might makes right. The Law of identity is lost. Now A=A is no longer true. Good or right becomes whatever is enforced. It can and does mean two totally opposite things depending on where you live. What right do you have to say a group that opposes what you believe is wrong, except by the barrel of a gun? In Russia homosexuality is considered wrong, whereas in the USA it is becoming the main view that homosexuality is right. Without God it all depends on which subjective person of group controls the rest.

When you say that you will not force people to leave their faith what do you in your finite intelligence have to offer that is any better. What is your hope for a future? Why is what you believe true? Without God you have nothing but a blind faith. It rests on nothing.

Peter

None of that made any sense whatsoever--you realize that, yes?

There is absolutely no reason that without God, A would cease to equal A.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:32:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:28:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:26:47 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

It depends how you define religion. I believe atheism and agnosticism are religious views. They also attempt to answer the question 'Who are we?' 'Why are we here?', 'What difference does it make?', 'What happens to us when we die?'.

They are as much a way of looking at the world as any other religious belief. The difference is that man now substitutes himself as God, the final authority on all matters.

The problem is which man, which group of men claim the right to act as God?
The problem without God is what objective source is there? If there is no objective source then throw morality out the window. It now becomes personal or group preference and whatever the group likes and can force on the masses becomes law. Its a law of might makes right. The Law of identity is lost. Now A=A is no longer true. Good or right becomes whatever is enforced. It can and does mean two totally opposite things depending on where you live. What right do you have to say a group that opposes what you believe is wrong, except by the barrel of a gun? In Russia homosexuality is considered wrong, whereas in the USA it is becoming the main view that homosexuality is right. Without God it all depends on which subjective person of group controls the rest.

When you say that you will not force people to leave their faith what do you in your finite intelligence have to offer that is any better. What is your hope for a future? Why is what you believe true? Without God you have nothing but a blind faith. It rests on nothing.

Peter

None of that made any sense whatsoever--you realize that, yes?

None of what?

There is absolutely no reason that without God, A would cease to equal A.

What does this mean?
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:32:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:59:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:29:53 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:19:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:10:40 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
A time will indeed come when Christianity is nearly eradicated, with only a few faithful left. However, this will not be a good thing. Christianity's influence has been waning in the US for the past 50 years and since that trend has begun, our society has made many immoral things acceptable and it will only continue to get worse. The brutal histories of Nazism and Communism have shown us that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war,

While I would certainly agree that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war, it's worth noting for clarity's sake that the Nazi regime was an explicitly Christian one, lest you think it was an atheist one.

Hitler's religion is disputed even today, and I'm pretty sure some of the Nazis were atheists. At best, Christianity was used as a tool to control the masses. But it was not a Theocracy in any way, considering the fact that the Nazis felt free to revise Christianity to meet their own needs. Not to mention some of the prominent Nazis seeked to replace Christianity with Germany Paganism. Overall it was based on a political ideology (in this case a special kind of Fascism), not any religion. And even if it was, just consider Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Stalin.

I didn't specify Hitler specifically because of some folks's desire to ignore his Christianity. Nonetheless, the anti-semitism that had been ingrained in the church for rather a long time was definitely used as a tool, and the SS, after all, had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles.

I don't, specifically, blame religion for Nazism. However, trying even obliquely to ignore its influence is disingenuous. The difference was that the Communistic regimes did not wage their awful crimes in the name of atheism, while Hitler most certainly did in the name of Christianity. And even among communist regimes: Stalin was raised in a fiercely religious milleau, and under his regime the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was reopened; Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist who studied under Catholic teachers; Mao was head of a personality cult, though AFAIK was otherwise fairly atheist--but he certainly did not appeal to atheism as a support for his crimes, but rather communism.

Which, again, is not to put religion to blame per se, except inasmuch as it often allows people to be manipulated in ways they might otherwise not be.

I found this quote on the internet, so I don't know how reliable it is. However, here's what claims to be a quote from Goebbels, a prominent Nazi:

"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

Conclusion: the Nazis were not a Christian movement. They hoped to one day eliminate Christianity, but in a nation with a hugely Christian majority, they had to appeal to the crowds by pretending to be a Christian organization.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:46:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:32:11 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:59:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:29:53 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:19:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:10:40 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
A time will indeed come when Christianity is nearly eradicated, with only a few faithful left. However, this will not be a good thing. Christianity's influence has been waning in the US for the past 50 years and since that trend has begun, our society has made many immoral things acceptable and it will only continue to get worse. The brutal histories of Nazism and Communism have shown us that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war,

While I would certainly agree that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war, it's worth noting for clarity's sake that the Nazi regime was an explicitly Christian one, lest you think it was an atheist one.

Hitler's religion is disputed even today, and I'm pretty sure some of the Nazis were atheists. At best, Christianity was used as a tool to control the masses. But it was not a Theocracy in any way, considering the fact that the Nazis felt free to revise Christianity to meet their own needs. Not to mention some of the prominent Nazis seeked to replace Christianity with Germany Paganism. Overall it was based on a political ideology (in this case a special kind of Fascism), not any religion. And even if it was, just consider Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Stalin.

I didn't specify Hitler specifically because of some folks's desire to ignore his Christianity. Nonetheless, the anti-semitism that had been ingrained in the church for rather a long time was definitely used as a tool, and the SS, after all, had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles.

I don't, specifically, blame religion for Nazism. However, trying even obliquely to ignore its influence is disingenuous. The difference was that the Communistic regimes did not wage their awful crimes in the name of atheism, while Hitler most certainly did in the name of Christianity. And even among communist regimes: Stalin was raised in a fiercely religious milleau, and under his regime the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was reopened; Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist who studied under Catholic teachers; Mao was head of a personality cult, though AFAIK was otherwise fairly atheist--but he certainly did not appeal to atheism as a support for his crimes, but rather communism.

Which, again, is not to put religion to blame per se, except inasmuch as it often allows people to be manipulated in ways they might otherwise not be.

I found this quote on the internet, so I don't know how reliable it is. However, here's what claims to be a quote from Goebbels, a prominent Nazi:

"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

Conclusion: the Nazis were not a Christian movement. They hoped to one day eliminate Christianity, but in a nation with a hugely Christian majority, they had to appeal to the crowds by pretending to be a Christian organization.

First: Goebbels isn't particularly trustworthy just in general. Second, that appearing to be Christian helped their cause despite their atrocities doesn't really absolve the religion.

Finally: ""I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord"s work.", and of course a longer one:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God"s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice" And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:47:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:32:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:28:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:26:47 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

It depends how you define religion. I believe atheism and agnosticism are religious views. They also attempt to answer the question 'Who are we?' 'Why are we here?', 'What difference does it make?', 'What happens to us when we die?'.

They are as much a way of looking at the world as any other religious belief. The difference is that man now substitutes himself as God, the final authority on all matters.

The problem is which man, which group of men claim the right to act as God?
The problem without God is what objective source is there? If there is no objective source then throw morality out the window. It now becomes personal or group preference and whatever the group likes and can force on the masses becomes law. Its a law of might makes right. The Law of identity is lost. Now A=A is no longer true. Good or right becomes whatever is enforced. It can and does mean two totally opposite things depending on where you live. What right do you have to say a group that opposes what you believe is wrong, except by the barrel of a gun? In Russia homosexuality is considered wrong, whereas in the USA it is becoming the main view that homosexuality is right. Without God it all depends on which subjective person of group controls the rest.

When you say that you will not force people to leave their faith what do you in your finite intelligence have to offer that is any better. What is your hope for a future? Why is what you believe true? Without God you have nothing but a blind faith. It rests on nothing.

Peter

None of that made any sense whatsoever--you realize that, yes?

None of what?

None of your claims.

There is absolutely no reason that without God, A would cease to equal A.

What does this mean?

You claimed that without God, A=/=A. "The Law of identity is lost. Now A=A is no longer true."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:53:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:28:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:26:47 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

It depends how you define religion. I believe atheism and agnosticism are religious views. They also attempt to answer the question 'Who are we?' 'Why are we here?', 'What difference does it make?', 'What happens to us when we die?'.

They are as much a way of looking at the world as any other religious belief. The difference is that man now substitutes himself as God, the final authority on all matters.

The problem is which man, which group of men claim the right to act as God?
The problem without God is what objective source is there? If there is no objective source then throw morality out the window. It now becomes personal or group preference and whatever the group likes and can force on the masses becomes law. Its a law of might makes right. The Law of identity is lost. Now A=A is no longer true. Good or right becomes whatever is enforced. It can and does mean two totally opposite things depending on where you live. What right do you have to say a group that opposes what you believe is wrong, except by the barrel of a gun? In Russia homosexuality is considered wrong, whereas in the USA it is becoming the main view that homosexuality is right. Without God it all depends on which subjective person of group controls the rest.

