Friday, July 5, 2013

... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more

Series on Discovering Religion:

... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters

It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.


... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)

Video I commented on:
Discovering Religion: Ep 01 - Ready-Made World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfLGb1uOSHQ
Part I
My original comment up to branch out
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your fear that Apocalypse may be a self fulfilling prophecy is a fear that may be a self fulfilling prophecy.

You try to act on that fear, politically, as they do here in France, you run head on with Christians, Jews and Muslims.

When I look at some things these days, it's like some people behind governements have decided sth like "oh well, let's do the things they did in apocalypse before the world ends according to it, the world won't end, so we'll have disproven Christianity".

And what if that precisely is the beginning of those degradations, both of morals in general and of Security of the Church (relatively speaking, it has been persecuted before), that makes Doomsday a boon in preference to what such are doing?
xamarmm
I don't see much of that - I see more of christian funnymentalists who wishes the apocalypse welcome - let's get it started so we can see Jesus coming from the clouds to save those of us who believe while the rest can screw themselves, so let's get those bombs going! It is scary but there are people on the far religious right in the US who think along those lines - and if one of their people become president, we are all doomed.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Feel free to link to one fundie who does exactly say what you attribute to them. Unless you do and until you do, I feel free to attribute to you the evil deed of slander. Charitably I will presume you are venting your honestly felt prejudice rather than inventing stuff to denigrate people you happen to dislike for other reasons.
xamarmm
I won't do what you want me to do. First off, you started the slander game by claiming that people in government, for example in USA, would want to disprove christianity - almost all of them are christians but let's just forget about that because we have a slander to tell. And then when I come with something opposite you're telling me I am telling slander? Can you spell "hypocrite"?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
My words: "it's like some people behind governements have decided sth like ..."

Your version of my words: "people in government, for example in USA, would want to disprove christianity"

1) behind vs in

2) governmentS vs government (sg)

3) it is as if sth like vs claiming that ...

I think I stayed clear of slander. I think you just slandered my integrity therein, shall I presume it was by bad memory?
xamarmm [branch out comment]
I don't know of any government anywhere who is actively spending time trying to disprove christianity, I don't know of anyone else actively trying to disprove christianity - there's nothing to disprove, christians would first have to prove christianity first, until then any such effort would be a waste of time and energy. Also, what would be the point of disproving christianity? I don't see Islam as being much better and if disproving christianity would make some people convert to Islam there would be no positive gain from doing such a thing. Any attempt at disproving christianity would be a waste of time. Better to spend effort keeping creationism and other pseudo-sciences out of science classes. What's next? Should we allow alchemy in chemistry or astrology into astronomy? It's also a good idea to sped effort to make the separation of church and state become genuine again - removing "in god we trust" from money and "under god" in pledges would help restore the costittion and make USA once again a secular state.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I don't know of any government anywhere who is actively spending time trying to disprove christianity"

How many are funding the sham sciences of heliocentrism and geocentrism? How many are funding an AntiCatholic view of History (a k a History with a Whig bias)?

The former does not always work and the latter sometimes DOES encourage people to become Muslims. In France and Sweden more than in US though.
Part II
From first part of branch out comment, on Medical Miracles
xamarmm
I don't know of any government anywhere who is actively spending time trying to disprove christianity, I don't know of anyone else actively trying to disprove christianity - there's nothing to disprove, christians would first have to prove christianity first, until then any such effort would be a waste of time and energy. Also, what would be the point of disproving christianity? I don't see Islam as being much better and if disproving christianity would make some people convert to Islam (cont 1)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
" there's nothing to disprove, christians would first have to prove christianity first"

