An argument why atheism is wrong and theism is the only rational choice

a reply to: luciferslight

Yeah they get to chose what they want to class as right or wrong, unfortunately for them they're not the ones who make the final call on that.

A sort of analogy, is I can decide it's OK to go into a shop and steal something, however my decision will not stand in an actual court!

Of course, with atheism, there's really no such thing, because no one can really prove there's no God. At best, someone can only be 'undecided'.

a reply to: Assemble

Of course, with atheism, there's really no such thing, because no one can really prove there's no God. At best, someone can only be 'undecided'.

That is just silly!

So my man!, why don't you prove that there is a God.

Any God at all, I am not going to be fussy here, just pick any one of the thousands, any one at all.

By your logic as quoted above, your inability to prove a God exists should then extend the proof that no God exists, at all, not one of them.

P

a reply to: chr0naut
You know the anti-JW, anti-Jehovah and antichrist crowd is grasping at straws when they call Russell a "Zionist" (usually used as an appeal to the actual anti-Semitic sentiments in their readers, it's a standard propaganda technique to appeal to the emotions, in this case those emotions that surface when you call someone a Zionist). As defined in general news releases, Zionism is “the movement for a Jewish national homeland in Palestine, realized with the creation of Israel and propagated today as the guiding philosophy of the Jewish state and its supporters.” Then the article you linked goes on with quotations that are supposedly "anti-Semitic". But nothing supposedly pro-Zionism is ever quoted or pointed out thereafter.

Pathetic, just pathetic. And they call themselves "JWFACTS". The parts they quote and bold from the letter they are going on and on about, also do not support their twisted commentary about what this letter is supposedly doing. The whole thing reminds me of those religious leaders in Jesus' day who were looking to entrap him in his words and were eyeballing him closely for that purpose, grasping at every straw they could bend and twist for that purpose as well. Conveniently skipping past and distracting from any actual facts that do not support whatever they were selling.

But hey, nice red herring to distract from the actual situation in Nazi Germany concerning religious support of and adherence and submission to the Nazi one-party “total state.” There were no JW-Nazis; unlike other religions having many Nazi-members in both the flock and the clergy, some of which in the most exalted or high positions of power and influence on the masses, but ranging all the way from the common soldier to the Reich Chancellor, the baptized Roman Catholic Adolf Hitler, or the former German Chancellor Franz von Papen, the papal knight who continued as Vice-Chancellor when Hitler became Chancellor (making him a Nazi in my book, especially concerning his other involvement in bringing Hitler to power and influencing the masses regarding things such as nationalism), born into a wealthy and noble Roman Catholic family and who “proved to be the kind of traitor beside whom Judas Iscariot is a saint.” According to German chancellor von Schleicher. There were no JW-Nazi soldiers either. Certainly not anyone even approaching the level of involvement of a Cardinal Pacelli, or the Roman Catholic papal knight Franz von Papen or German cardinal Faulhaber for that matter. No swastika ever "proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of" JW Kingdom Halls, no swastika flags ever "appeared round altars" in these Kingdom Halls and no JW ever "welcomed the alliance with Hitler." (in spite of what's falsely claimed on the website you linked) Quoting from what Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University, Friedrich Heer, admitted: “In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler.”

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
...
Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. And, as in the case of envy, fear can be played upon. The Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, of February 15, 1999, reported the following from Moscow: “When three girls committed suicide in Moscow last week, the Russian media immediately suggested they were fanatical followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Note the word “fanatical.” Naturally, people would be fearful of a fanatic religious organization that supposedly drives young people to suicide. Were these unfortunate girls really connected with Jehovah’s Witnesses in some way?

The Globe continued: “Police later admitted the girls had nothing to do with [Jehovah’s Witnesses]. But by then a Moscow television channel had already launched a new assault on the sect, telling viewers that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had collaborated with Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany—despite historical evidence that thousands of their members were victims of the Nazi death camps.” In the mind of the misinformed and possibly fearful public, Jehovah’s Witnesses were either a suicidal cult or Nazi collaborators!
...

Hmmm, Russian state propaganda, sounds familiar somehow...

IS THE WORK OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES PROPAGANDISTIC?

Some opponents of Jehovah’s Witnesses have accused them of spreading Zionist propaganda. Others have charged that the ministry of the Witnesses promotes Communism. Still others have claimed that the work of Jehovah’s Witnesses promotes the ideals and interests of “American imperialism.” And there are those who assert that the Witnesses are anarchists, fomenting disorder with the aim of changing the social, economic, political, or legal order. Obviously, these conflicting accusations cannot all be true.

The simple fact is that Jehovah’s Witnesses are none of the above. The work of the Witnesses is carried out in faithful obedience to Jesus Christ’s mandate to his disciples: “You will be witnesses of me . . . to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) Their work focuses solely and exclusively on the good news of the heavenly Kingdom—God’s instrument for bringing peace to the whole earth.—Matthew 6:10; 24:14.

Observers of Jehovah’s Witnesses have found no evidence that this Christian community has ever been a force disruptive of the good order of any land.

Many journalists, judges, and others have commented on the positive contributions that Jehovah’s Witnesses have made to the communities in which they live. Consider some examples. After attending a convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a reporter from southern Europe commented: “These are people with strong family ties, they are taught to love and to live by their conscience so as not to harm others.”

Another journalist, formerly negative about the Witnesses, stated: “They live an exemplary life. They do not violate the standards of what is moral and right.” A political scientist similarly remarked about the Witnesses: “They behave toward other people with profound kindness, love and gentleness.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach the rightness of submission to authority. As law-abiding citizens, they follow Bible standards of honesty, truthfulness, and cleanliness. They build good morals into their own families, and they help others to learn how they can do the same. They live peaceably with all men, not getting involved in disruptive demonstrations or political revolutions. ...

And they give very useful information on how to recognize propaganda.

a reply to: chr0naut

... Jehovah’s Witnesses seek to be exemplary in obeying the laws of the human superior authorities, while they wait patiently on the Supreme Authority, the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, to restore perfect peace and righteous government to this earth.

At the same time, the work of the Witnesses is educational. Using the Bible as a basis, they teach people worldwide to reason on Bible principles and thereby develop right standards of conduct and moral integrity. They promote values that improve family life and help young people cope with their peculiar challenges. They also help people to find the strength to overcome bad habits and to develop the ability to get along with others. Such a work would hardly be termed “propaganda.” As The World Book Encyclopedia says, in a climate where ideas circulate freely, “propaganda differs from education.”

And they give very useful information on how to recognize and resist propaganda, something I've never seen any propagandist do in the same manner with the same biblical advice, tips and warnings. They were, as historically proven, quite succesful in resisting Nazi propaganda as well, just as they were able to resist the pro-war nationalistic propaganda employed by the US during and preceding the Vietnam-war, or Korea-war, etc. Or propaganda that is pro-“American imperialism.” Quoting from the previous comment. But a bit more detail is perhaps in order.

Nationalism is the “sacred egoism” that divides. Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.”

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.”

At times of national crisis and international tension governments step up programs that are designed to rally the support of the populace. Patriotic ceremonies are urged in the public schools, and the national anthem is frequently played. Yet it is at such a time, when nations are ready to fight to maintain their freedom, that they are most prone to trample underfoot within their own borders the liberties that they seek to preserve. It is a dangerous time. “One of the reasons why our times are dangerous,” as pointed out by historian Arnold Toynbee, “is that we have all been taught to worship our nation, our flag, our own past history.”

Anyone who does not join in giving expression to such veneration of the nation, regardless of his reason, is viewed with suspicion. Patriots may denounce his conduct as disrespectful, even dangerous to the welfare of the State. Such was the lot of the early Christians. Far from being a menace to the State, they were outstandingly law-abiding. Yet they could not conscientiously participate in the patriotic rites of the Roman Empire. In commenting on the matter, The Book of Culture says: “The Christians, however, strong in their faith, would take no such oath of loyalty. And because they did not swear allegiance to what we would to-day consider as analogous to the Flag, they were considered politically dangerous.”

The late British historian Arnold Toynbee mentioned earlier said of nationalism: “It is a state of mind in which we give our paramount political loyalty to one fraction of the human race . . . whatever consequences this may entail for the foreign majority of the human race.”

Because nationalism is so divisive and destructive, Toynbee said of it: “Nationalism is a mental disease.”

Nationalism, called by the weekly magazine Asiaweek “the Last Ugly Ism,” is one of the unchanging factors that continues to provoke hatred and bloodshed. That magazine stated: “If pride in being a Serb means hating a Croat, if freedom for an Armenian means revenge on a Turk, if independence for a Zulu means subjugating a Xhosa and democracy for a Romanian means expelling a Hungarian, then nationalism has already put on its ugliest face.”

Nationalism is well described by the psalmist’s expression, “the pestilence causing adversities.” (Psalm 91:3) It has been like a plague on humanity, leading to untold suffering. Nationalism with its resultant hatred of other peoples has existed for centuries. Today, nationalism continues to fan the flames of divisiveness, and human rulers have not been able to stop it.

We are reminded of what Albert Einstein once said: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Nearly everybody gets it at one time or another, and it continues to spread. Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.”

In a flurry of published information celebrating Albert Einstein’s centennial, news columnist Joseph Kraft wrote concerning Einstein’s views on nationalism: “[Einstein] set an example in renouncing nationalism. ‘I never identified myself with any particular country,’ he once wrote.

Similarly, in a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

Many authorities recognize that nationalism and self-interest are the root of the world’s problems. For example, former United Nations Secretary-General U Thant, observed: “So many of the problems that we face today are due to, or the result of, false attitudes . . . Among these is the concept of narrow nationalism​—‘my country, right or wrong.’”

I mentioned earlier:

...nationalism and religion often go together. Wrote Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. ...

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: whereislogic

...

Letter to Hitler & Declaration of Facts - JWFacts

...

Between brackets is my evaluation of that website and those behind it as well as the article itself:

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.
...
How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.
...
Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter.
...
As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.

