The typical dishonest approach of ignoring the motives and concentrating only on the act. The shooter acted on his faith that it was what god wanted. Inly theists can think like that.
Already understood. A fake god has nothing to do with whether a person behaves well or not. It is something internal in that person. Your religion therefor is nothing more than an excuse not a cause.
It would seem once again when you fail to have anything comprehensible to say you do not let that stop you from saying something.
Written on the belt buckle of every german soldier during ww2 'Gott mit uns'
Only very briefly with some basic searches. I'll look into it more though if nothing else it sounds interesting.
I'll give you that
No, his conviction "birth begins and conception" and not faith is what makes the abortion doctor a murder and justifies his actions.
Well to a degree, but even if we argue the source of religion, we can not deny the effects of religion/faith. And in many cases there is huge positive transformations as the structure helps contextualize and bring about moral changes...yes, I agree it can go both ways. What we put faith into matters. This is why I've never directly answered the original premise and considered it too vaguely defined.
You may have a point on the later it was said light heartily.
No it is the religious belief that life is sacred and an abortionist acts against the will of god that causes theists to kill abortion doctors. The conviction that birth begins at conception is semantics.I'll give you that
No, his conviction "birth begins and conception" and not faith is what makes the abortion doctor a murder and justifies his actions.
Possibly but that does not distract from the fact that some do say because of god.
How hypocritical to give such a vague and undefined speculation of the so called positives You miss the point. No one denies that people do good and claim it is because they have religion. Only that religion is necessary for good to be done. In fact the opposite is true. You need a religion to do bad in gods name.
But without thought. Atheism is a lack of belief not something to do with communism. Communism is a philosophy of economics and nothing to do with atheism.
Again you display no understanding of atheism if you think it encompasses anything but a lack of belief in a god. that is the only use it has. If a person does something for a higher cause such as political belief then they do it because they believe in that kind of politics not because they are also an atheist.
Yet you would fail to demonstrate anything in communist philosophy to back this. Even marx's famous quote of religion is an opiate is not anti religious, just a good description of religion. Nor has there ever been any such thing as a communist country to carry out any atrocities. Countries that called themselves communist did not actually practice communism, they just used the word.
Oh so you need the former to hold the view of the later, please do expand :neutral:
It interesting but not damning. That could easily have just been a nod to German nationalist history rather than showing any actual reverence for christianity. It not like he implement it only included it. After all, the third reich grabbed upon a very christianized history. I’ll see though, I'm sure it will be an entertaining read if nothing else, hitler theories usually are. I am surprised though how many of you seem so supportive of it considering its obscurity as a notion.
Yeah but that isn’t as damning as it might seem. The catholic church is famous for political corruption in Rome and in world war two era that meant for a key moment in time cooperating and working with Mussolini’s government. It should not be all that surprising than to find the nazi had at least some friendly contacts within the catholic church.
Not correct. Theism is actively a belief while atheism is simply the lack of a belief. This belief of theists is not abstract but is based on defining rules and morality.
Which explains my use of the word theist instead of picking out any one religion. Your point can be taken further in that if one person of a belief commits zero atrocity while another of the same belief commits atrocity then it is the individual who takes responsibility not the theology.
If I do so, I do not do so on purpose. I want to discuss your ideas not a straw man.
Don't all atheists also define rules and morality?
You could, but the more specific we get the easier it becomes to demonstrate a connection. If a belief gives justification for violence for example and persons A & B are of the belief and only A does an atrocity that does negate that the belief can be a causal factor.
I don't call it dictators as most are not atheists. What about Communist dictatorships is that an acceptable term to your sentimentalities?
Theists are no more required to act under the idea they are right than an atheist. Intellectual humility is intellectual humility no matter your affirmative or skeptical position on god/gods.
What science are you reading?Sperm and egg are cells of two people: male & female, they become distinct when they combine to make a new person with a DNA structure different from their mother and father -> conception.
Puzzled i am as i can see no difference but the wording in each option. If a person commits acts of evil in the name of a god then that person would also inclined to an evil nature based on his belief. I doubt that people who act in a charitable and civil manner are inclined to believe evil is right or or are inclined to random acts of evil. For example, how often have you secretly kicked a puppy to death?
True but they do not get to enforce their morality by threatening people with an eternally horrible afterlife for not obeying those moralities. Atheists have to use tricky things like good reasoning and a common sense approach.
Your doing it again. Asking for me to get specific and then following it with a generalisation. The part in bold can mean many things. Your wording allows for plurals which begs the question of not only what a belief is but which one is being believed.
You are again mistaken about the nature of atheists. If you recall my point that god is not one thing but many beliefs then it would be contradictory to also hold that atheism must want to pin down god to one defined meaningful conclusion. Mostly i am also ignostic and must wait until the theist i am talking to explains what a god means to them before i can become an atheist.
You mean in the same sense as north korea uses republic in its title as america does?
Required!!!! No, but they have one more justifictaion for their actions than atheists do. That their imagination said it was a good thing to do.
Then your argument is not about when does life begin but about when does personhood arrive.
Why do you bring that thought into the argument? When we debate god, christians insist we debate by what the bible says. So if we debate science by discussing biology then is it to much for the theist to abide by their own rules and stick with books of science?
opcorn2:Yep,sure is The post you made was a nonsensical, biased and retarded lie that can't be backed up. Destroying lies like that is easy. Honest, educated and objective people will never take posts like that seriously, it's only worthy of laughter. Unless of course you can support the lie you got caught posting? If so please do.
opcorn2:
