Dave Ellis
Contributor
- Dec 27, 2011
- 8,933
- 821
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
The government acted in accord with secular super humanistic principles. They believed that only a certain race of humans deserved rights and protection, ie Aryans, whom they believed were superhumans. Unlike nations founded on Christian principles that believe that all humans of all races deserve basic human rights as enumerated in the DOI and the Bill of Rights of America. Hitler hated Christianity. And most of the population of Germany was unorthodox liberal Christians. Liberal theology originated in Germany about 150 years prior to WWII. So by the time of WWII it had pretty much taken over the Lutheran church and so they no longer believed in the moral absolutes of the Bible and were able to rationalize almost any immorality such as the mass slaughter of human beings who were no longer considered made in the image of God and of infinite worth and value. And there was some entrance of this theology into the Catholic seminaries undermining their belief in the inerrancy the bible and Gods moral law though not as extensively as the Lutheran church.
I suggest you pick up a history book. Hitler was a self professed Catholic and virtually all Germans were either Catholic or mainline Protestant. The antisemitism rampant in Germany can be directly traced to the Christian heritage of not only Germany but most of Europe.
Furthermore, Atheist and Freethinker groups were specifically banned and closed down by the Nazis, and many people from those groups wound up in the concentration camps.
What you're describing above is not Humanism. It's racism.
No, I did mention them. I said that the modern secular nations of Europe borrowed from their Christian heritage many of the moral principles of Christianity, such as the concept of human rights and etc. And the US is still in many ways living off its Judeo-Christian theistic founding. While not technically a theocracy the US was founded on many of the moral principles of the Biblical God. That is what the phrase "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" refers to. The first phrase refers to natural law, the second phrase refers to Biblical law. All of the founders even the non-Christians believed that God had revealed His moral laws in the Bible. So all nations that have been founded on these Christian principles generally have good human rights records except in the last 40 years not so good for the unborn.
Again, human rights is not a Christian concept. It's a concept that exists to some degree in almost any religious system, and secular systems.
"Nature's God" also is a phrase used by Deists to describe a deistic interpretation of a god. Those sentences aren't talking about the Christian god specifically.
The human rights record historically in Christian countries haven't been anything to be proud of either. Should I again bring up women's rights, civil rights and gay/trans rights? It seems to be universally true that the more free and secular a society becomes, and the less totalitarian or religious a society becomes, the better the human rights record looks.
There is a more likely chance that an active email address is being used by real person than a very inactive address.
You didn't say it's inactive though, you said that one email has 2000 emails, the other has 1. The one with 2000 emails could have gotten that way because nobody actively checks that account anymore and the spam messages have piled up. For example, my aunt died last September. By the time we got into her account there were thousands of messages to weed through.
On the other hand, the account with 1 email could be active but the user has downloaded the messages to a local backup. Or, the account was opened yesterday and is actively used, but hasn't had time to build up more than one message in the inbox yet.
So, simply saying one address has more emails in it gives us insufficient evidence to show how actively used that account is.
None of these interpretations go outside the literal definitions of the original greek and Hebrew words. But we do reinterpret them based on Gods other book, nature which He has told us is a source of knowledge about Him.
Exactly, so you reinterpret them to mean whatever you want to in order to make the book look vaguely scientifically accurate.
No, the reason he doesn't cover any empirically observed evidence is because there is none. It is all done by the magical force known as Time. He believes with enough of that magic literally anything can happen, but this is false assumption.
This is just flat out false.
You are assuming what we are trying to prove. Basically how they do it, is to look to see if it appears to have a purpose and have been created purposefully. And the universe has both such things in it.
No, I'm not assuming anything. Besides, apparent purpose is meaningless. Actual purpose is what matters, and you can't show actual purpose. You are assuming actual purpose without evidence to back up your assumptions.
No, see above about purpose. While it is not an infallible criteria, it generally works.
It may generally work for your belief system, but that doesn't mean it's correct.
Upvote
0