Theology and Religion of The New Pope Dawkins - The Devils Chaplin

Again you simply fail to grasp the definitions of common words.

No value against what? If you do not believe there is a god, then I have nothing to disagree with, I lack belief in gods.

I have no argument, I make no claims until someone makes the suggestion of gods.

But you do respond, by childishly stating your ignoring him, its so funny!

You just stated you do not claim there is a god but insist I have one, incredible fail! It just shows the absurdity of your logic.

"I never claimed there is a God, not my argument."
"But you do have a god, and those who cimprehend theism understand your god god is a 'false' god"
Absolutely non nonsensical, you would be laughed out of court!

 

Still reads the same--- are you classifying " killing for fun" as a belief or as a religious practice? That Was your example of a religion in case you have forgotten your example or your definition of religion. Doesn't seem that hard for me to comprehend. But if you need more help I may be able to eliminate the words over one syllable or perhaps provide synonyms if there are specific words you don't understand.

 

Quote Originally Posted by CourtJester View Post
Good definition. Now explain how athiesm is a religion under that definition. As far as I can tell athiests fo not believe in a superhuman agency which eliminates #1. Nor do they follow or adhere to a set of beliefs and practices ( note - and practices) which eliminates #2and #3. Nor do they become monks, practice religious beliefs, acquire religious convictions,or follow athiesm devotedly which rules out the rest.
Oh?

And your response:


So you dont adhere to not murdering people for fun eh? Your premise is absurd and shows lack of understanding.

Maybe I am missing what you consider my premise. Perhaps you can clarrify so I improve my comprehension of what you think you example is an example of. I thought you were using " murdering people for fun" was your example of a relgion under your definition but maybe you were using it as something else so please clarify.

Premise | Definition of Premise by Merriam-Webster
Merriam-Webster › dictionary › premise
Full Definition of premise. 1 a : a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference; specifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn b : something assumed or taken for granted : presupposition.

 

If a religion divides man, creating conflict, creating war, then religion, such a religion is dangerous and a sane person would have nothing to do with it.

If the tree is producing bad fruit, cut it down. It has no value, and could make someone sick.

This is the perennial wisdom that should throw light on this subject. I am not a fan of Dawkins, but he is right, at least on the existent organized religions. But there may be a religion that does not divide, that does not create conflict and war. That benefits human existence. But Dawkins could never be of that religion either. For he has his own religion, with its dogmas, and its philosophical materialism.

 

is false

!belief has associated actions.

 

The US was set up to be that place with the reserved right to exercise your religion of choice but it is not, it is exactly opposite and rather than preventing wars creates more than all other countries put together.

 

I agree that atheistic regimes killed millions. The difference between the killing done by Atheistic regimes is that the killing was not done on the basis of "atheism". During the 1000 years of horror under Christianity, the killing was done on the basis of Christianity.

 

Christianity was ferocious at some point, but you should mind that they were very different times. If some religious people are evil, they don't become better people without religion.

 

Yes they do. An Islamic extremist would not be wanting to strap bombs to his/her body and kill a bunch of people if they had not been brainwashed by this religious ideology.

 

The so called Atheist Regimes were religious the dogma was directed at the state and the leader, in comparison North Korea is a religious structure. While Sweden is largely Atheistic and hardly the same as these poor examples.

And Hitler was a professed Christian, maybe a warped Christian but never denied the divinity of Christ just that he wasn't a Jew. Now those under him might have been Atheists but religion was in the Third Reich system.

Now if one excludes those "Dogmatic States" the number of people true Atheists killed would be quite low compared to religion. Let me list three the Inquisition, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (Catholic Portugal came up with that one) and the Crusades (Christians and Muslims fighting over religious BS how wonderful) and can add more to this list of horrors.

So I'm very comfortable saying Atheists ,properly free from Dogma systems, didn't harm many people.

 

I agree that there was a warped religious ideology/ state religion under Hitler so it is difficult to call them atheists.

Regardless. The Genocide committed by Catholic Croatia during WW2 on Jewish and Orthodox Serbs had the support of the Church.

Ivan Šarić was the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vrhbosna in Sarajevo, who supported the Ustaša.

His diocesan newspaper wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Ustaše

When the tide of the war started to turn the Vatican did a rapid about face of course.

 

any more untruths you would like to share with us?

It is not the first time that historians have suggested Hitler had Jewish ancestry. His father, Alois, is thought to have been the illegitimate offspring of a maid called Maria Schickelgruber and a 19-year-old Jewish man called Frankenberger.Aug 24, 2010

Hitler 'had Jewish and African roots', DNA tests show - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html
The Daily Telegraph

Religious views of Adolf Hitler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of debate, with a consensus of scholars agreeing that Hitler was not a Christian and was skeptical of religion generally. According to Alan Bullock, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist "who believed neither in God nor in conscience",[1] <- atheist on steroids but who opportunistically employed the language of "divine providence" in defence of his own myth.[2]


atheists greater than 100 million
theists < 5million (to be safe)

You all really need to start distinguishing propaganda from facts

 

Sorry exactly which part of my actual post is false? Is it my posting your statement? Is it the definition of premise. Don't believe my post even mentioned "!belief " You seem to be rather confused or perhaps just unable to address my questions.

Or have you mstakenly answered the wrong post and are trying to salvage your failed boolean proof?

 

so highlighting the part of your quote in red was not clear enough?

 

Darwin himself was a racist... in his writings he describes the white race as more evolved. Being a racist POS, it' s no surprise that his studies did open the path to the theories of racial cleansing and genetical superiority of some races.

Just look at how many people still nowadays believe in the racial superiority BS. Seriously that man did a ton of damage in the long term.

 

Darwin was wrong about the white race being more evolved. He was wrong on several other things too.

Still, you have failed to demonstrate causation between his writings and subsequent events. This claim you make is a common creationist canard. You certainly did not think it up yourself. You are merely repeating the canard.

Racism and racial and ethnic cleansing existed well before Darwin. Indeed, according to one religious myth, one or more of the the Abrahamic sky fairies ordered ethnic cleansing, and also ordered (or will order in the future) thought cleansing (kill those with certain thoughts). As to your claim that "[Darwin's] studies did open a path to theories of...genetic superiority" (your words), I fail to see how that could have happened since Darwin knew nothing about genetics and wrote nothing about genetics.

I will say again that you are blaming the messenger, not the perpetrator. Do you blame Albert Einstein for use of the atomic bomb? Of course you don't. Why blame Darwin for the actions of others?

 

Darwin stated: " at some point in future, the civilized races will certainly exterminate the savage races throughout the world ". It doesn't sound like something a racist would say. Not only that, but many other statements made by darwin are a call to racism and eugenics.

It won't ever be too late to realize that the father of evolutionism was a little, evil man.

 

Regardless of what or what not Darwin was, that has nothing to do with the ToE.

Your ad hominem fallacy, coupled with a side salad of "Hey, look over there", fails.

I would address your quote mine, and point out how your quote is taken out of nuanced context, but I suspect it would short circuit your religious indoctrination. And we can't have that.

 

No, how about actually answering the question since the red you highlighted was in your definition of religion ( contained in my post) which I Assume you are now repudiating. If you want to argue against yourself that would clearly be self stimulation which is probably the best thing to clear your blockage.

 

I gave you a slam dunk example way back in the beginning which should have been self explanatory, didnt you understand it, or if you think something was wrong with it, what was wrong with it?

 

Court Jester provided you with reasons why atheism is not a religion, you havn't answered one single point, just dodge and deflection.

By your own definition of religion, atheism(lack of belief in gods) of itself is not a religion.

How is that evidence for gods going?

 

Hmmm,...
I believe that Reality, as it continually unfolds for us,... demands we adapt or face eventual extinction.
It god-like in that demand.
It also has Natural Laws we can use but not ignore.
In that, Reality is all powerful.

The only way for us to do "this adapting" is if we see the Truth,... about what Reality is doing, and might do.
That truth sets us free,... if we use it,... free from many problems,... but also,... free from a surprise extinction as happened to Neanderthal man.

Your list of the seven attributes, in my case, fit.
I guess I am religious about believing these things.

But it seems clear we all ought be doing this too.

 

Yes,...
What is coming,... right now,... is a pay-back predicted,... as muslims have flooded into Western Europe in the millions:

Jer 30:11 For I am with you to save you (Jews of the Holocaust), declares the Lord; I will make a full end of all the nations among whom I scattered you, (France, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, and others in the EU), but of you I will not make a full end. I will discipline you in just measure, (my "strange work:" [Isa 28:21]), and I will by no means leave you unpunished, (but sacrifice you on the altar of Holocaust).

 

It seems clear to me that we all ought to be trying to get along, eradicate hunger, poverty, poor education and war, theists, atheists and agnostics should be working together to achieve this. As I see it most people want this world to be a better place for their children regardless of religion or lack of.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that a god allowed six million to die because he wanted to discipline them, and that is just. Seems like god is a nutter!