We have. Christ proved Christianity to the Eleven and a few more by Resurrection (after all his other miracles). St Paul proved it to St Luke by resurrecting a boy who had broken his neck falling asleep and out of a window while listening to his sermon. And miracles have continued to follow the Church ever since.
xamarmm
I wonder how it would work if physics or mathematics could prove things this way: Professor, I swear the theory of relativity is true, Einstein proved it to his students back in 1915 and they wrote it in this book here, see? If that was how people argued in favor of relativity theory it would never be accepted as a theory in physics. I want to be able to see this proof that christianity is true by myself here and now even if that is not actually possible because I would have to use equipment or somthing, I would atleast in principle be able to see the proof for myself given that I could get hold of such equipment and that the equipment was documented so that I wouldn't be forced to go to a specific vendor for getting it. Also, while such miracles yu speak of happened all those years ago, the "miracles" that happen today is more "our church received enough funding to restore the benches" which just means that enough believers provided enough money - not a real miracle in other words. Real genuine scientifically verfiable miracles today are hard to come by.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
step one: doctor makes a diagnosis of such a disabling or killing disease

step two: he makes an admission medicine has done all possible and failed

step three: patient goes to Lourdes

step four: doctor in Lourdes makes diagnosis patient has not got the disease he had (only atheists can apply to be doctors there)

has happened 67 documented times since 1854 or whatever the year of the apparitions was

some diseases earlier healed miraculously have become curable since, as tuberculose peritonitis.
xamarmm
Ok, you got me convinced - show me proof of an amputee who got his amputated limb growing back out and I'll be a believer!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
the stages of tuberculose peritonitis we are sometimes dealing with back then clearly correespond to that: vital tissue around stomach destroyed - and then healed
Part III
From mid part of branch out comment, first of two, on Geocentric Answer
xamarmm
(cont 1) there would be no positive gain from doing such a thing. Any attempt at disproving christianity would be a waste of time. Better to spend effort keeping creationism and other pseudo-sciences out of science classes. What's next? Should we allow alchemy in chemistry or astrology into astronomy? It's also a good idea to sped effort to make the separation of church and state become genuine again - removing "in god we trust" from money and "under god" in pledges would help restore (cont 2)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Better to spend effort keeping creationism and other pseudo-sciences out of science classes."

What about keeping evolution and heliocentrism and similar pseudosciences out of class rooms? Wait, you are yourself a victim of such pseudoscience, never mind, shouldn't have asked you ....
xamarmm
If you by heliocentrism mean that the sun is the center of our solar system then that - just like evolution - is today an established fact. If you mean that the sun is the center of the universe, we have kinda left that idea a couple of centuries ago.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your established fact now ... it has turned quite a few away from the Church that condemned Galileo. Catholics falling away due to shame. Others not converting due to disgust.

Serves Satan pretty well, I clearly suspect it is not a fact but a factoid.

Whatever its support within astronomic community
xamarmm
it follows from the fact that the sun is the most massive object in the solar system and has more mass than all the other objects combined. It then follows by the laws of physics that the sun i relatively speaking at rest (well, it travels around the milky way, but that is outside of our solar system) while all the other objects moves in orbits around it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is circular reason involved, since mass of celestial objects are determined by orbits according to heliocentric view of them and newtonian view of their causality.

But even if this were true, it would only follow if the newtonian view of their causality were the true and provenly so one.

What makes you so sure God is not daily turning heaven around us, and an angel or angels the sun back around the heavens?
xamarmm
No, it's not.There are other ways to determine the mass of an object than to measure the orbits of objects around it. Oh well, you can keep your bronze age world view - the rest of us has made some progress. What I don't grasp is how you can use a computer - that represent modern science - you should shun it. Nah, you enjoy the fruits of modern science when it suits you, you only object when it goes against your pet bronze age world view which you believe because you believe.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your other method - the main one - depends on counting with surface material and size. But it has been tampered with in ways making certain heavenly bodies (including earth which is not one) have a core calculated for density by the method first mentioned.

As to other argument, do google "assortedretorts" (where this debate will go too) and "... on "Science Works" quote (c/o Dawkins)". It has been answered elsewhere.
Link mentioned (here I can link so you need not google):
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on "Science Works" quote (c/o Dawkins)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-science-works-quote-co-dawkins.html
Part IV
From mid part of branch ou comment, second of two, including true Scotsman and credibility of anti-Christian bias among scientist
xamarmm
(cont 1) there would be no positive gain from doing such a thing. Any attempt at disproving christianity would be a waste of time. Better to spend effort keeping creationism and other pseudo-sciences out of science classes. What's next? Should we allow alchemy in chemistry or astrology into astronomy? It's also a good idea to sped effort to make the separation of church and state become genuine again - removing "in god we trust" from money and "under god" in pledges would help restore (cont 2)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"What's next? Should we allow alchemy in chemistry or astrology into astronomy?"

Alchemy and astrology are older names for the sciences.

If you mean looking for the stone of the sages or making horoscopes, no it should not be let in. But evolutionism and heliocentrism are not all that much better.

They are attempts of trying to disprove Christianity, they are prime examples of what I was referring to.
xamarmm
No, they are nto attempts of trying to disprve christianity - fact:Some biologists who think evolution is true are christians, do you really think any of them would try to disprove christianity? They are convinced that creationism is false though, but don't really need to atempt to disprove creationim - it disproves itself.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not only "is disproven", but even "disproves itself", how is that?

"Some biologists who think evolution is true are christians,"

Christianity comes in many shades of belief and disbelief.

"do you really think any of them would try to disprove christianity?"

The kind of Christianity that believes more than they do? Definitely yes, they would.
xamarmm
Can you hear the bag-pipes?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What bag pipes? If you are enjoying the Edinburgh tattoo, unfortunately I am not over where you are.

And what has that got to do with my argument?

Do you want to avoid debate on my take that many "Christian" either scientists or politicians are simply not believing what Christians are historically supposed to believe?
xamarmm
I was referring to the "no true scotsman fallacy" look it up.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not claim no true Catholic supported Hitler.

Oh, sorry. I see it was about "what Christians are historically supposed to believe".

Well, there is such a thing as consensus over the centuries over areas where modernist Christians are opposed to part of it.

A Scotsman is defined by Scottish parents. But a Christian is not defined by Christian parents. Nor by identifying himself as a Christian. Since in solme contexts it is used as synonym for "good" (according to Xtian standards) and "unchristian" as bad (same qualification), some people would be ashamed of identifying as "not Christian", even if they believe things like evolution or reincarnation.
Part V
From last part of branch out comment, on secular government, part 1/3
xamarmm
(cont 2) the costittion and make USA once again a secular state.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
US was not founded an actively secularising state. Btw, it was not founded "a state" but a "confederation" or "union" of 13 states, remember.

Belief in God o f : s o m e : k i n d was assumed as part of natural philosophy and thus not of the confession which congress should neither establish nor disestablish (but state legislatures could do either of these).

"In God we trust" and List of Ten Commandments do not violate the above. Nor does disestablishing school.
xamarmm
In god we trust DOES violate the separation of church and state. True, most of the founding fathers did believe in some god of some kind, but the fact that today there are people who do not believe in any god and they too re citizens of USA, it is a clear violation. You divide the citizens into "first class" who share this god belief and accept the "in god we trust" on their money and the second class citizens who do not - but they don't count as they are lesser worth, they are "untermench".
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Does "violate the separation of church and state"? But "the separation of church and state" is not part of the first amendment.

It is one kind of ideological reading of first amendment, but not a literal part of it.

Speaking of "untermenschen", in Soviet Union Christians really were treated as such, in North Korea they still are. On considered purpose.
xamarmm
That is because both soviet union and north korea are and were in effect theocracies. In soviet union it was an atheistic communist theocracy but it was dogmatic and irrational - the hallmarks of theocracies and as christianity is a competing dogmatism, they were persecuted. North korea is most definitely a theocracy where Kim Il Sung is deified and so christians are persecuted because they will not accept Kim Il Sung as god and savior. The lesson is that dogmatic systems are bad.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The lesson is certainly that non-Christian theocracies are bad.

That thing is not what free Pagans or Jews suffered when Christianity took over, generally speaking.
xamarmm
All theocracies are bad - christians included.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would on the contrary claim the best societies we have had on earth were Catholic states.

Like that of St Louis IX, King of France.
postoergopostum
A system that led directly to The Terror. No matter how great a monarch like Louis IX may be, eventually the throne will be occupied by a dangerous mind.

A system without adequate checks and balances will eventually become tyranny.

Societies exist in time, and can't be judged by a snapshot. Louis IX's rule like all benevolent theocracies are merely respites from institutionalised tyranny that failed to fix the structural flaws in their society.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Directly? No.

It was its overthrowal by the Revolutionaries (as good secularists as the man in the video) that led to The Terror.

L'Ancien Régime did have adequate checks and balances: not within the secular power of kingship, but between secular and religious, between kingship, regional powers, local powers.

