Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by Guest Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:19 am

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:27 am

This YHVH elohim...................isnt it an antiquated Hebrew concept of 'god',along with much dogma and old custom?
arent all thse different views, some outlandish, telling us trhat man has invented his own god,out of insecurity, when all he needed to do was take a look around............................(or are you joking about YHVH elohim,and its early, and Im being naive?)

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:42 am

polyglide wrote:So you now set yourself up as better than the scientists.

If the research proves the theory wrong then it is wrong.

Read the book and then you can talk about science.

You speak of 'scientists' as if they are god-like- this is a common attitude, due to people being impressed by long words, words they dont understand, and lots of figures. When I was a student, we used to say that no matter what you were struggling to understand, if, once you thought youd got it, you couldnt explain it to your mum in a way that she got it too, then you hadnt got it at all.We called it the'mum test', and my poor mum became an expert on a whole lot of things that she hadnt anticipated.
What Im saying, whilst becoming distracted by my mums unwitting induction into the sciences,is that its not some awesome subject that can turn water into wine,,,,,its just more mechanics!
Books on whatever,are fun to read, but, unless one is worshipping at the 'alter of science', to be taken cautiously, and seasoned with what one already knows(or thinks he knows, to be exact) .
This being so, its silly to say 'its true cos I read it in a book(the printed word being invested with all sorts of undeseved authoruty)-its OK tho, to say I read this or that and it said,,....dah de dah,,,and I THINK..........................(cos I am the ultimate arbityer of any info that comes my way;ie I believe what I CHOOSE to believe,like all of us.)

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:50 am

Shirina wrote:
only a non -scientist would treat science like a religion

Actually, no. Science is not regarded as a religion by anyone that I'm aware of. It is simply regarded as the best - or most likely - explanation for our natural world. Most people understand that science can be wrong. The problem is that, aside from science, where do we turn for explanations? Holy books? Mythology? Religion? There is simply no rational alternative. Barring science, there is only the spiritual, paranormal, and the supernatural. For people like myself, we do not want to keep making the same mistakes as our ancestors, that mistake being the attribution of mystical and supernatural forces to that which we don't understand. There is plenty in this world that we have yet to explain, but that doesn't give just cause to believing in Adam and Eve simply because science cannot yet explain where life came from. Religion and mysticism has never been proven correct, not once, ever, in the history of humanity. Why would I wish to hitch my wagon to a horse that has never once reached its destination?

Too often, believers predicate their arguments on the misguided notion that we are at the peak of our knowledge - that there is nothing left to discover, nothing left to understand. If science cannot explain the origin of life or the cause of the Big Bang right now, right this very minute, then both of those issues are utterly incomprehensible and always will be. Therefore, God. It's a fallacious view of the universe.

While science is not always right, religion has NEVER been right. In fact, religion has had to give way to science on hundreds of issues over the centuries.

Shirina.....science cant be described as being right or wrong, as it is an ongoing process) but even if it werea sensible desc ription, and it was always right,knowledge in words and numbers is only useful up to a point;it certainly wont put you in touch with your immortal soul(as it might be put by the spiritual seekers).It will, however give you cars, TVs,planes, and a overriding feeling that we have it all under control,despite the mounting evidence(that word again) that we are becoming swept off ina flood of overpopulation(science isnt helping much there, is it?),and clinging to whatever bits of flotsam come our way to stay afloat(Leonard Cohen analogy!)

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:53 am

Right then....off to treat my immortal soul (which I of course, like all religious adherents, carry around with me in a box marked 'soul', so I dont lose it!), to a nice cup of tea, to wake me up a bit!

by snowyflake Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:08 am

You speak of 'scientists' as if they are god-like- this is a common attitude,

Good morning, Eggy. Scientists are not 'godlike' for the love of mike. Science is the tool that humans use to answer questions about the natural world. Critical analysis of peer reviewed papers is important and trust me a lot of criticism follows journal papers. They are not nor ever will be the 'truth'. They are always and only evidence for a particular hypothesis.

Case, in point. Homeopathy has been roundly and soundly discredited in Britain because there are no scientific papers that provide evidence of its efficacy. Holistic medicine is not science. The NHS has a mandate to treat its patients using evidence-based science and withdrew all funding for homeopathic medicine (there was even a clinic in London funded by the NHS). We do not put a drop of snake-oil into water and dilute it a gazillion times and treat cancer with it. We use tested methods that show a benefit to patients. But there are journals of homeopathy out there with peer review etc. that suggest that homeopathy is better than evidence-based science.

Yet homeopathy and holistic medicine is a booming business into the billions around the world. No evidence, no science, yet like religion, people believe in it.

Go figure.

by snowyflake Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:20 am

Believing in your invisible love for your loved ones is neither rational nor reasonable.

Hi Rock. I feel love and I know others feel love because they tell me or show me. Love can be irrational, the state of falling in love is irrationality at its peak. But we both know there is evidence of love in how we feel towards our family and friends.

Love is a romantic term. What we feel is protectionism of kinship in evolutionary terms. We are fiercely protective of those that share our DNA. There is rational and reasonable evidence for this. We call it love. We know it exists because we don't extend those feelings to everyone do we?

But no matter what the science suggests behind our feelings, it doesn't take away one iota how we feel. I still go all stupid and mooshy when I hug my granddaughter no matter what the science says about it. She's still my little pumpkin and I love her to bits. Smile

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:59 am

snowyflake wrote:
You speak of 'scientists' as if they are god-like- this is a common attitude,

Good morning, Eggy. Scientists are not 'godlike' for the love of mike. Science is the tool that humans use to answer questions about the natural world. Critical analysis of peer reviewed papers is important and trust me a lot of criticism follows journal papers. They are not nor ever will be the 'truth'. They are always and only evidence for a particular hypothesis.

Case, in point. Homeopathy has been roundly and soundly discredited in Britain because there are no scientific papers that provide evidence of its efficacy. Holistic medicine is not science. The NHS has a mandate to treat its patients using evidence-based science and withdrew all funding for homeopathic medicine (there was even a clinic in London funded by the NHS). We do not put a drop of snake-oil into water and dilute it a gazillion times and treat cancer with it. We use tested methods that show a benefit to patients. But there are journals of homeopathy out there with peer review etc. that suggest that homeopathy is better than evidence-based science.

Yet homeopathy and holistic medicine is a booming business into the billions around the world. No evidence, no science, yet like religion, people believe in it.
Go figure.

Hi Snowy....of course theyre not godlike; my point(for what its worth), was that 'science' is a cause often espoused by people with no scientific background,who wrongly imagine that it can 'get to the nub of the matter' in a flawless way, using logic(overrated?) and reason(whats that?).
A practising scientist in any field will more than likely say no more than 'we're on the track'.............not 'we've arrived'

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

- With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,
And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;
And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd--
"I came like Water, and like Wind I go."

For "Is" and "Is-not" though with Rule and Line
And "Up" and "Down" by Logic I define,
Of all that one should care to fathom, I
Was never deep in anything but--Wine.

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:12 am

Homeopathy.............now theres an intrestin topic;

its supporters say that because of the way its prescribed, that the normal double blind trial isnt applicable.It seems that even if the presenting complaint is the same as the bloke next doors, that the remedy given may differ,as more is considered than just the overt symptoms. This of course appeals to people who feel that the prolonged and detailed history which is taken,addresses them as people better than the GP who just says 'take two of these and fone me in the morning if youre still alive'
I spose that its basic premise isnt assailable by what we proudly call logic, and as such, and due to the fact that the faith we have been brought up in is the faith of 'reason and logic';so much so, that we are full of outraged indignation at anything else, that we WANT to find it lacking,to support our faith.
Right.how can you tell if it works?....................you cant, but bear in mind that most GPs will tell you that many conditions they see are self-limiting';ie whatever they prescribe,you'll either die or improve anyway,despite the medication,and maybe the same applies to homeopathy.
If I had cancer or a broken leg, Id probably go for allopathic medicine(the GP), but if my complaint was less cut and dried, and I was sure it wasnt going to be fatal, I might give homeopathy a try...whats to lose?..............................stick with the 'open mind thingy',for maximum enjoyment of this appliance' (that was what was typed on the instruction sheet we were all born with!) Laughing

by oftenwrong Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:31 am

QUOTE: "....archbishops and popes are foreign to the Greek Bible. And where cardinals came from is a mystery to me."

To state the obvious, all human cultures follow some practises which are similar to each other. A lot of the hierarchies and procedures of the Christian church reflect rather older customs found in the Ottoman Empire and even earlier in Middle-Eastern civilisations including Egypt. When the Emperor Constantine became Christian, his priestly cohorts had to come up fast with a new Dogma, which unsurprisingly contained quite a lot of things borrowed from preceding religious customs.

by polyglide Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:33 am

If you change the theory in any way it is another theory.

If you are a scientist then you are a very poor one.

If a theory says that a chain made in a particular way will only break at a given weight and it is made exactly to the theory and it breaks at a less weight, then, scientist or not, the theory is wrong and a competely new theory would have to be tested.

From your posts I did not think you thought anyone was worthy of your affection or consideration.

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:43 am

A chain will break at one place only- at the weakest link;there will always be a weakest link, as it cant be made with each link excactly the same.
a theory which is tested and found to work, will only have been found to work on that particular occasion.
A mathematical proof, however is defined by its ability to show that the theory will work in ALL cases, without having to test every single case,specially as there are rather a lot of number combinations to test- youd be there all day iof it werent for what makes up a mathematical proof.

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:44 am

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: "....archbishops and popes are foreign to the Greek Bible. And where cardinals came from is a mystery to me."

To state the obvious, all human cultures follow some practises which are similar to each other. A lot of the hierarchies and procedures of the Christian church reflect rather older customs found in the Ottoman Empire and even earlier in Middle-Eastern civilisations including Egypt. When the Emperor Constantine became Christian, his priestly cohorts had to come up fast with a new Dogma, which unsurprisingly contained quite a lot of things borrowed from preceding religious customs.

What you mean, is that religion is evolution in action! Very Happy

by polyglide Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:16 am

The fact that the chain breaks at the weakest link does not change the matter, any chan will do the same, the relevant fact is that it broke before the theory said it would and it is the theory being tested not the chain.

by snowyflake Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:28 am

If you change the theory in any way it is another theory

.
Possibly.

If you are a scientist then you are a very poor one.

A poor one in any other field than genetics. And even in genetics I'm the low man on the totem pole. But I do keep up with what's going on in genetics and the other disciplines interest me a great deal. I'm no physicist to be sure. But I think I have some knowledge of science and how scientific research works.

If a theory says that a chain made in a particular way will only break at a given weight and it is made exactly to the theory and it breaks at a less weight, then, scientist or not, the theory is wrong and a competely new theory would have to be tested.

If a theory, like evolution, has mountains of evidence for it and one or two discrepancy it does NOT discredit the entire theory any more than if your car breaks down you would throw away the entire car.

From your posts I did not think you thought anyone was worthy of your affection or consideration

Rock, Shirina and Tosh (and lately Eggy) are worthy of my consideration and affection because they are nice to me, poly. Smile

They also take the time and energy to learn about what they are talking about and they present their ideas in knowledgable and entertaining ways that are a joy to read. You might be worthy of my respect and consideration if you were nice to me too. Smile

Also, instead of claiming things you can neither prove nor provide evidence for, why don't you try to understand why other people believe as they do?

Rock is a believer and I have great respect for him. That doesn't mean I let anyone get away with posting nonsense though and I am as hard on him as I am on you. Yet, he is one of my favorite people on this board.

At the end of the day, we are discussing a topic that we all find fascinating and interesting. A little politeness goes a long way.

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:50 am

Thanks, snowy.................well said,but perhaps poly just got carried away with the funof the moment.-tis easy to do,and if that is so, you'll get a palliative (?)post from poly...........(if not, I'll send you the post on polys behalf, to smooth the waters(part the waves?) Very Happy

Gosh.we're getting into some ethereal regions now, arent we?...........this is the right stuff (but no amount of testing and proof will improve it.... Smile

)

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:52 am

I think that I'm a believer too.tis all a matter of what it is that one believes,and if theres a separation between that, and what one knows
(I believe that there is..)

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:53 am

off now.............gotta date!( pity her) Very Happy

by Shirina Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:01 pm

If you change the theory in any way it is another theory.

Tweaking, expanding, or correcting a theory doesn't make it a completely different theory. That would be like saying your mum becomes a completely different person every time she changes her clothes. Even theories that have been completely discredited have certain truths to them. For instance, a geocentric solar system has been totally discredited yet the idea of planets and moons being in an orbit around something was true. No one was saying that the sun, moon, and planets were being pulled across the sky by celestial charioteers at least.

Like with anything else, whether it becomes a new theory or not really depends on how much the core or foundation of the theory ends up being wrong. The theory of evolution is still evolution no matter how much you tweak it just as long as the core paradigm stays intact. When novelists write or movie producers produce, they don't scrap the entire book or movie just because they change a single scene or parts of the original end up on the cutting room floor. There has to be a fundamental change in the theory before it becomes a completely different theory.

For example, if Raiders of the Lost Ark stopped being about Indiana Jones trying to obtain the Lost Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis do and, instead, became a wedding movie about William Jones getting married, then yeah, it becomes a completely different movie. But it has to be a really big change.

by Shirina Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:34 pm

Shirina.....science cant be described as being right or wrong

Yes and no.

There are things in science that are right. For instance, we know that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. There is no longer a "process" to figure this out because it is, for all intents and purposes, a fact. Without these absolutes, science could not advance, because science is like a building with one floor being built atop the previous floor. If the second floor is weak, all floors above it could and would collapse. Except there really aren't these kinds of major upsets in science, especially not today. We know what stars are, for example, and there is virtually no chance for science to be incorrect on this point. Obviously there are things about stars that we don't know and things about stars that we think we know. There is where the process of understanding comes into play. But science does, in fact, reach conclusions that are pretty much immutable. Obviously no scientist is wasting his time proving water is still wet - or to make sure water is still H2O.

and it was always right,knowledge in words and numbers is only useful up to a point

Science usually doesn't address the question of "why," and that question confounds many human beings. We often want to know why things happen (which is different from HOW things happen). Unfortunately, science often will not have an answer to that question. Science cannot explain why I was born to the parents that I have, it can't explain why drunk drivers so often emerge unscathed in car accidents, or why person X won the lottery. Sure, we can dabble in statistical probabilities, but that doesn't explain why. Humans have a tendency to slot religion into that hole, thinking that the "why" involves God's plan or God's will or similar ideas. It provides comfort, I suppose, for those who need it. Most people have a deep aversion to the idea that anything is just random - things must happen for a reason.

it certainly wont put you in touch with your immortal soul(as it might be put by the spiritual seekers).

Assuming we have one!

despite the mounting evidence(that word again) that we are becoming swept off ina flood of overpopulation(science isnt helping much there, is it?),and clinging to whatever bits of flotsam come our way to stay afloat(Leonard Cohen analogy!)

Well, Egg ... the comfortable life we enjoy today is largely the result of science. The lion's share of overpopulation exists in nations where religion, not science, is dominant. Where science is prevalent, population growth is relatively stable, and some nations are even losing population because the death rate is higher than the birth rate.

Religion and belief in supernatural gods may be fine for the individual, but it has proven disastrous when religion is used externally instead of internally. It fails utterly when religion is used as a social policy. It always has. It is failing now in America as gays are persecuted mostly for religious reasons - and even the Supreme Court appears to be ready to rule against same-sex marriage. In Africa, the Catholic missionaries are denying millions of HIV-riddled people access to birth control because of their rigid, archaeic doctrine. Even in the midst of charity, religion is sewing a death toll at least as great as the Holocaust.

by Guest Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:38 pm

by Guest Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:42 pm

by Shirina Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:44 pm

I heartily agree with everything you’ve said. Excuse me, something’s in my eyes…

*hands Rock a bottle of Vizene*

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:32 pm

water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

and it is very indeterminate what those atoms consist of;just calling one of them 'hydrogen' doesnt describe it very much;its just a convenient term for something that we havent yet got to the bottom of................so is it ;right ' to call it hydrogen?...................Answer: neither right nor wrong, but just a matter of convenience for the time being...............

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:34 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
egginbonce wrote:This YHVH elohim...................isnt it an antiquated Hebrew concept of 'god',along with much dogma and old custom?

No.

well then......define your terms, if you please......................simply saying 'NO', wont do ............

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:04 pm

don't extend those feelings to everyone do we?

We may do, but not realise it.................the 'love' that you refer to is possessiveness borne out of emotional insecurity(is there any other sort,BTW?).............we can, of course, call anything we like, love, but the beauty (and the limitation) of language,is that its best to agree on what we mean by a particular word or expression.......
'love' might just be one of the most misused words we have....

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:12 pm

Even in the midst of charity, religion is sewing a death toll at least as great as the Holocaust.

Good for the population problem, and also true,by all accounts.( I say 'by all accounts', as I have only what I read in the papers to go on).

by egginbonce Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:15 pm

Well, Egg ... the comfortable life we enjoy today is largely the result of science.

Science is good for that.what its not good for, is 'answering the big question'.............if you remember, Douglas adams had his huge computer come up with 42 as the answer(which is a s good as any answwr, Im sure)

by Tosh Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:20 pm

Science is interested in answering how we came about, it leaves why to your own imagination. The perfect combination in my eyes is reason and imagination, I feel religion and its reliance on the supernatural demeans and dilutes human spirituality, we are all grown up now, children of the enlightenment, time to let go of your favourite teddy bear or doll.

I accept the historical reasons for choosing religion as our spiritual vehicle, life was just one big disappointment to the vast masses, and very short lived.
However we no longer live in a culture where one third of women or children die in childbirth, where the average life expectancy was 27-40 and where 50 % of all humans died before reproducing. We don't live in slavery under some psychopathic tyrant suffering hell on earth nor do we possess bronze age knowledge.

These conditions not only justify faith, they make it inevitable, we cannot live without hope, but we don't have these conditions and we do possess the knowledge.

The bible is not reasonable and its certainly not from your imagination.

by snowyflake Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:49 pm

and it is very indeterminate what those atoms consist of;just calling one of them 'hydrogen' doesnt describe it very much;its just a convenient term for something that we havent yet got to the bottom of................so is it ;right ' to call it hydrogen?...................Answer: neither right nor wrong, but just a matter of convenience for the time being...............

If it's called hydrogen it's because it has the properties of hydrogen. What are you on? Suspect

We may do, but not realise it.................the 'love' that you refer to is possessiveness borne out of emotional insecurity(is there any other sort,BTW?)..

No, Eggy. My love for my granddaughter is not one of possessiveness and I don't believe I am emotionally insecure. In evolutionary terms, we protect those who share our DNA. By doing so, we ensure that our DNA is carried on into future generations. We, generally speaking, don't love people who are not related to us. We might have a general love for mankind and we do what we can to help others who are strangers but even this has evolutionary benefits. But I wouldn't call that love the same as I have for my family.

by Tosh Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:55 pm

Texas,

You should watch the Life of Pi, one of its many themes is about choosing a story about life that works for you, and the author invites you to choose what story in the film works for you. Some see the film as about religion and human nature and others like me, see it as about rationality and imagination.

It was funny in offering us two choices, a believable but disturbing story or an unbelievable nicer story, and asking does it really matter.

It matters, people flying planes into buildings makes it matter.

by Shirina Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:50 am

It matters, people flying planes into buildings makes it matter.

And that's just the extreme stuff. There are smaller religious travesties that take place almost every day, and unless you're a die-hard news hound, you probably won't hear about them.

So, for those believers out there, I offer up this series of videos that I certainly hope you'll take the time to watch. For those who have asked me and others why atheists care what believers think, these videos explain it. For the atheists and agnostics out there, sit back and prepare to be disgusted. Here we go ...

by Guest Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:49 am

by Guest Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:22 am

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Full texts of Terms of Use available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Joseph Stalin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion

Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.^[105]

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939… tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.^[106][107]

Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in ethnic regions of the Soviet Union, including the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism underwent ordeals similar to that which the Orthodox churches in other parts of the country suffered: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.

Calculating the number of victims

Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.^{[121][122][123]} Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression.^[124]

… a number of recent historians suggesting a likely total of around 20 million, citing much higher victim totals from executions, gulags, deportations and other causes.^{[132][133][134][135][136][137][138]} Researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.[139] In his most recent edition of The Great Terror (2007), Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, the various terror campaigns launched by the Soviet government claimed no fewer than 15 million lives.^[140] Others maintain that their earlier higher victim total estimates are correct.^[141][142]

(Anyone desirous of authenticating sources may do by clicking the citations in the Wikipedia article.)

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

by snowyflake Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:02 am

Joseph Stalin did not murder millions in the name of atheism, Rock. He murdered millions because he was a psychopath. The untold harm that religion, believers, have caused over the centuries makes Joseph Stalin look like a sunday school teacher.

Thanks Shirina for posting those videos. It highlights the inherent harm that religious belief causes on a daily basis around the world. It's gives believers an excuse to commit atrocities.

by Guest Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:50 am

Marxism requires anti-religious atheism of its adherents. Stalin was a Marxist; Stalin was an anti-religion atheist. Joseph Stalin murdered millions in the name of Marxism; accordingly, Joseph Stalin murdered millions in the name of anti-religious atheism.

“By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion”, Pospielovsky, Dimitry V. (1988) A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin's Press, New York p. 89, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

snowyflake wrote:
He murdered millions because he was a psychopath.

Joseph Stalin was also an atheist; as such, his life’s work belies the implied claim that atrocities are not committed by atheists.

snowyflake wrote:
He murdered millions because he was a psychopath.

That is true of anyone who murders millions.

by egginbonce Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:15 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
egginbonce wrote:
This YHVH elohim...................isnt it an antiquated Hebrew concept of 'god',along with much dogma and old custom?
RockOnBrother wrote:
No.

egginbonce wrote:
well then......define your terms, if you please…

Hebrew YHVH Elohim, English LORD¹ God²; Hebrew YHVH, English I AM WHO/THAT I AM¹;

YHVH, eternal, self-existent, indeclinable cause; eternal, self-existent, indeclinable who (gender nonspecific) that causes.

Elohim, power, plural of Eloah, power; thus, immeasurable, incomprehensible power.

egginbonce wrote:
… simply saying 'NO', wont do ............

Yes it will. You asked a “Yes-No” question; I answered “No.”

The waay you answer is of course, up to you, but what I meant,clearly,was that the answer didnt lighten my darkness!

by Guest Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:22 am

by egginbonce Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:55 am

Come on.youre just being coy about something that you think might come under unwelcome scrutiny;of course not, is the answer-youve not explained a thing!.I guess Im not that bothered if you dont want to engage;just that I thought that as what we were dong on here..................I wasnt into doing daft 'chasing you round the garden'-type exchanges!
You having volunteered the term Im asking about, its seems odd to me, that you dont want to'define your terms',and suggests that there is no content to it? hey ho........................,whatever, as the kids say now........ Rolling Eyes

by egginbonce Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:00 am

Marxism requires anti-religious atheism of its adherents. Stalin was a Marxist; Stalin was an anti-religion atheist. Joseph Stalin murdered millions in the name of Marxism; accordingly, Joseph Stalin murdered millions in the name of anti-religious atheism.

This logic is fun to play with, but does have its holes..................eg:
Proof of staticity(is that aproper word?)

A thing can only be in one place at a time
therefore.....it can only be inone place at anypoint in time
therefore...it can only be in one place at EVERY point in time
therefore...movement is not possible
Q.E.D. Very Happy

by Guest Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:25 am

by Sponsored content