Comments by Jon_Sociologist
Comment #160964 by Jon_Sociologist on April 14, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Comment #159761 by phil rimmer:
Jon
Intentions- Admirable.
Methods- Weird.
Negotiators don't shoot at (well intentioned) vigilantes when they've gone a little gun crazy.
I am not a negotiator. I'm curious what your take is on the actions of Hugh Thompson Jr. during the My Lai Massacre? Thompson ordered his gunners to fire on U.S. soldiers if they continued to murder innocent Vietnamese civilians.
In our case the bullets have been replaced with words, making the cowardice of anyone unwilling to stand up to Styrer- that much more pathetic. And while the victims in this case will not be murdered, the viciousness of those willing to stand by and allow these attacks to continue differs only in degree. My Lai still damages the reputation of the U.S. and labelling every non-Atheist a 'fuckwit faith-head' damages our reputation. But there is an important difference, U.S. power is not largely based upon reputation, our war is a war of words, and reputation plays a far greater role.
Comment #160836 by Jon_Sociologist on April 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Comment #160368 by Quetzalcoatl:
I do think you're a little harsh on talking snakes though.
Sorry Quetz, I guess I should have made the connection that a talking snake trying to enlighten people would be you or one of your cousins. I'm sure that it must be painful for you to hear of a talking flying snake having his wings cut off and his mouth stuffed with dirt. You have my deepest sympathies and condolences on the blatantly unfair mistreatment of your kind as described in Genesis.
Comment #159760 by Jon_Sociologist on April 13, 2008 at 3:55 am
If it was just a matter of who was right, the battle would be done, and we would have already won. But it's not and logic and evidence and rational debate only count for so much in this fight. These are our strengths, but the enemy knows that a supportive community, and provision of emotional and intellectual crutches is theirs. We were played here, almost to the point that I'd think someone was planted. Unfortunately any conspiracy theory would be unconvincing, because this individual obviously believes in what they are saying, thus it is equally obvious that we can't pawn them of on the other side. And now Comment #159312 by whatrutalkingabout has been not only confirmed, but confirmed as an accurate generalization:
I tried to read this but it was so caustic. It seems like it is written by a completely bitter, crazy man.
[snip]
Shouldn't people make informed decisions on their own? Or should we all just listen to one side, namely - Richard Dawkins? Isn't that why you go to college? To become educated...or, to use your term...goons?
Comment #159758 by Jon_Sociologist on April 13, 2008 at 3:39 am
Peacebeuponme none of the following applies to you. The rest of you, however, fucked up at a crucial time.
Comment #159736 by Quetzalcoatl:
Here's a link to the entire post. I'm afraid it's mostly more of the usual:
http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=91e31ccdf2f8e66b1beef2e1cbaa1005&topic=25.msg257#msg257
Yeah, unfortunately this time we got our fucking asses handed to us. Look at the calm measured tones that he uses to spout his bigoted drivel about, "all religion is mans attempt to reach up whereas biblical Christianity is God's reaching down". I ask all of you to put yourselves in the shoes of the undecided for a moment. How many are going to be taken in by the calm reasonable seeming friendly supportiveness of David Robertson? How many of those 50/50 agnostics who come here to be accused of being fucktarded fundamentalist faith-heads, are going to feel that this is the better side to be on? Do you guys seriously think that everyone is going to look at the treatment, that even fellow Atheists get when calmly responding to questions, and that this is going to lead these guys to say: "hey sign me up, I like getting it up the ass with a sharp stick every time I step out of line?"
Instead of stepping up to the plate and defending those who should be defended, you guys let it slide and told us to keep it down. Good goal guys. To bad it was own. Ignoring our teammates when they commit fouls is not good enough; we all take the penalties. We may be catching up to the other side fast, but we don't have the luxury of letting shit like this slide.
Comment #159752 by Jon_Sociologist on April 13, 2008 at 3:16 am
Comment #159731 by Quetzalcoatl:
Oh excellent. More arguing verging on becoming another slanging match. Terrific.
Jesus Quetz, if my little tiff with Styrer- was just verging, I'd hate to see what you would call a real "slanging match".
Comment #159748 by Jon_Sociologist on April 13, 2008 at 3:12 am
I'd just like to say that you guys are a bunch of bastards. Just cause I piss on one of your parades every time I need to pee doesn't make turnabout fair play. Styrer- and I were enjoying our schismatic little holy war. And you guys come along and make sure the game is called due to urethral rain. What's the fun in having a messy public divorce if you have to do it in private?
And now for a Parthian shot:
Comment #159646 by bigcanuck:
There is something to be said for balance and openmindedness. Ridiculing an option that doesn't jive with your own personal belief system is no way to investigate true science.
I guess there are radicals on both ends of the scale.
This is hard to argue against, when as soon as he comes in here he is subjected to a stream of name-calling and assorted vitriol. I would point out that this was a defeat for our side, and the audience was watching. I gather the sudden influx of theists and undecideds has been because the guys over at Expelled put a link to this thread on at least one of their blogs. Bigcanuck's comment should make it clear that they are all wagging their fingers saying, "see, just what you would expect from a bunch of barbaric Atheists". You guys want me to take my chastisement private, but the audience was watching the treatment bigcanuck received here, and the lack of restraint, and the willingness to let profanity laden ad-homs against him slide is a serious point for the other side.
Comment #159740 by Jon_Sociologist on April 13, 2008 at 2:51 am
Re Comment #159735:
Good call Steve. While I believe that he deserves a good public thrashing (preferably with blunt heavy objects), it has perhaps gone beyond the pale here. Although I feel it is important to publicly condemn the sort of random vicious lashing out that I'm seeing around here. I think the site administrators should probably not be allowing the spiralling personal attack fests such as the one Styrer- and I have been engaged in. Or notably the ones involving clearmind/wooter, someone being a fucktard does not necessarily mean that we should all get away with calling them one. I've been picking up some terrible habits here, and it's hard not to let them bleed into my other arenas (it's just so darn fun letting my id loose on someone).
Sorry guys, I'll go kick him in private (or perhaps metaphorically in the privates).
Comment #159728 by Jon_Sociologist on April 13, 2008 at 2:13 am
Comment #159710 by Styrer-:
You really do not like being called 'verbose', do you? It is heartening to see that your response to such a criticism is to make yet another longwinded speech here.
Actually it gives me a jolly good stiffy, hence the "yet another longwinded speech".
Comment #159710 by Styrer-:
Or, rather more challengingly for you, who seems to like the sight of his own text,
I do. I really do. It's wonderful to be able to point to some of these posts proudly, and show that I am fighting the good fight against ignorance and superstition. Speaking of which, in answer to your questions:
Comment #159710 by Styrer-:Apparently you are having trouble reading all of my verbosity so I'll just copy and paste a brief part of Comment #159703 for you:
if you simply think me a wanker, why not say fuck off?
Spewing such evidence free hypocrisy, and then following it up with a snotty little "Best, Styrer" is "help" that I can do without, so kindly fuck off.(emphasis added)
Best,
Jon
Comment #159710 by Styrer-:
ignore me altogether and press on with your other, much more important engagements here and on other threads?
Because neighbour, I am fighting the battle for hearts and minds, and I always try to engage those who are working against my side. And you are such an individual. And thus I must try to either insult you enough that you leave, talk enough sense into you that you reform or at least shut up, or piss you off enough that you lend your anchor weight to drowning the other side's swimmers.
Comment #159710 by Styrer-:
But you also come across to me as rather a pedant, quoting masses of text in order to illustrate your ability to dissect it, and not always seeing the real point behind your selection and dissection.
Is this pouting about the big meanie destroying your argument by dissecting it to show that the apparent "real point" is actually nonsensical due to being composed of many nonsensical little parts?
Comment #159710 by Styrer-:
If I thought that my participation here was as damaging as that which faithheads represent in the world at large, then I would have gone by now.
Actually I doubt this statement. You already pointed out in Comment #159675 that I was correct in telling you that "enough is enough", and yet you insist on bulling ahead and being an asshole to everyone.
Comment #159710 by Styrer-:
Its ethos is, after all, so completely different from your own.
Really! You find a website that seems to be designed with the goal of waging the war for hearts and minds that has ~10 or more articles on the Expelled controversy, to be short-winded and targeted at something else do you?
Comment #159710 by Styrer-:
Think on, Jon.
I will. And I'd like to invite you to start. Perhaps you can start by reviewing your interaction with bigcanuck. Ask yourself questions such as:
What did I hope to accomplish?
(I can't help you on that one, unless it really was your goal to just be an asshole to someone attempting to engage us in reasonable debate)
Was my approach likely to help or harm this goal?
(If you were trying to ensure that bigcanuck was alienated from our side, then you did great, and you're an idiot)
Are there likely to be any effects outside of this goal?
(Presumably anyone observing your interaction would find your posts unconvincing and would almost certainly not want to be associated with someone like you)
I must add that it would be rather bizarre to consider me any sort of Steve Zara sycophant, as I have "locked horns" with him in the past. And on the current issue regarding Stenger I am largely neutral. I thought I might remain undecided in my opinion on Steve's position until he finished formulating it. I might even wait until then to decide whether I should start calling anyone a "twat" or throwing a temper tantrum if Steve undermines my argument that: "something can emerge from nothing". However, Steve's conduct in those debates I have had with him was impeccable, and he has earned my respect and admiration. He understood my arguments, and when he disagreed he either revised his position if I convinced him or challenged me into revising mine (often a little of both). He refrained from what I am certain was in some cases great temptation to start name calling. Compare this with your behaviour Styrer- (was the "-" due to some seizure?), you have admitted to being a rabid shit slinging monkey, and yet you continue on blithely smearing everyone around with the feces you use for brains, as if this were of no consequence. This is not the mark of a reasonable, rational, scientifically minded individual. You are the very epitome of many of the stereotypes that creationists attempt to saddle us with (doggedly determined to cling to wrong ideas even while you actually accept the "truth", and viciously rude to enemy and friend alike). You are one pus encrusted saddle sore that I'd very dearly like to get rid of or at least treat.
Comment #159717 by Jon_Sociologist on April 13, 2008 at 12:53 am
Snicker, snicker.
Comment #159715 by Jon_Sociologist on April 13, 2008 at 12:27 am
Comment #159647 by clearmind:
Jon will go on copying and pasting the answers to answer
Yes I will. Except when you come up with something new or unless you actually manage to refute one of those answers that I have saved on my desktop, pre-formatted for easy copying. Until such an event I will keep copying and pasting to make absolutely clear that you are full of shit every time you say something to the effect of: "evolution cannot answer [insert previously answered question here]". As long as you stick around trying to baffle people with bullshit, I will stick around pointing out your lies (I'll even give everyone handy little links so that they can see your lies in their original context).
Comment #159647 by clearmind:
So this web page and evolution idea IS GONE WITH THE WIND OF LOGIC.
It will take far more than farts from your imaginary friend, regardless of what you name them (Logic, Fred, Bob, Suzy, Jesus God or whatever).
Comment #159647 by clearmind:
pretend as if nothing happens while evolution was stomped by an elephant like effect by LOGIC AND INTELLIGENCE.
Come on wooter, you're getting lazy. You at least used to vaguely attempt to "backup" your declarations of victory with arguments. Sure it's obvious that we can easily defeat any argument you're capable of gibbering out or cutting and pasting, but that's nothing new, you at least need to try.
Comment #159647 by clearmind:
This is very well constructed self-deceiving.
Evolution is self-deceiving? I thought evolution was like TAMPONS: "Satan's Little Cotton Fingers!" You mean to tell me that the dinosaurs all got together and said "hey lets all lie down in order so that it will look like we gradually change into each other just to fuck with those stupid humans when they try to figure out god's creation". Ha! Noah got the last laugh on all those drowned fucking lizards didn't he? Hey but wait! Doesn't Genesis 6:19-21 say: "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." And doesn't Genesis 6:22 say: "Noah did everything just as God commanded him." If Noah missed a few GIGANTIC FUCKING LIZARDS he didn't really do "everything just as God commanded him" now did he? Or were they non-living creatures? Perhaps the talking snake from the Garden of Eden (a.k.a. the devil), cleverly crafted the fossils we see everywhere. This is particularly crafty and devious, as snakes notably do not have hands. Which of course brings us to Genesis 3:14:
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,I think Ricky Gervais has the best take on this:
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
Not really a punishment for a snake. I bet it couldn't believe its luck. Standing there going "oh fuck (mumble, mumble)."It also seems worth noting that the snake was more honest than god in this story: they did not die from eating the fruit (although god denied them the fruit of the tree of life to prevent humans from becoming too godlike), and their eyes were opened, just as the snake predicted. So, even though the Bible tells you that god is a lying conniving little shit, you still believe him when he tells you that 'everything I say is true'. What does your dress wearing hermaphrodite imaginary friend have to say about that sort of "thinking"?
[God]:"And you, you have to crawl on your belly."
[Snake]:"But I already. . . Oh no! Oh! Engh! Oh yeah, yep, yep, yep you've done me. Yep, no, no, no we're even now. Yeah, that's ah. . . I asked for that. OK cheers. Oh, how does this work again?"
(Slithering motions)
"Oh! Ow! I'm being punished! Oh this is rubbish, I wish I could fly like normal."
Comment #159647 by clearmind:
Briefly, there will be more movies soon after the books that prove evolution does not fit in logic dress.
This is getting hard to keep up with. You have an imaginary friend named logic who is a hermaphrodite landowner that wears a dress? And apparently a smaller sized dress than the one your imaginary enemy Evolution wears. Hmmm. . . how should Deuteronomy 22:5 be interpreted in this case: "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this"? Are hermaphrodites exempt? They aren't really men or women are they? I'm forced to wonder what Freud would think of your fantasies of territorial dress-wearing hermaphrodites? 'Zis tells me zat you have dominance issuez based upon your Oedipal longings being svitched from your oppozit sexed parent to your same sex parent; accompanied by ze powerlessness zat you felt due to parental physical and emotional abuse'.
Now while I've made you look like an idiot again (although let's face it: you did most of the heavy lifting, I just helped), you mustn't abandon my victims to my wiles. I am clearly a tool of the talking snake (apparently it's a talking snake with the ability to telepathically control people). So persevere my good christian, let not one soul fall unnecessarily into the howling fires, duped by my slick words into embracing the devil himself. For, how does the saying go? 'The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world that he did not exist'. Save our brothers and sisters from the handless clutches of this telepathic talking snake! Can I get a hallelujah! Can I get an Amen! Thank you Jesus.
11. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #159703 by Jon_Sociologist on April 12, 2008 at 10:38 pm
@Styrer-
Why the hell would we want you on our side? We have Irate Atheist and The Reverend Dark to rain vitriol upon deserving heads. And we have the advantage that, from what I've seen, they limit themselves to deserving heads. You're just lashing out viciously at anyone who disagrees with you.
Any points I've seen you score you've immediately fucked up (sometimes even while making the point). You admit to going overboard and to being a "guttersnipe" and yet completely fail to reign yourself in. You correctly point out that belief based upon personal desire but in the absence of evidence is both unreasonable and unscientific. But don't you think your words ring a little hollow when you yourself are so clearly ignoring evidence that you have accepted?
Being an unjustified asshole is one thing, but realizing that you're an unjustified asshole and happily wallowing in it is far worse. Everyone fucks up occasionally and says things that are rude, unfair and unjustified. But to realize a mistake and continue on with it is incompetent, and I daresay betrays a poor grasp on the concept of a scientific mind. How can you fault someone for failing to take the correct steps in light of the evidence, when you yourself so blatantly do exactly the same thing?
I assume you know who clearmind/wooter/selfishmind is. I have honestly tried to encourage clearmind to continue posting here because his every post damages the creationist cause. You may be smarter than clearmind but your posts are just as damaging to our cause. You said I might need your help someday, and you're right. In fact I, and all of the other Atheists here waging the battle for hearts and minds, need your help today. And the best help you can give us is to shut the fuck up. You may have a hard time wrapping your head around this, but being right, or even intelligent, doesn't stop you from being an idiot.
Nothing I have seen from bigcanuck indicates to me that he could not be convinced and brought over to our side. But your hostile and openly hypocritical posts are far more likely to alienate both bigcanuck and any lurking neutral witnesses. So please shut your troll mouth and let the reasonable people talk.
It is too early to tell for sure, but bigcanuck seems like a reasonable, rational individual, who happens to disagree with us. Pointing out why his position is not in fact correct, and that his ideas might not seem so reasonable if examined from another perspective might be better if not followed by vague auguries about how he is putting his life and the lives of his children in danger. I find myself recalling a conversation with another "prophet" that came in here slinging shit, and my response to him applies equally to you: "So did you get that from Nostradumbass.com, or do you have any evidence to back up your prognostications?" Just in case your psychic abilities are not up to divining which comment I am referring to, it is the following: "You are placing your whole life on the line, and that of your kids, and you are doing so on the basis that your lack of evidence for your god is evidence enough" posted in Comment #159686. Spewing such evidence free hypocrisy, and then following it up with a snotty little "Best, Styrer" is "help" that I can do without, so kindly fuck off.
Best,
Jon
Comment #159695 by Styrer-:
That your lot INSIST on bring the greatest theoretical cunt in the universe to visit MY relationships, MY ideas of what is good and bad, MY LIFE as I live and breathe it is the most DESPICABLE, HATEFUL, IMMORAL idea that humankind has ever had to endure.
We may, indeed, not outlast you fucking faithfuelled scum-laden shits. But, at least for me, it will not be through lack of trying.
What the fuck good are your "ideas of what is good and bad" when you blatantly ignore them? Shut your stupid mouth, and quit assuming that bigcanuck is a "fucking faithfuelled scum-laden shit" when his posts make clear that he is not a fundy, is likely either a 50/50 Agnostic, an Agnostic-christian, or an Agnostic deist, not to mention the other myriad possibilities. What the hell are you trying to accomplish you fucking moron? Do you think your honey-laden posts are going to convince anyone? Well, I have news for you; they are, but they're not going to be getting anyone to join our side. If you need the catharsis of spewing such hate at random people might I suggest not clicking the "submit" button, let it out if you must, but let it drop without actually posting it.
12. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #159670 by Jon_Sociologist on April 12, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Comment #159619 by Styrer-:
Actually, Steve, on re-consideration, I have to say I think you are being a bit of a twat about this.
Wow, that's a bit asinine isn't it? Steve goes out and does research on the subject and you call him a twat for what he comes up with.
Comment #159619 by Styrer-:
That you would, sir, seek to dismiss it by means of a 'blog' entry seems to me to be the height of arrogance.
Is this man not a world-class, world-renowned scientist? Would you not expect his findings to have already been found in error if he is simply wrong?
Might I suggest that someone using an argument from authority logical fallacy probably shouldn't be calling another person a "twat" (pot, kettle you know the drill).
Comment #159619 by Styrer-:
I perceive a double standard here, and I am very displeased with you, Steve, as a result.
Whether you or anyone else agrees with Steve's findings, the manner in which you expressed your displeasure was both ignorant and rude at best. I would also point out that you asked. And you were a serious prick about the answer. If you aren't prepared to deal with an answer you don't like then you shouldn't ask the question. Whether or not you agree with Steve Zara, he stated his position politely (and at your request), for which you slapped him in the face. I for one, believe you owe Steve a most humble apology.
13. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #159665 by Jon_Sociologist on April 12, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Comment #159579 by bigcanuck:
He quite distinctly states that since Darwinists have no answer for how life began, there is obviously large holes in their theory.
He is quite distinctly wrong or lying on this count, I've already answered this one so I'll quote my earlier answer:
Comment #135126 by Jon_Sociologist on The Salamander's Tale thread:
Astrophysical theories show us how organic chemicals are a common by product of stars. Stars that existed prior to our solar system exploded seeding our solar system with the chemicals see so prevalent throughout our solar system.
Chemistry theories and observations show us how some of these organic chemicals have a tendency to bind weakly in specific patterns (DNA and RNA), separating and then duplicating themselves, giving us an explanation for the earliest DNA or possibly RNA life forms. The earliest life forms would have been nothing more than a self-replicating chemical reaction: bare DNA/RNA. Similar life forms are still around today in the form of viruses.
It is also important to point out that the Theory of Evolution is explains how life evolved after it came to exist, so yes inherently by the strictest definition of the word "Darwinism" takes no position on the beginnings of life. This however ignores the scientific ideas of abiogenesis ("the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life"). Have you not come across any of these ideas in your studies for your BSc in zoology (you didn't specify what your PhD is in)?
Comment #159620 by bigcanuck:
To discount any possible answer is against the scientific method and since science hasn't proven God doesn't exist... then that answer is still a possibility whether a person believes in God or not... n'est pas?
I think that most Atheists here do not say that god is absolutely impossible. I myself for example am a very strong Atheist in that I cannot see any means by which a creator god is possible. However, I am willing to acknowledge that such a being might exist by means that I have not seen. But, the evidence at hand leaves the possibility of god as sufficiently remote as to be unworthy of consideration. I am also Atheist/Agnostic about the possibility of an elephant being in my front yard, it's possible, one could have escaped from the zoo and made its way to my house, but the possibility is so remote that I am not about to get up and look out the window to make sure. This brings to mind one of my favourite quotes from the quotes section:
"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
Richard Dawkins
You are right that we cannot, to date, absolutely rule out the possibility of a creator god. This fact does not make 50/50 agnosticism a reasonable and scientific position. In the absence of sufficient evidence the default position of science on any given subject is open-minded disbelief. We must be prepared to accept any possibility in the event of confirming evidence, but we must be sceptical until such evidence is confirmed.
Another thing that needs mentioning is that there currently is no alternative scientific theory to the Theory of Evolution. I have addressed this elsewhere as well:
I am an atheist because I believe that the scientific evidence at hand strongly implies that there is no creator god. In the debate on the genesis of the universe I think an important point gets missed. In answer to the question 'how did the universe come to be?' the secular humanist answers: the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution, etc. The creationist answers 'god did it'. The point that gets missed is that this doesn't answer the question. The question was how not who. The comeback that god is omnipotent also doesn't answer anything. If we stipulate that god is omnipotent and could do it however he wanted still doesn't answer how he actually did do it. So it is not simply a matter that there is no BELIEVABLE alternative to scientific theory to explain the universe, there is no alternative theory at all.Neither ID nor creationism offer any explanation of how any supposed creator did anything. We are left with no explanations but another question: where did this supposed god come from? Even if you accept the Theory of Evolution etc. but still cling to the idea that some god is behind it all, how is god exercising this control? As I have asked elsewhere: What exact force do you think god used to shape our DNA? Did he use electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear force, or strong nuclear force? What was the mechanism used to generate this force? Did he use something akin to an electron microscope to move things around? Did he use incredibly tiny tweezers? ID/creationism explains nothing.
Comment #159235 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Comment #158713 by epeeist:
Just came across this one on http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104906
Why do our maxillary sinuses drain at the top? As is pointed out there, it makes a fair amount of sense for a deer, but what designer in her right mind would use the same design in creatures walking upright.
The posts bring up a vast number of good points, although I have to comment that the Theory of Evolution could survive refutation of the idea of common ancestry. If natural selection and mutation can explain one genetic lineage, I don't see why it couldn't explain more than one. In fact it would seem rather odd that life only arose once. As I have pointed out elsewhere I suspect life has indeed arisen more than once, but all of the available ecological niches were already full, and so the new life was out competed or consumed by organisms with the benefit of a longer evolutionary history.
The posts do, however, do an excellent job of hammering home the point that there are countless examples of 'only an idiot would design it that way'. Although I guess this wouldn't refute semi-intelligent design. Maybe god really is a mentally handicapped chimp with a band of nearly omnipotent monkeys.
15. German Church admits aiding Nazis
Comment #159227 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Comment #158816 by FightingFalcon:"The Fuehrer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."
Adolf Hitler, as quoted by Joseph Goebbels in The Holy Reich
Odd how he is speaking in the third person about himself, almost as if the quote is actually Joseph Goebbels discussing his own take on Hitler's religious views.
Comment #158816 by FightingFalcon:You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
Adolf Hitler, as quoted by Albert Speer in The Holy Reich
Isn't it interesting how he includes himself by saying "it is our misfortune"? It is almost as if he is both acknowledging and criticizing his own faith at the same time. Much as we Atheists accuse christians of uncritically accepting their faith it is not universally true. I would also point out that some context of Hitler's idea makes his meaning more clear. In his time muslims were considered vicious and violent (my how things have changed), Hitler considered this a strength and wished that his fellow christians would exhibit the same savagery and violence that he attributed to the 'mohammedans'.
Comment #158816 by FightingFalcon:"I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this. . ."
Adolf Hitler, as quoted in Ibsen and Hitler. Hitler was talking about the pagan Roman Emperor Julian's criticisms of Christianity.
Your point being? I went to catholic school and I heard many people who were very christian expressing views very similar to the criticisms you have quoted. Criticizing your own faith is not evidence that you no longer believe in it. I myself find myself critical of my fellow Atheists; luckily for me the definition of Atheist is 'someone who believes that there is no god'. If the definition was 'someone who refrains from criticizing other Atheists' I'd need to find a new club.
Comment #158816 by FightingFalcon:
You can go ahead and believe that Hitler was a Christian all you want. The overwhelming evidence points to the opposite.
You want overwhelming evidence? Hmmm let's see. . .
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Adolf Hitler
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
Adolf Hilter, Mein Kampf
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only 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 as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago �quot; a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."(source: stephenjaygould.org)
Adolf Hitler, speech delivered in Munich April 12, 1922.
While we might think it odd to remain part of a faith that someone is critical of, I have seen it countless times. You can't just point to his criticisms of christianity and say "see he couldn't really be christian". This is a clear no true Scotsman fallacy: 'no true christian would criticize their faith like that'. Certainly Hitler wanted to modify the christian faith, but this does not bar him from christianity any more than any other historical schism, such as the protestants, or the mormons for example. Even the catholics themselves are schismatic from orthodox christians. Luther was extremely critical of the christian faith of his time, are you going to say that this proves he wasn't really christian? If not, then how is it justified to say that Hitler's criticisms constitute evidence that he was not christian?
Hitler may have been famous for his Big Lies, that does not make it justified to reject the overwhelming evidence of his many professions of christianity, and the complete lack of evidence of any renunciation. You can't just say he was a liar, and thereby assume that he was lying about his christianity. So what if he was "anti-christian", so was Luther, it didn't stop Luther from being christian, and neither would it stop Hitler from being christian.
16. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #159175 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Comment #158804 by alan baylis:
No need to refute any of it, just underlining it will be enough!
D.I. Ogenes has said nothing worth refuting, as he has made no point whatsoever beyond hurling personal and religiously bigoted insults. Vulcan, however, has put the odd argument into his posts. Even though these arguments are largely hidden in the constant rapid-fire stream of drivel coming from his teammate, I don't think we should allow them to slide by without clear logical refutation.
Comment #158905 by Paula Kirby:
The Jesus as presented in the NT has his good moments, it's true, but he's also moody, incredibly opaque in some of his answers, petulant, unpredictable, and incredibly undiplomatic - NOT a good quality in someone who'd supposedly been sent from God to win people over.
While I agree that Jesus was not an entirely respectable character (to put it overly mildly) in the christian myths, it is hard to argue with success. In spite of his petulance, un-diplomatic nature and probable non-existence, those convinced by him remain the largest religion in the world. Note that the idiot Vatican statisticians have recently publicized that muslims have surpassed Catholicism as the worlds largest religion, however this compares one sect of christianity to all sects of islam. Christians as a whole are still more numerous than islam.
On the other hand I think we can ridicule his followers for being convinced by such childish, evidence free stories. Are they going to believe a pregnant teen claiming she is a virgin nowadays? If not, why do they believe a teen that made the same claim 2000 years ago? Especially since such a teen would have much more incentive to lie, in modern times a pregnant teen suffers social ostracism, 2000 years ago she would have been brutally murdered.
Comment #158909 by Vaal:
Still, Paula, in his defence, he could turn water into wine, so he is welcome in my house any day.
I like Rowan Atkinson's sketch on that:
Lo and they said unto Him, "how the hell did you do that? Do you do children's parties?"
Comment #158932 by Bonzai:
IMO God the father was the bastard in the NT narrative, not Jesus.
While I think you let Jesus off the hook way to easy, you make a good point. Why did god need to send his "son" to die horribly for our sins so that he could forgive us? Couldn't he just skip the whole whipping and nailing people to trees and just forgive us? And for that matter, how does crucifying someone help? Couldn't he find a more constructive outlet for his anger at what a crappy job he did? I mean he supposedly did make us the way we are, doesn't it seem a little childish and psychopathic to throw a murderous temper tantrum about it? And what is so special about Jesus being the son of god? I seem to recall that we are all "sons of the most high". Or is this actually some cryptic reference to people who smoke a lot of dope having lots of kids?
17. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #158783 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 3:25 am
What is up with this thread? Why is it that every goddamned idiot christian takes the words "Lying for Jesus" as an invitation to do so?
18. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #158779 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 3:19 am
Comment #158691 by Vulcan:
As to your statement "…suggest that the 'causes of it all' are natural" fails upon the rocks that the currently "accepted" naturalistic explanations require a violation of the agreed upon Natural Laws of Thermodynamics
Is this a garbled attempt at the old canard that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics? If so, then you are speaking out of your ass. The second law of thermodynamics states: "In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world" (source: wiki). I don't see how evolution violates a law governing the distribution of temperature and pressure/density, unless you are saying that warm-bloodedness is an impossible outcome due to the second law, which would be a bizarre and dumb thing to say. The fact that earth is not a closed system allows explanation of why the temperature and pressure of all life has not evened out. The input of the sun's energy allows life on earth to redistribute temperature and pressure.
Comment #158691 by Vulcan:
and the fact that evidence doesn't suggest any thing only interpretation of evidence does [The evolutionists (all variations), the Intelligent Designers (all variations), and the Biblical Creationists all have the same evidence and all have different interpretations of it.]
These groups all interact with the evidence in radically different manners. Evolutionists restrict their theories to the simplest explanation of the evidence. Intelligent design proponents go beyond but do not contradict the evidence. And creationists reject the evidence entirely.
Comment #158691 by Vulcan:
The Scientific Method requires that you conduct tests to attempt to disprove your Hypotheses and Theories unable to devise any tests to do that himself Darwin proposed that if you could find an irreducibly complex mechanism within a living thing or not find millions of transitional forms in the fossil record his theory would be disproved and that would be the tests.
I'm not sure what your point is. We have not found any irreducible complexity, and we do have an incredible array of more than millions of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Comment #158691 by Vulcan:
Someone stated that the Sumerian Civilization pre-dated the Biblical account and that Bible believers should call themselves Anti-Sumerian (or some such). Perhaps that person should check again a little deeper because less than 200 years ago the "Scientific Community" believed that Sumeria was a fictitious empire since the only references to it were in the Biblical text, and the believed time span of Sumer fits within the time span of the Biblical account of History.
You bring up an important point; scientific knowledge is always contingent upon the evidence. If a scientific theory is found to be in contradiction of the evidence, the theory is revised or discarded. Compare this with the dogged determination of creationists to reject any evidence that conflict with their "theory". And by the way Sumer probably existed from the foundation of Eridu around 5300BCE (source: Wiki). This would predate those versions of creationism that rely on counting the begats of the bible to determine an age of about 6000 years for the world. Of course not all versions of creationism postulate an Earth that young.
Comment #158691 by Vulcan:
read and contemplate Job 38
Oh but I like Exodus 21:20-21 much better: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." Although I must admit that it is somewhat unsatisfying in that I can't seem to find any niggers for sale nowadays. Oh but wait, according to Leviticus 25:44, "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves" I guess any American will do. So hey guys, what do you say, do any of you yankee crackers want to be my bitch? Am I misinterpreting? Are these laws metaphorical or are they "a factual account of real events"?
19. German Church admits aiding Nazis
Comment #158706 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 1:16 am
Comment #158446 by FightingFalcon:
Perhaps Shirer and I are reading too much into it. That's the second time that Shirer mentions a Viking funeral (the first time after Hitler ordered 200 gallons of gasoline to be burned with) although I suppose you could argue that he simply wanted to be burned so that his body would never be found. Either way, that's where I read it.
How is this in any way incompatible with Hitler's declared ideas of Germanic Christianity? Hitler openly tried to synthesize his ideas of ancient Teutonic culture and christianity into what he termed "Positive Christianity". It is also notable that between the 8th and 12th centuries most Vikings converted to christianity (source: Wiki)
The fact that Hitler privately criticized christianity on occasion does not even vaguely constitute proof of his 'non-christianity'. Many catholics are critical of the conduct of the catholic church, this does not magically make them non-christian. Many christians object to portions of the bible, this is not sufficient to consider them apostates. Hitler made it clear in private that in spite of his criticisms he was in fact a christian. While many of us Atheists claim that christians are all unquestioning sycophants, in practice this is not true in every single case.
Comment #158702 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 1:10 am
Comment #157529 by clearmind:
My job is done, pal. Again, I have trust in you that someday you will undertsand and able to see what the plain truth is.
Please don't leave. You can't give up on us yet. What would Jesus do? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't just give up, and leave because everyone disagreed with him. You are doing such a good job of convincing people that Evolution is the only game in town, and that creationist arguments are completely hollow, unscientific, illogical, totally irrelevant and archaic. You've persevered for so long, without being able to back up your arguments, it makes no sense to give up now.
Comment #158675 by clearmind:
Being created.
Being logical
Being reasonable
Being scientific
Being accepting
and Being a normal guy with a common sense
Come on your getting lazy, you can't just declare these things by fiat. You need to back it up with some question about how evolution explains the function of a tortoise's rectum or something.
21. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #158692 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 12:50 am
Damn you ZekeCDN :) you beat me to the punch. Fine then, but I'm still going to post my response (I'll just pout while I do it).
Comment #158688 by iBELIEVEinJESUS:
I don't know what Hitler believed, but he certainly wasn't Christian. His actions were completely contrary to what Jesus teaches. You're not a Christian because you say you're a christian, or because you go to church for that matter. You're a christian if you believe in and obey Jesus' commands.
This is a nonsensical no true Scotsman logical fallacy. If the criterion is successfully obeying Jesus' commands then no one is a christian, because some of his commands were contradictory. A christian is someone who believes in the Abrahamic god and tries to follow Jesus' teachings. Whether or not Hitler sucked at following said teachings does not alter the fact that he tried to follow his interpretation of Jesus' teachings.
Comment #158688 by iBELIEVEinJESUS:
That doesn't mean that Hitler had to be atheist, but if he believed in God, it wasn't the God of the Bible.
This is flat out wrong. Hitler makes references to belief in the god of the christian Bible all through Mein Kampf. Your distaste for Hitler's interpretation of Jesus, god and the christian Bible, does not change the fact that Hitler was following his interpretation of these things. Following their own interpretation of the Bible is the best any christian can do, this includes those christians who accept the interpretations fed to them by religious "authorities". Well, the best other than not be a christian of course.
22. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #158689 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 12:39 am
Comment #158684 by G M Becker:
Indeed, how can we be sure that any genetic 'boost' in mental attributes will produce desirable outcomes? Intelligent people are just as likely to have undesirable traits or be murderers or worse.
I agree with you overall, it is rather questionable to consider high intelligence to be a sole criterion for superiority, particularly in light of the fact that high intelligence is associated with lower birthrates in the developed world.
However, your specific assertion that "Intelligent people are just as likely to have undesirable traits or be murderers or worse" is not true. Studies have shown that high IQ is strongly correlated with lower incarceration rates. Having a high IQ certainly does not guarantee 'goodness', but intelligent people are less likely to have undesirable traits such as a penchant for criminal behaviour or to be murderers. While serial killers often have a high IQ they represent a fairly small proportion of murderers, and most murderers have on average a lower IQ than the general populace. Of course we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the results are skewed from intelligent murderers not getting caught, but the fact that to my knowledge the correlation is relatively smooth from high IQ to low IQ I doubt this is significantly skewing the results. It seems unlikely that someone with an IQ of 80 would be significantly better at covering their tracks than someone with an IQ of 70, and yet people with an IQ of 70 are proportionally more likely to be in jail for murder (or anything else) than those with an IQ of 80.
23. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #158685 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 12:23 am
Comment #158677 by DingoDave:
Rather than standing for atheism, as today's Christians would like to suggest, Hitler attacked the priesthood only if they stood in Hitler's political path.
Your post illustrated this concept beautifully. Many christians try to claim that Nazi persecution of religious individuals and organizations proved that the Nazis were Atheists. As you point out this accusation holds no water in context, in that the motivations for said persecutions were clearly based on power games and not on promoting Atheism.
24. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #158683 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 12:14 am
Comment #158673 by Bonzai:
The question should be which part of the Jesus' teachings did Hitler uphold? You need an ultra Post Modernist understanding of Christianity in order to pin Hitler on Christianity. You can make fair criticisms against Christianity both in its dogmas and practice as understood by mainsrream Christians,--granted there are variations and diversities,--without having to erect strawmen.
I am responding to the idea put forward by many christians that if Hitler and the Nazis had been christian, they would not have committed their atrocities. This is utter garbage in that both Hitler and most Nazis were quite clearly christians. And what "strawmen" are you referring to?
Comment #158673 by Bonzai:
I think Hitler just saw something of utilitarian value in religion and exploited it.
Absolutely. There is no reason to believe that he would not have committed his crimes had he been Atheist, and he doubtless exploited religion for his own ends. But it is not reasonable to extrapolate from this that he was not christian.
Comment #158673 by Bonzai:
P.S. Please be easy with the links, we know how to use google.:)
No :)
Not everyone is going to extensively research and track down every concept I put into a post that they are unfamiliar with. I try to make it as easy as possible for everyone, in order to hopefully make my posts both convincing and accessible to as broad an array of people as possible.
25. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #158680 by Jon_Sociologist on April 11, 2008 at 12:00 am
Comment #158657 by iBELIEVEinGOD:
I read through most of the comments posted so far, and I'm trying to understand more about the evolutionist's worldview.
Many people responded to the eugenics question with reference to morality, being humane, or the Golden Rule? Where does morality come from, and why is humanity the sole proprietor of it?
Comment #158668 by DingoDave:
Humans aren't the sole proprietor of morality. Many other species display care for their children and their extended family, as well as solidarity and social cohesion among their wider communities.
DingoDave is right, and it goes even farther than the examples DingoDave provided. Studies of primates have shown that in many cases they seem to have knowledge of right and wrong. Studies of chimpanzees stealing bananas have in some cases indicated that they sometimes appear to feel guilty in ways that go beyond fear of getting caught. Studies of monkeys indicate that they have a sense of fairness; monkeys who observe other monkeys receiving superior rewards for similar work will become angry and uncooperative (much like humans). Some primates will, as a collective, punish individuals exhibiting "immoral" behaviour.
I'm sorry if I am overextending your ideas, but your post hints that you might consider the divine command theory of morality to be valid. In a nutshell divine command theory is that morality is defined by god's commands. This theory of morality is considered totally discredited in academic circles. The problem with the idea of divine command is that either morality based upon god's supposed commands is either arbitrary, or god's commands are irrelevant to the morality of any given action. If an action is moral solely because god commands it, regardless of any other consideration, then such "morality" would simply be the arbitrary will of god, and any act no matter how repugnant would be "moral". If god commanded us to oh say 'execute people for playing with ouija boards' (Leviticus 20:27), then such executions would be moral, and refusing to kill someone you find playing with these 'links to the spirit world' would be immoral. But if god commands things because they are moral, then there must exist, a standard by which morality is determined, that is independent of god's commands, and god's commands are thus incidental and irrelevant.
There are many other schools of thought on morality that have fared much better than divine command theory. Some examples are: utilitarianism (based upon maximizing collective happiness), deontology (one version of which is that an action that is wrong is wrong regardless of consequences e.g. lying is wrong, even if telling the truth or remaining silent would lead a murderer to their victim). There are other schools of thought, and both deontology and utilitarianism have many variants. Atheism does not make the choice for us and thus Atheists must all figure out their own approach to morality. I would add that the striking under-representation of Atheists in the prison population would seem to indicate that we tend to be quite successful in this quest. As I recall in 1994 self identified Atheists represented 2% of the general population in the U.S. but only 0.2% of the U.S. prison population. To the best of my knowledge, most if not all, other countries have similar disproportion between Atheists in the general population and Atheists in the prison population.
26. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #158655 by Jon_Sociologist on April 10, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Comment #158613 by robotaholic:
Hitler schmitler - who cares- anyone with enough intention to investigate the supposed hitler-atheist connection will be hit head-on by the fact that the truth or falsity of atheism doesn't depend on what some racist barbaric inbread guy thought-
I agree. However, I do enjoy pointing out just how stupid the other side is being with the argument that Hitler and the Nazis were evil because they were Atheists. The argument wouldn't hold water if the Nazi Atheism allegation were true, but the fact that the falsehood is so blatantly obvious make christian apologists using the argument look particularly dumb.
27. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #158653 by Jon_Sociologist on April 10, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Comment #158517 by Christian:Follow-up to Christian post. Nazi belt buckle, WWII
http://starpathvisions.com/godmitus.jpg
Yes, that's the Wehrmacht belt buckle.
Actually looking at the picture shows why the defence that "gott mit uns" (Translation: God With Us) predates the Nazis, doesn't hold a lot of water in "proving" that the Nazis were Atheists:
I think it is rather trivial to point out which Nazi soldiers wore this phrase on their belt buckles. Whether it was German regular soldiers or elite SS soldiers, the belt buckles are both explicitly Nazi, and explicitly christian. This combination would be bizarre if Nazism was an 'explicitly Atheist' organisation.
Add to this the fact that Hitler was a baptized catholic who constantly used terms such as providence ("A manifestation of divine care or direction").
And there is the following quote:
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.(source: stephenjaygould.org) This quote hardly stands alone, Mein Kampf if absolutely riddled with outright professions of christian faith, along with expressions of clearly christian ideas.
Adolf Hitler
All of these things make it rather obvious that the allegation that 'Nazism was an explicitly Atheist movement' is a bold faced lie.
28. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #158466 by Jon_Sociologist on April 10, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Comment #158243 by bujin:
Articles like this could be posted every day for a year and at the end of that year, there would still be creationists making exactly the same claim.
The fact that we may never convince some or even any creationists does not mean that we should refrain from the debate. There are many people who are undecided, and we can reach them by vigorously and publicly refuting creationism. I think this is the exact mechanism of the recent meteoric rise of Atheism. We may never convince our opponents in any given debate, but we are reaching huge numbers of "bystanders".