The Revolution did away with that and tehre was The Terror and the Napoleonic Wars.

Tyranny and secularism went hand in hand (partly before Revolution too).
Part VI
From last part of branch out comment, 2/3
xamarmm
(cont 2) the costittion and make USA once again a secular state.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
US was not founded an actively secularising state. Btw, it was not founded "a state" but a "confederation" or "union" of 13 states, remember.

Belief in God o f : s o m e : k i n d was assumed as part of natural philosophy and thus not of the confession which congress should neither establish nor disestablish (but state legislatures could do either of these).

"In God we trust" and List of Ten Commandments do not violate the above. Nor does disestablishing school.
xamarmm
Next logical step would be to arrange to place all who do not want to say "under god" in a ghetto and have them wear a mark on their clothing saying "atheist" or "non-believer" or some such, so that the police can easily round them up. The death camps comes later.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
We Catholics do not believe in taking "the next logical step". Which is why Catholics resisted Hitler.

Distinctive clothing has been applied by Catholic authorities, but that was way before there were police to round people up who wore such.
xamarmm
Catholics did not resist Hitler - SOME catholics resisted Hitler - but not all, just as SOME protestants also resisted Hitler but not all. All atheists resisted Hitler. If that was because he persecuted all of them and they never had a choice or if it was because they are upright rational people who will never follow Hitler in the first place we will never know.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"All atheists resisted Hitler."

Meaning, mostly, Communists.

You can as well say that most Pantheists with national bent supported him.

And Pantheism is close enough to Atheism, as compared to Christianity.
xamarmm
I think the fact that Hitler went on a book burning campaign against atheistic literature is part of the reason why atheists didn't care much for Hitler's ideas. Hitler was a most definitely a theist.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mit brennender Sorge, an encyclical by Pope Pius XI, disqualifies him from that, since he believed necessities of societal kinds could trump the decalogue.

Pius XI : Mit brennender Sorge (English translation from German)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
Part VII
From last part of branch out comment, 3/3
xamarmm
(cont 2) the costittion and make USA once again a secular state.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
US was not founded an actively secularising state. Btw, it was not founded "a state" but a "confederation" or "union" of 13 states, remember.

Belief in God o f : s o m e : k i n d was assumed as part of natural philosophy and thus not of the confession which congress should neither establish nor disestablish (but state legislatures could do either of these).

"In God we trust" and List of Ten Commandments do not violate the above. Nor does disestablishing school.
xamarmm
Belief in God of some kind was common back then but that doesn't mean that USA was founded as a christian nation. Many of the founding fathers was not christian but was deists but more importantly, many people living in the US at that time fled from religious persecution in europe and so they wanted to found USA as a secular state exactly in order to ensure that no religious denomination would be persecuted in their newly founded nation. The separation of church and state was in part to protect religious minorities. In modern times, christians have forgot that and gang up together to shit on the constitution and want to turn USA into a theocracy. It is possible that they all believe that such a theocracy will tolerate all variants of christianity and only persecute non-christian religious minorities but in this they show a lack of knowledge of history - History tells us that such a theocracy will soon persecute anyone who do not follow the ruling theology.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have asked you for evidence they want to persecute atheists. You have reaffirmed, but linked to no evidence.

"History tells us that such a theocracy will soon persecute anyone who do not follow the ruling theology."

History of which "theocracy", now?
xamarmm
Atheists is one of the last minorities it is socially acceptable to dicriminate against in the USA today. Thre are numerous stories of children being harassed even by teachers when they find out he or she is atheist. There are numerous stories. People being told to move out when the people of the town finds out they are atheists etc.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is not a political attempt to establish theocracy, it is a popular attempt to establish consensus against supporters either of Communism or of Compulsory Evolution and Prohibited Creationism or of Abortion and so called Gay Rights (including to adoption).

It is thus a popular defense against Atheist Inversion of supposed Theocracy.

It sucks, but atheists getting out of those issues might help. Like if AronRa agreed to homeschool his son or put him in a private school for atheists, if he's so against his son hearing any thing about creationism in classroom.

I would want atheist parents in that situation to use the liberties you have rather than attack the liberties we Christians are finally getting back. Or rather than promote the pseudo-liberty of dealing out death and infertility.

No comments: