Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why not?
Humanism was at the heart of the German Nazi philosophy that resulted in millions of innocent people brutalized and murdered in concentration camps.
It is also at the heart of the philosophy behind thousands of unborn babies being murdered through abortion each year.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.This is a lie.
So is this.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
I think you should explain your initial claim. Humanism today is nothing like the thinking associated with Nazi Germany's eugenics program.That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
I don't have theology. (Are you not understanding what the whole "atheist" thing is?)
Obedient Christians? or disobedient ones?The Nazis were Christians,
With respect to the Bible? or in spite of the Bible?NxNW said:... and the Catholic Church supported their actions,
Does that "more info" include whether or not the author believes this was done with respect to the Bible?NxNW said:Read the book Ratlines for more info.
Theology no, Belief certainly - atheism as expressed in "Scientific realism " is a belief set.
That nothing exists that you cannot observe.
That the patterns that do exist in what you observe (you call scientific model) will keep repeating without exception.
Which is odd, because all they are is observations.
The turkey who observes that people are good and bring food every day is violated only once, around christmas!
You also cannot know whether you see a projection of reality from higher dimensions in which case all of science is empirical.
Indeed since your philosophy of life is that senses only improve to what they need for survival actively disputes the idea you see all there is...
More assumptions.. That the abstract things in that model based on observation, map into real things in the universe. Phenomena and noumena.
Your concept of life is as a chemical automaton
That all life was a result of a lucky chemical accident to a first living evolving cell.
Whatever that first cell was was a horrendously complicated thing!, it went ping from no life....
That your concept of consciousness is a chemical process confined to the automaton
That whilst the hardware of life was the product of random chance, the software of life wrote itself by accident!
And so on...
You have a complex set of beliefs. Sadly the real world chooses to throw curved balls of evidence that dispute some or all of that, but rather than investigate you would rather pretend they are not real!
There is evidence of something that was bread, turned red, now has all the characteristics of recently living heart tissue but only maternal DNA sequencable, the nuclear will not sequence.. Repeated. It turns most of the above belief set on its head.
It isnt conjecture like life from chemical soup.
Theology no, Belief certainly - atheism as expressed in "Scientific realism " is a belief set.
That nothing exists that you cannot observe.
That the patterns that do exist in what you observe (you call scientific model) will keep repeating without exception.
Which is odd, because all they are is observations. The turkey who observes that people are good and bring food every day is violated only once, around christmas!
You also cannot know whether you see a projection of reality from higher dimensions in which case all of science is empirical. Indeed since your philosophy of life is that senses only improve to what they need for survival actively disputes the idea you see all there is...
More assumptions.. That the abstract things in that model based on observation, map into real things in the universe. Phenomena and noumena.
Your concept of life is as a chemical automaton
That all life was a result of a lucky chemical accident to a first living evolving cell. Whatever that first cell was was a horrendously complicated thing!, it went ping from no life....
That your concept of consciousness is a chemical process confined to the automaton
That whilst the hardware of life was the product of random chance, the software of life wrote itself by accident!
And so on...
You have a complex set of beliefs. Sadly the real world chooses to throw curved balls of evidence that dispute some or all of that, but rather than investigate you would rather pretend they are not real!
There is evidence of something that was bread, turned red, now has all the characteristics of recently living heart tissue but only maternal DNA sequencable, the nuclear will not sequence.. Repeated. It turns most of the above belief set on its head.
It isnt conjecture like life from chemical soup.
That's not how atheism is defined. Either as "no belief in gods" or "belief that no gods exist" atheism does not mean "Scientific realism", that would be an additional "belief".
Perhaps this statement is true, but it not a part of "atheism".
Are you objecting to this???
Silly furriner, all the turkeys are already dead by Xmas. (Except ones like this post that make it through...)
Are you claiming "higher dimensions"? (This is just odd "sci-fi" talk, and not physical.)
What does my "philosophy of life" have to do with any of this? We haven't discussed it. Whatever my "philosophy of life" is it isn't "atheism" or "scientific realism". BAH!
Mahna mahna.
More claims about me. Stop it. It is unbecoming.
Lucky accident? Probably more like inevitability. But do go on telling me about myself...
It probably didn't make a sound (and it likely wasn't that "horrendously complicated".)
More of a tissue process. Do remember please that spirits come in bottles, not brains.
Life doesn't have "software".
You managed to stop, congratulations.
Is this about the proceeding some how? Your posts are hard to follow, especially since this "conversation" has been dead for weeks. (As for beliefs, I believe your god is not real and my old church is the most evil organization on the planet.)
(and all balls have curves, even the ones with pointy ends like footballs)
At least this related to the titular topic. But, I still don't care.
I simply point out from observation your entire philosophical platform as expressed from time to time on these threads is based on a set of beliefs. You are welcome to them, but they are none the less beliefs.
The atheism often expressed here is in essence coupled with scientific realism. It is unusual to see atheism without some other postulation for origin of life.
I have always throught science is such a strange straw to clutch at as a philosophy or meaning of life, since the scientific model is an abstract invention of man , used to codify observation. A strange thing on which to base faith.
I could pick one of the points to argue but that would obscure the generality, that atheism is in itself a belief generally couple with other beliefs, as sadly - and wrongly - taught in the classroom. Ask any schoolchild where life comes from and they are likely to say from chemical soup or similar meaning, which is utterly false teaching since nobody can conclude it from science.
It’s a belief
I find it fascinating you use the word “ inevitability” of life as a random chance accident, since that presumes high probability. If it were a high probability then have you not wondered why no other instance ever been observed happening? No far more primitive cells have been observed, in a continuous process of reinvention of life? Not even a credible process has been postulated by which it can happen!
Ascribing a high probability to “ don’t know “ as an explanation is farcical reasoning!
(As a point of explanation : DNA coding is in essence a software, that is presumed to program a chemical automaton. )
These remarks of yours were, apparently, directed at @Hans Blaster , but they contain such errors and bizarre observations that I felt compelled to address some of them.I have always thought science is such a strange straw to clutch at as a philosophy or meaning of life and existence , since the scientific model is just an abstract invention of man , used to codify observation. A strange thing on which to base faith.
Let me see. One of my science teachers was an elder (or whatever the correct term is) in the local Baptist church. Another ran the Scripture Union, a Bible study group for young people. What do you imagine they were teaching me that was false?I could pick one of the points to argue but that would obscure the generality, that atheism is in itself a belief generally couple with other beliefs, as sadly - and wrongly - taught in the classroom.
Hmm. A bunch of empty assertions set against a vast body of research. Forgive me if I treat your unsupported claim with appropriate disregard.Ask any schoolchild where life comes from and they are likely to say from chemical soup or similar meaning, which is utterly false teaching since nobody can conclude it from science. It’s a belief. It doesn’t even constitute a valid scientific hypothesis, yet it is taught as a fact.
That is flawed reasoning. You seem unaware that any of the necessary pre-biotic chemical products are excellent food for microscopic life. It stands no chance of advancing to the next step.I find it fascinating you use the word “ inevitability” of life as a random chance accident, since that presumes very high probability. If it were a high probability then have you not wondered why no other instance ever been observed happening? No far more primitive cells have been observed, in a continuous process of reinvention of life? Not even a credible process has been postulated by which it can happen!
This is just a guess on my part: is your knowledge of research on abiogenesis based upon direct study of relevant journal papers, or upon hostile analysis by fellow creationists. If it is the latter, perhaps you can see the problem for your credibility. If it is the latter, then feel free to dissect and refute any single example of such research published in the last ten years. That would get attention and respect.Ascribing a high probability to “unknown mechanism” as an explanation is farcical reasoning, however you arrived at it!
I think you have already been told you are mistaken in this. Repeating it suggest you are unable to learn.As a point of explanation : DNA coding is in essence a software, that is presumed to program a chemical automaton
Obedient Christians? or disobedient ones?With respect to the Bible? or in spite of the Bible?
In your opinion.Does that "more info" include whether or not the author believes this was done with respect to the Bible?
Or, as I suspect, you won't find a single Bible verse within its pages?
If they are Christians, then the Bible is their standard for faith and practice -- or should be.Would the answers to these questions have any bearing on whether or not they were Christians?
If they are Christians, then the Bible is their standard for faith and practice -- or should be.
And if the Nazis are practicing genocide on the Jews, then what do you think?
Is there something I can help you with?Either it is, or it should be -- pick one.
Actually, It's a trick question, isn't it? Because there is only One who gets the first, last, and only word regarding who is or isn't a Christian... And His opinion on the matter is not up for discussion or debate.
Lacking His input on the matter, I have to go with CF's rules on the matter -- anyone who calls themself a Christian is one... and it would be considered flaming to say otherwise.
"If"?
Christians and Jews have not had the greatest relationship throughout history -- the Nazis simply brought German efficiency into the process.
Martin Luther (the original; not King) was a raving anti-Semite... Few people doubt his Christianity (with the notable exception of Pope Leo X, but under the circumstances, that's to be expected)
So all that can be done is
1/ to identify evidence of the unexplained.
2/ to confirm it is inexplicable, by breaking a fundamental paradigm of science as it is known
( eg prophecy as a simple example because of time arrow, consciousness outside the brain )
3/ that there is no credible means of faking the evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?