Comment #158277 by jaf:
"If your grandparents didn't have any children, there's a good chance that you won't either."
That is funny stuff. I'm forced to wonder how many people that one sails straight on past.
I think the necessity of your statement combined with the self-evidence of heredity*, is why most creationists pointedly ignore natural selection when discussing evolution. The mechanisms of natural selection can be described with reasonable accuracy in your simple sentence, and virtually any layman can easily see the obviousness of the statement's truth.
* Heredity should be obvious as most people are well aware that when two humans procreate the offspring will be a human that usually resembles more or less strongly the parents.
Comment #158320 by philiproulx:
but may also include such practices as aborting when defects are discovered (like hearing defects, or sight defects or propensity for diabetes, or even asthma). I think if we embrace evolution we need to accept the ethical implications even when we find ourselves conflicted. And I think to a large degree, that's what Hitler thought he was doing. . .the difference is, we just don't like where he drew the line in the sand
I think there is a very significant problem in where he drew the line in the sand. The sort of grassroots eugenics that you are talking about is one thing. Hitler imposed his decisions upon other people. It would be offensive and racist to distribute literature encouraging Jews and Gypsies to refrain from having children. However, it is incitement to murder and genocide to advocate extermination as a means to prevent such people from having children. If the Nazis had limited themselves to the former, they would be remembered as ignorant bigots, if they were remembered at all (in fact they would have been no different from the "good guys" of WWII in this regard). The fact that they put the latter into practice is one reason why they are remembered as evil incarnate.
I think the most important flaw in the Nazi eugenic ideology wasn't how accurate or inaccurate their understanding of evolutionary theory was. The main problem was that they imposed their ideas by force. Improving the human race, is a noble goal, but it would not have made the holocaust OK if the Nazis had of instead run around murdering people on 'relevant' criterion of evolutionary fitness instead of irrelevant criterion such as racial background. I think a clear refutation of the evolution leads to Nazism idea is that evolutionary theory would not justify the holocaust even if the Nazis had been correct in their interpretation of the theory. I think in their heart of hearts most people do not truly feel that someone with Down syndrome is their "equal", but even if we accept such inferiority as true, it would not make someone justified in taking a walk through a special needs school with an AK47.
Comment #158362 by harrylippy:
(I'm using Down's Syndrome as an example here, but I should make it clear that I am not a medical doctor nor a molecular biologist/geneticist, so if my example breaks down for this particular disease, I apologize - but the argument remains valid, I think).
Actually I think your Down syndrome example is even more relevant than you think. Exterminating/sterilizing/aborting people with Down syndrome based upon eugenics makes even less sense than massacring homosexuals in the holocaust based upon eugenics. People with Down syndrome are infertile. Taking extreme measures to prevent people from passing on their "inferior" genes makes little sense if the people in question are very unlikely or incapable of passing on such genes.
29. German Church admits aiding Nazis
Comment #158068 by Jon_Sociologist on April 10, 2008 at 3:37 am
So I am curious how this all squares with the allegations by high level church officials, that the Nazis were an "Atheist" organization. Why would an "Explicitly Atheist" organization give slaves to churches? It seems a little odd to force people to work for a church that you are supposedly opposed to. It would seem to lend weight to the other side. It seems to make much more sense in light of the fact that most Nazis were christians, and that Hitler was a baptized catholic who constantly used terms such as providence ("A manifestation of divine care or direction").
Of course if they can ignore lines such as:
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.then they can ignore anything. (source: stephenjaygould.org)
Adolf Hitler
Comment #157342 by Jon_Sociologist on April 9, 2008 at 12:36 am
@Christopher Davis
Your posts have certainly pissed me off (obviously the feeling is mutual). I am however, willing to bury the hatchet. You probably should have given my quotation method the benefit of the doubt, and I probably shouldn't have jumped down your throat when you didn't. A perusal of some of your posts on other threads reveals that we have a lot in common. I guess this makes our clash unsurprising, as the traits we appear to share include both a fiery temperament and an excessive readiness to take offence.
I am ready to let bygones be bygones, although I feel that something must be addressed if a peace treaty is to have any realistic hope: it is not good form to get angry with someone for making assumptions about your position, when you do not correct those assumptions by stating your position openly and honestly. Successfully countering someone's position is only part of winning an argument. No matter how successfully you refute someone's position, they still win by default if theirs is the only argument on the table.
31. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #157165 by Jon_Sociologist on April 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Comment #157113 by Aaron9:
Seriously though, I NEVER claimed Dawkins was lying. Sorry if it came off that way. I just said he was hypocritically whining. Just wanted to clarify.
I think there are two important points to be made here:
1) It is questionable to infer emotional tone from written material. Often any tone "discovered" has as much or more to do with the biases of the reader (both for and against).
2) What would it matter if Richard Dawkins were a whiner? I don't think most of us respect him because we feel he is somehow immune to human frailties. Even stipulating that he whined at any given point does not make his other points any more or less valid.
The fact that Richard Dawkins is complaining, when he complains about the producers expelling his friend PZ from their complaining movie titled "expelled", is not much of a line of attack. Who cares if one side or the other complained about the other side's complaining? Speaking of dodging the issue, isn't the real issue the debate between creationism/ID vs. Atheistic Naturalism?
32. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #157142 by Jon_Sociologist on April 8, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I've been away for a few days, but I needed to respond to some posts by sdbranum over the last few pages. Sorry about the length guys, but I guess that's kind of my signature isn't it?
Comment #155799 by sdbranum:
By the way, your fawning over the Professor, "(I know he wants us to call him just Richard now, but old habits and respect keep getting in the way)", was a bit over the top, don't you think? That's right! The Professor does all your thinking for you. Maybe I should put this in your native language. Baaaaa, baaaaaa, baaaaaa.
Perhaps the old saying about "people in glass houses" should be extended to include people 'who consider Jesus to be the shepherd of god's flock of sheep of which they consider themselves a member' not saying "baaaaaa" to other people.
Comment #155801 by sdbranum:
"The Professor" has avoided debating these "stupid, ignorant or insane" people that waxed his butt in debate after debate
They waxed his butt? Hey isn't there some rule against that in Leviticus? Wouldn't waxing someone's butt make them hypocrites? Or does the rule only apply to shaving someone's butt? I can't remember.
Comment #155947 by sdbranum:
If that was your intent, then I would have expected to see just the one word, without the preliminaries, but that's just me, a stupid, ignorant or insane ID'er, which is in my mind much to be preferred over being elitist, who so uninformed about what his opponent actually believes, that he must set up strawmen arguments in order produce some semblance of successfully engaging in debate.
You make an important point here. We Atheists do need to set up straw men in order to maintain some semblance of debate. The ID/creationist arguments are too flimsy to maintain such a semblance if we Naturalist Atheists do not inject some straw into them to hold them up long enough so we can knock them down. Unfortunately many people are indoctrinated with such beliefs from birth and therefore the semblance of debate is necessary to move humanity forward from the dark ages when creationists ran around hip deep in the blood of their victims burning people at the stake for casting magical spells and consorting with evil faeries.
Comment #155947 by sdbranum:
Also, I wasn't aware Dawkins was your priest, but now that I do, I'll be sure to show the proper respect.
Actually the correct analog would be Pope, if we Atheists had such a thing (which as Diacanu correctly points out: we don't).
Comment #155947 by sdbranum:
Would he prefer to be called Reverend, Rabbi or Father Dawkins?
How do you ignorant little witch-burners refer to the pope? "His Holiness" if I'm not mistaken.
Comment #155966 by sdbranum:Definitions mostly include:
a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
Hmmm. . . It seems to me that by using transcendent and numinous together they are implying that they are using the "free from the constraints of the material world, as in the case of a deity" definition of transcendent seeing as numinous means "Filled with awe or wonder; feeling that you are in the presence of God or something greater than yourself; spiritual experience". I'm not sure how such a keen intellect as yours missed the fact that naturalist Atheism is a denial of such concepts. Notably not all Atheists would agree to these rejections. There are Atheists who believe in ghosts and other 'trancendant' supernatural entities. In fact Atheism makes no claims at all on the numinous trancendance of things, except to say that it is a belief that there is no god.
That said there is a fashion in which Atheism is a religion. Many people are fond of pointing out that black white and grey are shades and not a colours. However if someone asked me what colour my car is I would respond that it is black rather than pointing out that my car doesn't have a colour (notably I am also aware that such people are ignoring alternative definitions of colour such as: "A particular set of visible spectral compositions, perceived or named as a class" from wiktionary). If I have just shaved my head and someone asked me online or over the phone what colour my hair is, I would say that I am bald rather than going into a lengthy discussion about bald not being a hair colour.
