I see what you're getting at, but it's been debunked. Hitler was definitely raised Christian and held those beliefs through early adulthood. And make no mistake: Hitler's anti-Semitism--and any anti-Semitism--springs from the Bible.

But anyway, thanks for coming back. It's cool to toss these things around, even with someone I completely disagree with.

Hitler was raised Catholic but rejected Christianity early in life and believed in a creator who put the aryan race on earth to lead over "lower" peoples.

ETA: War on Drugs? Please tell me how the Catholic Church has had any influence on the US War on Drugs. Christian morals, I can maybe (and that's a stretch) get on board with, but we're specifically talking about Catholicism. Most of the US is Protestant.

While I agree with much of what you have said in this thread, I must take issue with this post, particularily the last paragraph.

I have considered using this argument several times, but have ultimately decided against it. Mostly because it openly contridicts much of what I, and you as well I'm sure, believe.

First, you argue that Christian followers have been the source of much intolerance, violence, and hate in the past - and with this I am in agreement. However, to make this argument you must also prove that the religion was the driving force and motivation behind it all, and that it wasn't done for other reasons with religion being used as an "excuse", if you will. Now, I don't find this particularily difficult, but many religious people will argue this point.

However, at the same time, you are now arguing their same point to limit the power religion might have over the minds of its followers by saying that their achievments have little to do with their faith. Certainly, you can't at once say that religion is so dangerous as to drive people to violence, but it has no impact on them with regards to their positive achievments in life, or, even the acheivments of a religious society as a whole. This is a double-standard, and it is ultimately the problem with using base criticisms of ALL religion.

If you are going to argue that religion is powerful (powerful enough to incite horrible violence), which it most certainly is, then you must argue that point consistently and give credit where credit is due. This means we must take an honest look at individual religions and judge their merits and potential for influences both negative and positive in the world instead of just attacking religion in general. Not all religions are equally dangerous; this should be obvious.

I do agree that Christianity, for instance, has consistently been an impediment to scientific progress. However, I don't agree that much of the charity (for example) established in our society today would necessarily exist to the same degree without Christianity. It seems foolish to me to argue that Christianity isn't at least partly responsible for many of the positive aspects of our society today.

I do take a stand though and say that, generally much of what has come from Christianity would ALSO have come to be with any number of secular belief systems and philosophies. Ultimately, I'm of the belief that the world would be at least slightly better off without most religion, especially the big three Abrahamic religions. To me, much of the horror religion has brought that might have been otherwise avoided outweighs the positives we owe to religion which might not have come about.

Sorry if my post is thin on examples, I'm trying to keep it to a reasonable length. Also, while I've pondered the content of this post often, this is the first time I've written it down, so feel free to point out flaws in my reasoning - I'm always willing to reconsider my beliefs.

I have no doubt that your attachment to your faith is personally fulfilling for you, and I respect that. I can't help but wonder, however, if you would have made the same decision in adulthood had you not been raised Catholic.

I considered conversion to Judaism in my late teens. Quite frankly, Catholicism is the last place I figured I would end up, since it didn't really 'take' the first time around. I also don't think my religious beliefs are perfect.

A billion Chinese people would like to kick your ass for that. Confucianism taught "do unto others..." centuries before Christianity.

Wow. Just wow. Although I agree with you on some things (such as the general superiority of capitalism to socialism), the more I see you post the more I understand why I want to avoid you. There is no other member of DVDTalk about whom I would say this. Congratulations, your venom meets or exceeds anything any atheist says about religious believers or any alleged smugness, condescending attitude or sense of superiority of atheists, in this thread or in any other I have ever seen here.

I and most other atheists and agnostics here do not engage in such rhetoric and on the other side neither do most believers such as kvrdave and Rockmjd23 and others whom I greatly respect.

P.S. Here is one of your "dirty nosed, lacking in wisdom" guys:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...artin-bio.html

Umm - are you even reading what I type? I explicitly said that anyone simply "ragging" on anyone else is a waste of time. My beef with you isn't which side you're on, it's the complete lack of content in your post and the apparent refusal to take part in the discussion that's actually taking place here. We're talking about the origins of the universe, advanced physics, and the psychology behind religion (and the lack thereof), and you come in ignoring everything saying, basically, "Atheists and agnostics suck because they're smug!"

You're not getting trashed for the side you're on. You're getting trashed because you're clueless about what's being discussed here. You're getting trashed because you posted here despite obviously having not read the whole (or even the majority of) thread.

Well that's ironic. We're having an intelligent discussion here, agnostics, athiests, diests alike, and you come threadstomping, completely ignorant of the discussion at hand. And I'm the smug one and you're the innocent victim.

Good one. Self-delusion definatly seems like your bit. Go with it.

Okay, let me pick a nit. I was raised Lutheran, and we constantly referred to ourselves as God's flock. The sheep references were everywhere - Jesus was the shepard. We even had the lamb of God.

You may not like the categorization, but it's one the church itself promotes. So it's a pretty tough sell to get up in arms at the atheists and agnostics who use the term.

Wow - nice snippage. Way to cut out all the hard parts.

Of course. It was a time when the Church regularly ignored rational science in favor of dogma. That doesn't happen anymore. Which is why the bible-thumpers are demanding Creationism be taught in schools.

It was a different time, but not all that different. The Christian establishment still likes to ignore the inconvienant science.

Well isn't that a nice introduction to your post. Thank you for gracing me with your wisdom, being that your mind is so far above my puny intellect.

Now, what were the deists saying about smugness? I forget.

Bullshit. And, as I notice your utter lack of proof ... still bullshit.

But hey, at least we're the smug ones, right?

W-O-W

i believe the reason people so blindly follow some super sky god deity is because they want to make sense of a complex world. when something goes wrong, they turn to this delusional mindset. critical thinking exists at the fringe of society. so few people actually engage in it. why? i hate to say this but we are a very shallow, materialistic culture who is constantly in high speed trying to get ahead of everyone else. we don't have time to think critically about ourselves and beliefs because where will it get us? that's right, in our minds NOWHERE! we seek out and build relationships with people who have the same idealogy as us. I have yet to read sam harris or dawkin's books, which i most certaintly will in about a week. I'm hoping after reading the books i can talk to someone who is devoutly religious, and challenge them to read it. religion is bullshit. i have no problems with people who are religious because they want to make sense of the world, but all i care for in a person is the character and open mindness of that person. if they are religious so be it, but don't treat me like im lesser of a person. nothing pisses me off more.

I would agree. There was a time known as the Dark Ages. They were virtually totally dominated by Christianity. It was people, many of them Christians themselves, who courageously (and it took great courage during an age when dissenters were deemed heretics and had to risk their fortunes and their lives) challenged that domination in all facets of life including science, who had to drag institutional Christianity kicking and screaming into the 17th century. By perhaps the 19th century, that was accomplished. Christianity has done better since then and most (but not all) has caught up now in the 21st century. I will give institutional Christianity credit for advancing (much more than Islam, for instance which, ironically, in the middle ages was far more tolerant and promoting of science than Christianity), but as grudgingly reluctant followers, not as leaders. If the medieval Popes and Inquisitors (the types who burned Giordano Bruno) and the likes of John Calvin (who burned Michael Servetus) had had their way indefinitely, we'd still be afraid to say the sun was the center of the solar system.

I grew up in it for the most part. I started going to church with my aunt at six and eventually my parents started coming and the rest is history. I never was forced, I wanted to be a Christian. I'm confident I would've eventually became a believer but who knows how long it would've been.

I don't think there's much I can add that hasn't already been said. But I will say this - that if a person is demanding "proof" than nothing will be ever be good enough. Christ himself could stand before you and that wouldn't be sufficient (as it wasn't for some at the time either). Or perhaps a change of heart from Mr Dawkins? No I think people would just write it off as old age getting to him... You see how it goes? Always excuses.

Agree with Groucho and movielib.

I know I almost always disagree with Vandy in the politics forum, but this doesn't even make sense. I feel like I'm reading another language. I had to read this 3-4 times to try and make sense out of it. Making ethical choices guided by their own sense of morality? Since when was Christianity big on making up your own mind about morality? I seem to remember 10 commandments and an awful lot of 'do nots' and 'dos' in the Bible, not moral relativism, nor have I seen many churches all for making your own interpertation of the bible.

Critical thinking is certainly not based on Christianity. Nothing about Christianity encourages critical thinking, making your own ethical choices, or anything else remotely resembling scientific methodology.

I'm more than willing to admit the positives and great works that religions and religious people have brought to the table, but critical thinking and relative morality sure aren't included in the list for Christianity.

I could use to read a book like this, perhaps it would help me solidify my thoughts on the matter. I was raised in a very religious household, but I don't think I ever really believed. I was always looking for proof or substance, and it never showed.

BTW I just want to say that folks like kvrdave are welcome in any such discussion. That's the kind of religious folks that you can actually talk to and with about stuff like this. Even if I think his viewpoint is hopelessly tainted by religion Unfortunately, I find there are very few like that in the world.

Their are numerous passages that deal with using your mind (a form of love to God) and to know the reasons why you believe and to be able to give account for it. While you shouldn't have to be a scientist to explain yourself, blind faith is never encouraged.

Also (and perhaps this is what Vand was referring to) their really is more freedom of expression and non-essential doctorine in Christianity than other religions. That may not come across with Christians you see in the media, but like everything else, don't let the vocal minority speak for the majority.

So if you perceive smugness and condescension in another you must respond in kind and even greatly outdo that person?

I was responding to the venom, excess and blanket smear of atheism in your post.

Jesus was constantly, constantly pointing out the terrible example of the Pharisees, who just rotely followed laws and traditions without being critical of the true spirituality behind the laws. That's a major part of why he was so controversial at the time---befriending tax collectors, prostitutes, despised races (Samaritans), etc. I have to argue that critical, ethical thinking beyond the proscribed religious laws is really one of the cornerstones of Jesus' teachings.

I'll give you that a lot of Christians throughout the years have not always put this into practice, but I'm not sure how you could read the New Testament and deny this major, inherent part of what Jesus was trying to get across.

<--is very disappointed kvrdave never responded in kind to my counter-point of his non-temporal creator argument

<--would have preferred a victory by some other means than kvrdave's avoidance of the issue

I haven't seen Kvdave around in this thread for awhile. It's possible he's gone off somewhere for the holidays and never even saw your post.

Too bad, he was by FAR the best Christian to debate with in this thread. It's no coincidence that as soon as he stopped posting, the discourse began to decline. It seems like most of what's left of them are just so eager to be offended that you can't say anything. Hell, I got bawled out for calling Christians sheep--a description they constantly use about themselves!

Is that what it is about? Victory? For myself, I read these threads in the hope of learning something new or seeing something from another perspective. I doubt anyone's mind will be completely changed here, but a victory would be being able to have one of these discussions without the condescending that goes on, wouldn't you agree?

Wow Glad this is in the Book Forum where I can forget all about it.

Almost irritated I showed back up, but wanted to answer this and then never come back again.


The "eternity" before the universe would be experienced however one chooses since time is not a construct. You could just as easily imagine the entirety of it to be a minute or a billion years. Both would be equal (and technically incorrect), but neither would have any real meaning where you have no time.

I'm sorry if you took it that way. It sure wasn't my intent, and I tried to preface it so that it wouldn't sound that way. All I am trying to say is that you keep trying to put things in temporal frames, and that doesn't work.

If you were a two dimensional man and we were talking about the entirety of a balloon 1 foot in diameter, and you kept asking me what happens when you take the y-axis out 2 miles, it wouldn't make any sense in relationship to the balloon. The balloon curves into a 3rd dimension which you don't experience, yet you keep arguing as though it does. In the same way, you keep bringing up dimensions that have no meaning outside the universe. I can't make a 2 dimensional man understand depth. And in this case, I can't seem to get you to understand the lack of time and the implications of it.. I'm honestly not trying to be "too smart" or anything else. But we are also arguing in nonsensical circles this way. Sorry again, if you took it that way, it wasn't my intent.

I would argue that the core purpose of that from a Christian perspective, is that because God is love. We don't usually consider it demented, base and self-serving for parents to have children. When people decide to have children, they are (or should be) fully aware that those children may not follow their way of life, may not follow the values that are set out for them, and indeed may not love their parents at all. But people still have children, because ideally, parents hope that their children will adopt values that are inherently true, will bring something positive to the universe, and will freely love their parents and others.

When children are small, they're taught a rigid set of values, which are enforced even if the child doesn't understand the logic behind the rules. As the child grows older, they come to freely choose to do (or to not do) the ethical thing. A four year old won't steal his mother's cupcake out of her hand, because he knows he will be punished. As the child matures, he won't steal the cupcake---not because he fears punishment---but because he loves his mother and wants her to have the cupcake, and understands the morality behind the decision. And so it is with a person's spiritual growth through religion---at first you're taught to follow the rules unquestioningly, and then as you study and ponder the rules, you follow them not out of fear of punishment, but because you love God and WANT to follow them.

So as I understand Christianity, God wants a very similar thing from mankind as parents do from children. And because God is love, he wants mankind to truly love him--to love love. If you accept that God is omnipotent, then he certainly could have chosen to make us as sin-free, purely spiritual creatures with no physical form, and with no need of any spiritual improvement. But the Christian philosophy says that for the love to be meaningful, it has to be freely chosen, or rejected. If we were pre-programmed to be perfect and to love God, and we had no choice in the matter, that love wouldn't then really be too much of an accomplishment. So, humans exist now as flawed physical creatures in a temporal universe, so that difficult choices can be freely made, and thus the choices, both right and wrong, are significant.

I can't really argue that one, because I can't really imagine a non-temporal existence enough to grant the logic of your statement that "neither eternity nor an instant would have any meaning." Maybe that's true. Maybe instead they both would have meaning. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't follow the logic enough to grant that your statement is accurate, either.

But a more pressing question I have, after reading some of your posts in the music forum, is.......How the hell can you listen to so much U2 and have such a contempt for Christianity?

I can of course only answer from my own perspective...

I believe that Jesus was a real person, but deny in every facet that he was the son of a one, true God. In fact, I don't believe that he made such a claim, but that it was cast upon him.

Despite not accepting his divinity, I accept that he was most likely a spiritual person who understood something about the deeper meaning of our existence. As such, there are lessons to be learned from him, but I don't feel that failure to learn those lessons and those from other philosophies will send me to any other hell than the one felt when outside of love and harmony.

Now to really set your head spinning: my favorite band by far is U2, and my favorite song is Until the End of the World, which is about Judas betraying Jesus. I don't see this as the betrayal of a diety, but rather the temporary victory of the baser agents of human nature outruling the forces calling for love and change.

It's not as though the band hasn't expressed its own doubts - see If God Will Send His Angels and Wake Up Dead Man for examples. I may be on the opposite side of the fence via religion, but I find myself wondering the same things that the band apparently wonders about.

Fred