Why is science wrong?

[pyramid33]

Hitler was a Christian.

How did you come to that conclusion? His mass murdering when the Bible says not to kill? I'm confused by your response on that.

 

[pyramid33]

And neither was Germany.....

No, I think they would find it embarrassing to their argument to have to lump all the Axis powers together....

Claiming to be Christian while murdering innocent people certainly doesn't help the case of them being Christians.

 

[goggles]

He wasn't a Christian.

But most of Germany at that time was. (And still is I think?)

 

[pyramid33]

Why are you guys letting AV troll you into derailing a 6 year old thread that he bumped for no other purpose than to troll you???

You're free to respond. And free to ignore.

 

[pyramid33]

He wasn't a Christian.

But most of Germany at that time was. (And still is I think?)

Yeah, I don't recall Christ physically killing anybody during His first appearance.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How did you come to that conclusion? His mass murdering when the Bible says not to kill? I'm confused by your response on that.

Being Christian in the sense of practicing what it preaches isn't the same as being a Christian because of belief, is what I guess you feel.

Hitler being a Christian is made on the basis of what he generally believed, not on his very immoral actions. He definitely wasn't a "good" Christian.

 

[TheBear]

How did you come to that conclusion? His mass murdering when the Bible says not to kill? I'm confused by your response on that.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2677276-6/#post65355218

 

[goggles]

Of course he has an agenda. Sway masses.

 

[MKJ]

What is universally true though, is that atheist can never be blamed for anything. Nobody engages in actions because "he does NOT believe x"

You don't act according to what you don't believe. You act according to what you do believe.

This alone excludes atheism as being the cause or motivation of any action at all (good OR bad). Every time an atheist does something good or bad, his reasons/motivations of doing that thing will not be found in his atheism.

I know this discussion is a few days old, but I wanted to comment on this because i think it is an important point.

"Atheist" and "theist" are both general terms for a larger set. People don't really do things on account of either of those categorizes. Christians didn't burn witches because they were theists. Atheists didn't murder priests because they were atheists.

But they did do these things as part of a more developed worldview (or in some cases, a more specific but stupid and thoughtless worldview.) Theism in integral to Christianity, and people do a variety of things as Christians, or even as specific sorts of Christian. Atheism is integral to Marxism, and people do a variety of things as Marxist, or even as specific forms of Marxist. (And probably every group does things for reasons unrelated to its worldview and blames it on following its dictates.)

If you want to say Christians do bad things because they are theists, it makes as much sense to say that Marxists do bad things because they are atheists. Neither term is neutral when it is actually placed in the context of an actual worldview.

Trying to lump theists together makes about as much sense as lumping atheists together.

 

[biggles53]

Christians didn't burn witches because they were theists.

Really...??

Doesn't the basic belief that witches even exist (let alone how you treat them) require a belief system that so posits...?

 

[Sayre]

Really...??

Doesn't the basic belief that witches even exist (let alone how you treat them) require a belief system that so posits...?

Yes

 

[MKJ]

Really...??

Doesn't the basic belief that witches even exist (let alone how you treat them) require a belief system that so posits...?

Lots of theists don't kill witches, or believe in them. Believing in witches isn't integral to theism, nor is thinking it is a good idea to kill them.

So no, killing witches isn't about theism.

How about this:

Marxists killed priests because they were atheists. Therefore, it is accurate to say that atheism causes the murder of priests.

Well, the first statement is a bit simple, but its true so far as it goes. The Marxist undoubtedly murdered many clergy members during and after the Russian Revolution, more than a thousand clergy in the first five years. And they did so because of their Marxist beliefs, and atheism is an integral component of Marxism. And what's more, it was specifically their Marxist/atheist view of religion that was the justification behind those murders - it was the policy of the state to oppress and eliminate religion because it was untrue and seen as destructive.

So how is it then, that people think it makes sense to say that Christians burned witches because of theism, but not that Marxists killed over 12 million Christian because of atheism?

As far as I can see, that is either trying to have your cake and eat it too, or it is sloppy thinking.

 

[HitchSlap]

Lots of theists don't kill witches, or believe in them. Believing in witches isn't integral to theism, nor is thinking it is a good idea to kill them.

So no, killing witches isn't about theism.

How about this:

Marxists killed priests because they were atheists. Therefore, it is accurate to say that atheism causes the murder of priests.

Well, the first statement is a bit simple, but its true so far as it goes. The Marxist undoubtedly murdered many clergy members during and after the Russian Revolution, more than a thousand clergy in the first five years. And they did so because of their Marxist beliefs, and atheism is an integral component of Marxism. And what's more, it was specifically their Marxist/atheist view of religion that was the justification behind those murders - it was the policy of the state to oppress and eliminate religion because it was untrue and seen as destructive.

So how is it then, that people think it makes sense to say that Christians burned witches because of theism, but not that Marxists killed over 12 million Christian because of atheism?

As far as I can see, that is either trying to have your cake and eat it too, or it is sloppy thinking.

That's the problem with moderate Christians who selectively choose what to adhere to or not. Meh. As Hitch said, "religion poisons everything."

 

[mzungu]

Lots of theists don't kill witches, or believe in them. Believing in witches isn't integral to theism, nor is thinking it is a good idea to kill them.

So no, killing witches isn't about theism.

How about this:

Marxists killed priests because they were atheists. Therefore, it is accurate to say that atheism causes the murder of priests.

Well, the first statement is a bit simple, but its true so far as it goes. The Marxist undoubtedly murdered many clergy members during and after the Russian Revolution, more than a thousand clergy in the first five years. And they did so because of their Marxist beliefs, and atheism is an integral component of Marxism. And what's more, it was specifically their Marxist/atheist view of religion that was the justification behind those murders - it was the policy of the state to oppress and eliminate religion because it was untrue and seen as destructive.

So how is it then, that people think it makes sense to say that Christians burned witches because of theism, but not that Marxists killed over 12 million Christian because of atheism?

As far as I can see, that is either trying to have your cake and eat it too, or it is sloppy thinking.

I personally have no problem with theists who do not adhere to the more strict parts of their respective religion. It is with the literalistic and fundamentalist theists that I worry about. Considering that the Bible thumping creationists of today, do not kill witches
even though this goes against their Bible's command of "Let not a sorceress to live" can mean only that it is secular law that has brought about this change.
Secular law can and is in most countries applied without infringing upon religion, for the law does not recognise the supernatural and thus is unbiased.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's the problem with moderate Christians who selectively choose what to adhere to or not. Meh. As Hitch said, "religion poisons everything."

Nah, the butt holes would have been butt holes religious or not.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your point is void. It's a misrepresentation of what went on in those countries.
If, for example, you believe that being skeptical of faith based claims is really what the problem is in countries like North Korea, then you have much bigger problems then I even imagined.In any case, Facism is what is to blame in nazi Germany. Communism is what is to blame in soviet Russia.As for Darwin's religious beliefs - they are completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Just like Einstein's and Newton's beliefs are irrelevant to the laws of motion, gravity and relativity theory.

What you believe drive all your actions and your words.
Can you show that this is not true for everyone else?
Or can you show it has no bearing on your actions?

 

[pyramid33]

Science is the collection of thing's that already exist.

 

[SkyWriting]

It doesn't matter at all what any of them believed or didn't believe.What matters is what they did and why they did it.

People only act on what they believe. No person acts outside of their belief system. Unless they are acting on pure faith, which is possible.

 

[SkyWriting]

Science is the collection of thing's that already exist.

The scientific method is what is used to test beliefs. Each of these statements of faith must be tested continuously and are never assumed to be correct in every case. The only thing that exists in science is a body of beliefs to be tested. Hopefully, the same results will reoccur when tested.

 

[bhsmte]

People only act on what they believe. No person acts outside of their belief system. Unless they are acting on pure faith, which is possible.

What if their core beliefs are based on faith?