You, however, are mixing definitions. You are taking the simple fact that if asked our religion, we would say Atheist, as acknowledgement that Atheism is a religion in the same sense as blindly beleiving in numinous trancendant things. This is an Ignoratio elenchi fallacy (irrelevant conclusion) juxtoposing the two definitions as if it proved something.
Comment #155986 by sdbranum:
the atmosphere of this blog was such that one could actually see people debating civilly, and not one where posters are falling all over themselves to flatter Dawkins, and fawning over him to the point that even readers feel embarrassment for him, then you would encounter a whole host of serious debaters presenting some very challenging ideas for your ponderance.
I don't know if Richard Dawkins would have considered it fawning when I ridiculed at some length the ideas on vegetarianism/animal testing espoused in The Salamanders Tale. I'm sure others could come up with similar areas where they have disagreed with Dr. Dawkins (I notice Steve Zara had some examples too). Many Atheists, including myself, have great respect for Richard and consider him a leader in our community. But for most of us that respect does not extend to the kind of fanatical sycophancy seen for the leaders of "other religions".
Comment #155986 by sdbranum:
Perhaps there are a few that actually could civilly debate, but you couldn't do it on this forum due to the others who would throw out one line misrepresentations of what ID enthusiasts believe, then proceed to trash argument the person or persons never made nor intended.
This will remain an unsupported assertion until you try (I and others have systematically destroyed the arguments that wooter/clearmind for example has put forward). I would urge caution, however, as your posts indicate that you are not intellectually up to the challenge. I would also encourage you to learn how to use paragraph breaks, as it will make your arguments easier to understand. But, given the format it is unlikely that all parties on either side will remain civil. This is hardly unique to this website as Steve Zara has pointed out.
Comment #155986 by sdbranum:
I have no illusion that there are some among you that could present a serious challenge requiring me to do some very thorough research before I could respond, and if I ever encountered such a statement, I would not be offended. In fact, I would find it refreshing, since I have not had anyone present me with some challenge of any significance that could not be easily answered from being confronted with the same in the past.
Bring it. You make a point and I'll knock it down.
Comment #155986 by sdbranum:
On the other hand, there are some very serious gaps, weaknesses and outright flaws in Evolutionary Theory, for which I have never received a satisfactory answer. There are also many more that I have with regard to Atheism in general, which have never been satisfactorily answered. I would actually enjoy reading a challenging response, but I doubt that I would find it here, and I have no doubt that when I decide enough of this childishness and leave, there will be those posting comments such as, "he couldn't provide a rational response, so he left". Yep. That'll be the reason. Baaaaaa.
Not only will I and others accept your challenge, we will pick up the gauntlet you have thrown down and bitchslap you with it.
Comment #156004 by sdbranum:
Your insult attempt would've been more effective if you didn't feel the need to explain yourself. Just a pointer for future reference… Try leaving off the explanation next time. Your buddies will still get it (maybe), and you'll add the extra slam of insinuating your polished prose is over the head of your opponent.
What a pathetic and cowardly way to argue. If I go to the trouble of insulting someone, I damn well want them to understand it. But I guess we shouldn't expect better from someone who thinks the three-lettered "woe" is a big word.
Comment #156004 by sdbranum:
I would hope you are after more intelligent followers than that, but maybe you value each and every sycophant, so maybe you have your own reasons for throwing out such claptrap.
Unfortunately, I am guilty as charged (approximately). I do value most sycophantic sheep out there. Sycophantic sheep get one vote just like the rest of us in Western democracies. Christians also have a nasty habit of convincing sycophantic sheep to arm themselves and slaughter people seemingly at random. However, I do try to avoid too much "claptrap" as it tends to alienate the more intelligent potential converts.
33. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #157054 by Jon_Sociologist on April 8, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Comment #155758 by Vulcan:
Can anyone prove a Universal Negative who is not YHWH? My understanding of Logic is that you can not, for in order to KNOW that something doesn't exist anywhere or anywhen you would have to be everywhere and everywhen simultaniously which is one of the attributes of YHWH. Based on Logic, I submit that Athiesm is a "RELIGION" that relies on an adherance to "BLIND FAITH."
So you think that disbelief in something that there is no evidence for is "BLIND FAITH"? Is it blind faith to assume that the universe was not created 5/10ths of a second ago with all our memories intact in their current form? No, it is simple application of Occam's Razor. It is a simpler and more likely explanation that our memories are an inaccurate but still somewhat realistic depiction of real past events. The fossil record and various observations from physics and astronomy strongly suggest that the 'causes of it all' are natural. Occam's Razor thereby slices out any supernatural god. Refusing to go unreasonably beyond the evidence is not "BLIND FAITH".
34. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #157052 by Jon_Sociologist on April 8, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Comment #154232 by MutualDisdain:
Adaran, you are forgetting to address the most simple ID argument: If a designer created all of reality, then he/she/it most likely "exists" outside of the realm of reality. That means that there is no contradiction in omnipotence because, "God doesn't lift things" and that any interaction between God and this world would most likely be the result of an avatar.
It doesn't take much imagination to extend the argument to counter this version of ID "argument". The contradiction is intact: can god create an object so heavy that he could not create an avatar that could lift it? Both possible answers limit omnipotence, and thereby render it nonsensical.
Comment #156954 by Jon_Sociologist on April 8, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Comment #156301 by ilovegodzilla:
I just hope that its not as bad as this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AJOM6PXboz4
That was chilling, particularly the part at the end: "Let their websites be shut down and their books be thrown into the fires of hell." Reminds me of a quote:
Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings.
Almansor: A Tragedy (1823)
Heinrich Heine
But then I guess burning people is not exactly a new thing for christians is it?
Comment #156945 by Jon_Sociologist on April 8, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Comment #156577 by J. McPhearson:
And why would you not want people to see this movie (aside from the obvious money it would be raking in for the creationists to wallow in) ?
That is reason enough.
Comment #156577 by J. McPhearson:
Could it not be an educational experience for us all?
This reminds me of a line from the movie Billy Madison. When Adam Sandler's character rather obviously pulls a bizarre and irrelevant story out of his ass in answer to a question, the questioner responds something like: 'That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I think everyone here is actually less intelligent for having heard it.'
Comment #156577 by J. McPhearson:
Is there anything wrong with having a fully rounded opinion/ understanding of something, so that when it is time to stand up for what you believe, you can stand up as someone who knows the other side of the story, as well?
Absolutely, which may be why there are links to the movie's website all over this site, along with links to the trailer. Those who have seen it generally seem to consider it a waste of time, and an unworthy addition to the creationist "arsenal" (the emphasis being on arse). Many have also correctly pointed out that payments to see this movie are paid directly to the propaganda machine of the creationists.
Comment #156929 by Jon_Sociologist on April 8, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Comment #156298 by clearmind:
Seriously, what is the use of this web page now? Everything is over. Finito. Why is this struggle for jon?
Well, within the scientific community, the struggle is definitely over, and has been for about 100 years. Unfortunately, many ignorant witch-burners, such as yourself, outside the scientific community insist on rubbing their ignorance in everyone's face, in an effort to lower everyone's intelligence. These people are often well aware that there is a very clear inverse correlation between religiosity and IQ, and seem to be hoping that by making everyone more stupid they will increase church attendance.
Comment #156298 by clearmind:
Jon i know you are the last man standing on but it is really no use, maybe you don't notice that, but it is over.
Could you please refrain from sticking your tongue out, and stick to your "refutations" of evolution. You do more good than you know, by giving us the chance to demonstrate how hollow and useless creationist arguments are. You also goad some of us into actually going out and learning about the subjects you dribble about.
Comment #156298 by clearmind:
If you tell us how your stomach works - acid amount, the layer that covers ionside the stomach wall, which protects stomach but digests the beef we eat
I don't know why I am supposed to explain the workings of the stomach to you. If anyone is curious they can look into the subject themselves. Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject if anyone wants to start there: Wiki: Stomach. Although I will briefly address your questions: "In humans, the stomach has a volume of about 50 mL when empty" (wiki). The layer that covers the inside of the stomach wall is mucous not acid, and it is the acid (along with various enzymes) that "digests the beef we eat" not the mucous. Note: this is only part of the process; the stomach does not perform the digestive process by itself.
Comment #156298 by clearmind:
and then you can vomit some intelligence while explaing it us.
Ooohhh bravo, this is much better than your usual attempt at a comeback. The good Reverend may be teaching you more lessons than he thinks.
Comment #156298 by clearmind:
After Ben stein's movie, even no insulting will work out. An idea that has been already smashed by intelligence seems very funny while trying to discredit its rival opinion which discredited it already.
I don't think you are quite clear on what is going on here. For one thing, you appear mistaken on which side is discredited. For another, the creationists are trying to bull on ahead in spite of being thoroughly discredited by the scientific community.
Comment #156298 by clearmind:
Please, it is really not working to struggle more. It is not indeed. IT IS OVER.
Evolution ended in misery and disappointment. You can feel that.
Is this an attempt at Big Lie propaganda? Do you think that by repeating over and over, that creationism has won, that you will convince people that your empty lies are in fact profound truths? Unfortunately that only works if you can prevent others from pointing out the obvious falsehoods you spew. Here you will find that many people are willing and able to point out your deceptions, every time you retch one forth onto the pages of this website.
Comment #156888 by Jon_Sociologist on April 8, 2008 at 11:14 am
Comment #155563 by Christopher Davis:
Jon_Sociologist, It also conveniently lets you misrepresent what other people have said.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that my posts are already often 3 pages long, or the fact that it can be confusing to put multiple points into the quote and then let the reader try to psychically divine which point I am responding to.
Comment #155563 by Christopher Davis:
I don't support positive eugenics, I merely believe that it would be more humane for both child and parents if some people were prevented from reproducing.
That is NEGATIVE eugenics. And I think that those people you are "encouraging" might feel that humane is an inappropriate word in context.
Comment #155563 by Christopher Davis:
Unfortunately in your mind everyone (except you of course) who seeks to ponder this ethical dilemma in an objective manner is obviously proposing a systemic program of positive eugenics aimed at producing a master race.
Actually, you feebleminded little ass-wipe, it is not the end that I have a problem with. Improving the human race is a noble goal. However victimizing real human beings is not a good method to make the world a better place.
Comment #155563 by Christopher Davis:
And you still haven't told me if you understand what the word connotation means.
I try to help people learn new things on this website. You, however, have been a petulant and insulting little shit, so I will leave you to wallow in your own ignorance. Only an idiot would expect me to answer such a smarmy patronizing question. You appear to expect an answer, so I must conclude that you are in fact such an idiot.
Comment #155563 by Christopher Davis:
If you do then you'll understand why me, and virtually every other rational minded person on the planet wouldn't use the word 'mutilation' to describe a vasectomy. Unless, that vasectomy was botched.
Ever heard of the no true Scotsman logical fallacy? I think if we did a survey we would find that your consensus on the subject would be rather imaginary if the vasectomies in question were involuntary.
Comment #155563 by Christopher Davis:
Or else (as I think more likely) you prefer to torture your logic and ignore facts simply to make a "point" (I use that term loosely) that seems to counter your opponent's.
Have you been taking lessons at wooter/clearmind's school of logic land?
Comment #155563 by Christopher Davis:
It wasn't my intent to "suggest" that you don't know the differnce between natural selection and evolution...your posts make it evident that you do not.
[snip]
And finally, no...your argument is not a "one two punch". It's an example of someone with a poor understanding of genetics and heredity trying to eat their cake and have it too.
Funny, I get compliments from Ph.D.s on my understanding and explanations on the subject regularly. So why don't you turn off your computer and go see if trolls such as yourself can successfully interbreed with any farm animals. Please make your study on the subject exhaustive, as it would be preferable if you spent considerable time elsewhere.
Comment #155508 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Comment #154662 by Podaar:
Jared Diamond the author of Guns, Germs and Steel argues that members of New Guinea aboriginal tribes show higher intelligence aptitude than Eurasian people (I don't know what studies he sights, I'm not near the book right now). His reasoning is that hunter/gatherer lifestyles have provided a natural selection of genes that favor intelligence over other kinds of survival strategies.
That was an amazing book that ironically was dismissed as racist in some quarters even though it demonstrated that the dominance of people of European descent in the realms of economics and world geopolitics is far more easily explained by analysis of accidents of ecology, geography, and the pattern/timing of early human dispersal than by any supposed genetic or cultural superiority of the White race.
Comment #155506 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Comment #155478 by Steve Zara:I think the 45-point IQ difference in the average IQ of African-Americans and Ashkenazi Jews in America is large enough to be significant.I have to say I am highly sceptical of this. Do you have a reference?
Here's a link to the test results portion of the Wikipedia article on Race and Intelligence (note that the neutrality of the article is disputed, which is to be expected given the subject matter). One of the citations of the article is: The Black-White IQ Gap by James R. Flynn. I gather the case was prominently made in the "controversial, best-selling 1994 book by the late Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein" The Bell Curve. To my knowledge all studies on the subject have had similar results (although the exact numbers of course vary somewhat). Opponents of the idea thus run into the problem that, even if they throw out all of these studies they still haven't proven their point. We cannot just assume that if all of these studies were marred by racism, then there must be no difference. Even if every study was in fact conducted by racists, dismissing their findings based upon this is a Poisoning the Well argument that surrenders the scientific high ground to them. If they are wrong then it becomes all the more important to prove it.
Comment #155478 by Steve Zara:This is a problem in many sciences.Not really. I have not often encountered such misuse as you describe.
The quote that you immediately follow this statement with would appear to be a counter-example: "Misuse of the findings of biology is what led to the horrors of eugenics movements in the past."
Comment #155478 by Steve Zara:
That is not the same thing at all.
I'm not sure why misusing biology statistics to justify racism is so different from misusing sociological/psychological statistics to justify racism. Both can be "worse than useless" and "can lead to decisions based on false analyses." Although I guess I am more concerned with the misuse of scientific findings in general rather than statistics in particular. But I don't think you'd suggest that it is important that social statistics are being misused while only the findings of biology are misused. The old canard that biologists of Darwin's time were racist White supremacists by today's standards happens to be true. These biologists and the many racist groups that were inspired by them did indeed misuse the findings (if not the statistics) of biology to justify their position.
Comment #155477 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Comment #155419 by Steve Zara:The average IQ of any given group is irrelevant when it comes to judging a particular individual, and the assumption that a given individual conforms to the averages for their "race" is thereby rendered unjustified.I think you are missing the point. If the within-group variance is larger than the between-group variance by a certain factor, especially for something as uncertain as IQ, then it really isn't valid to consider the between-group variance of any significance.
I think the 45-point IQ difference in the average IQ of African-Americans and Ashkenazi Jews in America is large enough to be significant. I don't think the fact that there are plenty of Black Americans that are much smarter than the average Jewish American can be taken to mean that there isn't an issue to be addressed. The situation of Blacks in America is appalling, and I think it is reasonable to assume that a 45-point difference in average IQ is probably a contributing factor. Ignoring the problem is not really acceptable in my opinion, particularly given that comparison between Canada and the U.S. implies that a vastly better approach is available. Not to say that Canada is devoid of racism against Blacks, but Blacks in Canada do not have such a radical disadvantage in average income nor are they drastically over represented in the prison population. The U.S. compares very unfavourably in these areas.
Comment #155419 by Steve Zara:That unfortunately is often the price of doing business in the social sciences.I am worried by this. If statistics aren't used correctly, then their use can be worse than useless - they can lead to decisions based on false analyses.
This is a problem in many sciences. Misuse of the findings of biology is what led to the horrors of eugenics movements in the past.
Comment #155453 by Jon_Sociologist on April 4, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:
Jon_Sociologist, if you assume the people who are reading your posts have already read the posts you selectively quote from, then why do you bother with all the little boxes? Why not just make your point?
A post addressing a point that someone else has made can be difficult to understand if it is unclear what point is being addressed.
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:
The method is irrelevant, the question is whether or not society is ever justified in limiting an individual's right to procreate.
An individual's right to procreate must be reasonably limited by another individual's right not to be raped. Method is still important in that, ineffective methods and cures worse than the disease should be avoided.
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:
No, I don't think, "…in order to use a word the concept in question must meet all possible definitions".
This statement does not appear to be consistent with your earlier accusation that I was "cherry-picking" the dictionary by using mutilate to mean, "To harm as to impair use", while 'ignoring' the other two definitions in the dictionary I used:
Comment #154908 by Christopher Davis:
Furthermore, I see that your cherry-picking also extends to the dictionary. The more common definitions of mutilate are---1. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect, and 2. to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of.
Is there something else there something else that you meant by accusing me of cherry picking, when I used a legitimate definition that you personally disliked?
Comment #155072 by Christopher Davis:Presumably you are referring to the idea of evolution by non-natural selection, a.k.a. eugenicsNo, I'm not. I'm referring to the basic fact that natural selection and evolution are not synonyms. Natural selection is the primary component of evolution, other components include genetic mutation, genetic drift, and the founder effect.
In bringing up the difference in Comment #154908 you're your entire point seems to be being an ig