When you say that you will not force people to leave their faith what do you in your finite intelligence have to offer that is any better. What is your hope for a future? Why is what you believe true? Without God you have nothing but a blind faith. It rests on nothing.

Peter

None of that made any sense whatsoever--you realize that, yes?

There is absolutely no reason that without God, A would cease to equal A.

But it does. Watching the Winter Olympics pushed this point home. Russia still defines homosexuality as wrong. You, no doubt, define it as right. Which is it? It can't be both right and wrong and still mean the same thing. In Russia A = A. In the USA A = B, or visa versa. Which is it? What is the identity of A? One culture contradicts what the other believes. Who is right? To you if they both are makes the definition of homosexually contrary. The Law of Contradictions states that the same thing (homosexuality in this case) cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same manner.

What is your objective 'best' that you derive 'good' from? Why is your standard or the standard you subscribe to 'the standard?' If it is not then why should you dictate what is and is not good? If there is no objective standard then any standard is as meaningless as any other. If we do not derive our morality from a higher objective source then morality breaks down. And you see this in the very society in which you live. There are people living next door to you who do not believe that what you believe or what your society holds to is right. Now if one of 'them' becomes the controlling power then down goes you idea of 'good.'

Neither your meaning, nor theirs is ultimately meaningful unless there is an ideal that we can derive best from. Utilitarianism does not work.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:57:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:47:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:32:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:28:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:26:47 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

It depends how you define religion. I believe atheism and agnosticism are religious views. They also attempt to answer the question 'Who are we?' 'Why are we here?', 'What difference does it make?', 'What happens to us when we die?'.

They are as much a way of looking at the world as any other religious belief. The difference is that man now substitutes himself as God, the final authority on all matters.

The problem is which man, which group of men claim the right to act as God?
The problem without God is what objective source is there? If there is no objective source then throw morality out the window. It now becomes personal or group preference and whatever the group likes and can force on the masses becomes law. Its a law of might makes right. The Law of identity is lost. Now A=A is no longer true. Good or right becomes whatever is enforced. It can and does mean two totally opposite things depending on where you live. What right do you have to say a group that opposes what you believe is wrong, except by the barrel of a gun? In Russia homosexuality is considered wrong, whereas in the USA it is becoming the main view that homosexuality is right. Without God it all depends on which subjective person of group controls the rest.

When you say that you will not force people to leave their faith what do you in your finite intelligence have to offer that is any better. What is your hope for a future? Why is what you believe true? Without God you have nothing but a blind faith. It rests on nothing.

Peter

None of that made any sense whatsoever--you realize that, yes?

None of what?

None of your claims.

There is absolutely no reason that without God, A would cease to equal A.

What does this mean?

You claimed that without God, A=/=A. "The Law of identity is lost. Now A=A is no longer true."

What do you base the law of identity on? What is your ideal, your best? And why is it?

Peter
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:00:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:53:41 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:28:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:26:47 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:09:48 AM, Lordgrae wrote:
I have a feeling that we are moving into the last age of religious rule. That soon, religion will no longer be the rulers of Western society, and soon, the unaffiliated and seculars will become the majority, and religion will begin to fade into the darkness of their own ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that I will force this to happen. I will not go and force people to leave their faith, I believe that it will happen, and is happening on its own. More and more people are becoming reformed to the point of near deism, or moving into unaffiliated, deist, atheist or agnostic.

It depends how you define religion. I believe atheism and agnosticism are religious views. They also attempt to answer the question 'Who are we?' 'Why are we here?', 'What difference does it make?', 'What happens to us when we die?'.

They are as much a way of looking at the world as any other religious belief. The difference is that man now substitutes himself as God, the final authority on all matters.

The problem is which man, which group of men claim the right to act as God?
The problem without God is what objective source is there? If there is no objective source then throw morality out the window. It now becomes personal or group preference and whatever the group likes and can force on the masses becomes law. Its a law of might makes right. The Law of identity is lost. Now A=A is no longer true. Good or right becomes whatever is enforced. It can and does mean two totally opposite things depending on where you live. What right do you have to say a group that opposes what you believe is wrong, except by the barrel of a gun? In Russia homosexuality is considered wrong, whereas in the USA it is becoming the main view that homosexuality is right. Without God it all depends on which subjective person of group controls the rest.

When you say that you will not force people to leave their faith what do you in your finite intelligence have to offer that is any better. What is your hope for a future? Why is what you believe true? Without God you have nothing but a blind faith. It rests on nothing.

Peter

None of that made any sense whatsoever--you realize that, yes?

There is absolutely no reason that without God, A would cease to equal A.

But it does. Watching the Winter Olympics pushed this point home. Russia still defines homosexuality as wrong. You, no doubt, define it as right. Which is it? It can't be both right and wrong and still mean the same thing. In Russia A = A. In the USA A = B, or visa versa.

No. All morality is subjective--including your own, and neither has anything to do with the law of identity.

Which is it? What is the identity of A? One culture contradicts what the other believes. Who is right? To you if they both are makes the definition of homosexually contrary. The Law of Contradictions states that the same thing (homosexuality in this case) cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same manner.

Correct, but you're trying (and failing) to apply a subjective assessment to something--to which the law of identity does not apply.

What is your objective 'best' that you derive 'good' from?

It certainly isn't a source of morality that condones slavery, like yours.

Why is your standard or the standard you subscribe to 'the standard?' If it is not then why should you dictate what is and is not good? If there is no objective standard then any standard is as meaningless as any other.

If we do not derive our morality from a higher objective source then morality breaks down.

Your higher source is definitionally not objective, as it's the dictates of a being based on its desires and therefore subjective.

And you see this in the very society in which you live. There are people living next door to you who do not believe that what you believe or what your society holds to is right. Now if one of 'them' becomes the controlling power then down goes you idea of 'good.'

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the law of identity.

Neither your meaning, nor theirs is ultimately meaningful unless there is an ideal that we can derive best from. Utilitarianism does not work.

That may be the case, but your appeals here most certainly don't work.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:01:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:57:44 PM, PGA wrote:

What do you base the law of identity on? What is your ideal, your best? And why is it?

The law of identity is a logical absolute. It has nothing to do with "ideal" or "best".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:08:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:46:13 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:32:11 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:59:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:29:53 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:19:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:10:40 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
A time will indeed come when Christianity is nearly eradicated, with only a few faithful left. However, this will not be a good thing. Christianity's influence has been waning in the US for the past 50 years and since that trend has begun, our society has made many immoral things acceptable and it will only continue to get worse. The brutal histories of Nazism and Communism have shown us that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war,

While I would certainly agree that religion is not the sole factor of genocide and war, it's worth noting for clarity's sake that the Nazi regime was an explicitly Christian one, lest you think it was an atheist one.

Hitler's religion is disputed even today, and I'm pretty sure some of the Nazis were atheists. At best, Christianity was used as a tool to control the masses. But it was not a Theocracy in any way, considering the fact that the Nazis felt free to revise Christianity to meet their own needs. Not to mention some of the prominent Nazis seeked to replace Christianity with Germany Paganism. Overall it was based on a political ideology (in this case a special kind of Fascism), not any religion. And even if it was, just consider Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Stalin.

I didn't specify Hitler specifically because of some folks's desire to ignore his Christianity. Nonetheless, the anti-semitism that had been ingrained in the church for rather a long time was definitely used as a tool, and the SS, after all, had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles.

I don't, specifically, blame religion for Nazism. However, trying even obliquely to ignore its influence is disingenuous. The difference was that the Communistic regimes did not wage their awful crimes in the name of atheism, while Hitler most certainly did in the name of Christianity. And even among communist regimes: Stalin was raised in a fiercely religious milleau, and under his regime the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was reopened; Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist who studied under Catholic teachers; Mao was head of a personality cult, though AFAIK was otherwise fairly atheist--but he certainly did not appeal to atheism as a support for his crimes, but rather communism.

Which, again, is not to put religion to blame per se, except inasmuch as it often allows people to be manipulated in ways they might otherwise not be.

I found this quote on the internet, so I don't know how reliable it is. However, here's what claims to be a quote from Goebbels, a prominent Nazi:

"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

Conclusion: the Nazis were not a Christian movement. They hoped to one day eliminate Christianity, but in a nation with a hugely Christian majority, they had to appeal to the crowds by pretending to be a Christian organization.

First: Goebbels isn't particularly trustworthy just in general. Second, that appearing to be Christian helped their cause despite their atrocities doesn't really absolve the religion.

Finally: ""I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord"s work.", and of course a longer one:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God"s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice" And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."

Both of these were quotes were from either speeches or his book the "Mein Kampf." He talked about himself like a Christian to gain the support of the predominantly Christian people. And one of these was from the mid-1920s, long before he founded the Nazi Party, but in any case he called himself Christian to gain the support of the people.

May I remind you that one of his associates said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." Hitler also replaced Bibles with the "Mein Kampf" in schools.

Also, in 1933, Hitler said, "It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'"

My conclusion: Hitler paid lip service to Christianity to gain the support of a mostly Christian nation (Christian in word, anyway) but he secretly was against Christianity and he wished to one day eliminate it.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:14:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:08:20 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:

Both of these were quotes were from either speeches or his book the "Mein Kampf." He talked about himself like a Christian to gain the support of the predominantly Christian people. And one of these was from the mid-1920s, long before he founded the Nazi Party, but in any case he called himself Christian to gain the support of the people.

Or because he was one. You can't really assert that he just wasn't.

May I remind you that one of his associates said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." Hitler also replaced Bibles with the "Mein Kampf" in schools.

One of his associates.

Also, in 1933, Hitler said, "It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'"

Oh, he certainly had contradictory views.

My conclusion: Hitler paid lip service to Christianity to gain the support of a mostly Christian nation (Christian in word, anyway) but he secretly was against Christianity and he wished to one day eliminate it.

He just as much claimed: ""Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . ."

He specifically said "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

You can't just dismiss it. One thing is for certain: He wasn't an atheist. Whether he was secretly pagan or not--he never denied God.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:15:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even if Hitler was an atheist, and actively wanted to eradicate religion (which the evidence strongly rebuts, but for the sake of argument..) - the regime was not a result of atheism. Atheism has no ideals, no commands, no dogma, it's just a single position on the claim that a God exists.

Atheism needs an additional ideology in order to do anything. The same thing can be said for 'theism'. The belief that any god exists doesn't get you anywhere, you have to believe in a particular ideology of a god belief, such as Islam or Christianity, in order for it to have any substance and action
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:17:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:00:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:53:41 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:28:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:26:47 PM, PGA wrote:
There is absolutely no reason that without God, A would cease to equal A.

But it does. Watching the Winter Olympics pushed this point home. Russia still defines homosexuality as wrong. You, no doubt, define it as right. Which is it? It can't be both right and wrong and still mean the same thing. In Russia A = A. In the USA A = B, or visa versa.

No. All morality is subjective--including your own, and neither has anything to do with the law of identity.

Why is your moral view 'better' than mine? If it is not then who are you to dictate to me what is better or worse?

If good does not mean good it loses its sense of identity. If the same thing (homosexuality) is good in one culture and wrong in another then which culture holds the true meaning of goodness? You say neither. Therefore it becomes meaningless. There can be thousands of different meanings and language becomes meaningless. The same word can mean anything. Either homosexuality is good or it is wrong now becomes 'I elect homosexuality to be good' or 'I elect homosexuality to be wrong.'

Which is it? What is the identity of A? One culture contradicts what the other believes. Who is right? To you if they both are makes the definition of homosexually contrary. The Law of Contradictions states that the same thing (homosexuality in this case) cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same manner.

Correct, but you're trying (and failing) to apply a subjective assessment to something--to which the law of identity does not apply.

Yes, I thought about this and I disagree. A=A applies to homosexuality. It is either good or it is wrong. It can't both be good and wrong at the same time, no matter who holds such a view.

What is your objective 'best' that you derive 'good' from?

It certainly isn't a source of morality that condones slavery, like yours.

I don't think you understand ANE codes. You still did not answer my questions. What is your objective 'best' that you derive 'good' from?

Why is your standard or the standard you subscribe to 'the standard?' If it is not then why should you dictate what is and is not good? If there is no objective standard then any standard is as meaningless as any other.

If we do not derive our morality from a higher objective source then morality breaks down.

Your higher source is definitionally not objective, as it's the dictates of a being based on its desires and therefore subjective.

I believe you have one massive bias against God. You can't let Him be who He is. It cuts down on your 'freedom' to be your own god, dictating right from wrong. You have a grudge against God. Just because you assert this does not necessarily make it true.

And you see this in the very society in which you live. There are people living next door to you who do not believe that what you believe or what your society holds to is right. Now if one of 'them' becomes the controlling power then down goes you idea of 'good.'

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the law of identity.

A = A
Good = Good.
Homosexuality = Right
Homosexuality = Wrong.

Homosexuality is Good. If homosexuality is good then homosexuality cannot be bad.

Which is it? Is homosexuality right or wrong?

Neither your meaning, nor theirs is ultimately meaningful unless there is an ideal that we can derive best from. Utilitarianism does not work.

That may be the case, but your appeals here most certainly don't work.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:19:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:01:17 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:57:44 PM, PGA wrote:

What do you base the law of identity on? What is your ideal, your best? And why is it?

The law of identity is a logical absolute. It has nothing to do with "ideal" or "best".

Sure it does. A cannot both equal A and none A at the same time and in the same manner (LOC). A dog is not a cat. Their identity is different.

Back later.

Peter
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:21:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:19:46 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 5:01:17 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:57:44 PM, PGA wrote:

What do you base the law of identity on? What is your ideal, your best? And why is it?

The law of identity is a logical absolute. It has nothing to do with "ideal" or "best".

Sure it does. A cannot both equal A and none A at the same time and in the same manner (LOC). A dog is not a cat. Their identity is different.

And a dog and a cat have different objective definitions.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:27:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:17:29 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 5:00:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:53:41 PM, PGA wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:28:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:26:47 PM, PGA wrote:
There is absolutely no reason that without God, A would cease to equal A.

But it does. Watching the Winter Olympics pushed this point home. Russia still defines homosexuality as wrong. You, no doubt, define it as right. Which is it? It can't be both right and wrong and still mean the same thing. In Russia A = A. In the USA A = B, or visa versa.

No. All morality is subjective--including your own, and neither has anything to do with the law of identity.

Why is your moral view 'better' than mine? If it is not then who are you to dictate to me what is better or worse?

Who said I necessarily was?

And further: if you subscribe to, therefore, a nihilism, you have no grounds to prevent me from dictating to you.

If good does not mean good it loses its sense of identity. If the same thing (homosexuality) is good in one culture and wrong in another then which culture holds the true meaning of goodness? You say neither. Therefore it becomes meaningless. There can be thousands of different meanings and language becomes meaningless. The same word can mean anything. Either homosexuality is good or it is wrong now becomes 'I elect homosexuality to be good' or 'I elect homosexuality to be wrong.'

And the question then is: "Are your grounds for that sufficient and sensical". For everyone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong--they've failed to give any sufficient and sensical reasons (unless they subscribe to DCT--in which case they subscribe to authoritarian moral nihilism.

Which is it? What is the identity of A? One culture contradicts what the other believes. Who is right? To you if they both are makes the definition of homosexually contrary. The Law of Contradictions states that the same thing (homosexuality in this case) cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same manner.

Correct, but you're trying (and failing) to apply a subjective assessment to something--to which the law of identity does not apply.

Yes, I thought about this and I disagree. A=A applies to homosexuality. It is either good or it is wrong. It can't both be good and wrong at the same time, no matter who holds such a view.

That's correct. But as a subjective claim, one person can, based on their subjective judgment, claim that it is wrong, and another can claim that it is not.

What is your objective 'best' that you derive 'good' from?

It certainly isn't a source of morality that condones slavery, like yours.

I don't think you understand ANE codes. You still did not answer my questions. What is your objective 'best' that you derive 'good' from?

And you're attempting to handwave mine away. If you subscribe to biblical morality, then you think owning people as property is A-OK. And please, don't insult your own intelligence with the indentured servitude canard.

I believe you have one massive bias against God. You can't let Him be who He is. It cuts down on your 'freedom' to be your own god, dictating right from wrong. You have a grudge against God. Just because you assert this does not necessarily make it true.

I believe you have a bias against anything that doesn't agree with you, regardless of whether that's reality or not.

A = A
Good = Good.
Homosexuality = Right
Homosexuality = Wrong.

Homosexuality is Good. If homosexuality is good then homosexuality cannot be bad.

Which is it? Is homosexuality right or wrong?

Well, your subscribe to a authoritarian subjective morality. So you cannot say it's right or wrong either, as God could say, tomorrow, that it wasn't wrong. And if you don't think that's the case--if you think that biblical morality doesn't ever change, then you're okay with owning people as property. There's really no way around it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!