First, examine whether there is bias [check, heavy bias detected, of the unreasonable prejudiced kind]. What is the motive for the message? [spreading hatred and more prejudice towards Jehovah's Witnesses, slander, a form of psychological projection better described at Isaiah 5:20,21, presenting the situation upside-down, light as darkness, their darkness as light] If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words [check], why is that? [see motive, in this particular case including painting the labels "Zionist" and "anti-Semitic" on someone] Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? [see motive again] Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? [no, seen them spread many falsehoods and distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths as well as sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others.] ... If you sense some appeal to emotions [yep, pretty obvious actually], ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’
...
Yes, in this age of sophisticated propaganda, we can confidently look to Jehovah’s Word as the source of truth. Ultimately this will protect us from those who want to ‘exploit us with counterfeit words.’—2 Peter 2:3.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! Awake!—2000

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Assemble

Of course, with atheism, there's really no such thing, because no one can really prove there's no God. At best, someone can only be 'undecided'.

That is just silly!

So my man!, why don't you prove that there is a God.

Any God at all, I am not going to be fussy here, just pick any one of the thousands, any one at all.

By your logic as quoted above, your inability to prove a God exists should then extend the proof that no God exists, at all, not one of them.

P

You don't appear to understand logic, my dear . For instance, prove that there isn't a God.

But OK.

Supposing there is a hand print on a car. Now, I logically conclude that a person left that hand print. You can't PROVE that they left the handprint, but it's a reasonable conclusion, and it would stand up in a court of law.

So I submit that God exists because the universe exits. The universe is God's handprint. Which would equally stand up in a court of law.

So really, please be more intelligent with your statment, my dear

a reply to: Assemble

So I submit that God exists because the universe exits. The universe is God's handprint. Which would equally stand up in a court of law.

Show me any court case where an assumption based on the gap theory held up in a court of law. The hand print is a logical assumption, the god print is not.

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Well I don't know if your logic is right there, but i'll say all 3 are motivated by 'spiritual' feelings/desires. I can't say i'm bothered about getting into a discussion about what is meant by spiritual here. Sometimes 2+2 is 4 because it really just is 4.

I would have liked a discussion here but rather than that, I'll just bid you a good day. And a "to each their own."

originally posted by: Assemble
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Well I don't know if your logic is right there, but i'll say all 3 are motivated by 'spiritual' feelings/desires. I can't say i'm bothered about getting into a discussion about what is meant by spiritual here. Sometimes 2+2 is 4 because it really just is 4.

I would have liked a discussion here but rather than that, I'll just bid you a good day. And a "to each their own."

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

It's for sure a conversation to have, but I didn't want to get bogged down, I apologize for my weakness Perhaps we will be able to have that conversation some other time

a reply to: whereislogic

Your exceptionally verbose response missed my point.

Firstly, the article linked was about Joseph Franklin (Judge) Rutherford (the second president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society), not Charles Taze Russell (the founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society).

Secondly it was about Rutherford's attempted collaboration with the Nazi regime, and not that his beliefs aligned with Zionism.

The Nazi regime was overtly anti-Zionist and Rutherford appealed to that in his highly anti-Semitic (and therefore anti-Zionist) letter to Hitler.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Theism is a more rational belief system

I believe in Oolon Cullophids famous book 'just who is this God person anyway?' a good question for theists.

I'm agnostic so I can't really talk about Gods, but theism is not more rational. Who is god and who has seen it? and out of all the hundreds of millions of people why would he bestow magical powers on his 'son' and not all of us? and why would he destroy sodom for-well sodomy-when the animals he created can be gay? (i've seen lesbian dogs before, trust me it happens.)

originally posted by: a325nt
...
If we band together and cut loose the dead weight of belief, we might spread our species to another adjoining rock someday, but I fear the situation is fairly hopeless in that regard.
...

Is that why the system which has murdered the most people is an atheist system (the original form of communism)?

Communism caused the murder of over 110 million people, alongside millions more who were imprisoned, including religious leaders.

Look at what is happening in China with the CCP once more oppressing religious people. China as a communist country is also an atheist country that forces atheism as much as possible on it's people.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Squabbling over mass murderers and their beliefs is like barking at a wall.

There is evil in equal measure throughout history. It's slightly silly to argue for any side.

-----------------------------------


I use to think being Atheist/Agnostic was far more rational, nowadays, being old and bored I don't think that is the case.
I do know true research, true investigation, using 'science' should not preclude anything as given. Infinity can't be proven, and almost anything is impossible/possible.

Be kind, and keep in mind, humans are just are teeny answer to big questions. It's all just math.... Something/someone else's' math, sprinkle it with some love for who created it and for your brothers and sisters (not judgement and finger pointing ) and we *might* just end up achieving the line 'on earth as it is in heaven'...

a reply to: chr0naut
The article literally says:

Russell, founder of the Watchtower, was a Zionist...

There's nothing inaccurate in my response. Just because I chose to point out that ridiculous false claim and its effects on the emotions and anti-Semitic (and pro-conspiracy entertainment) sentiments in their readers by calling someone a Zionist doesn't mean I missed the point of the article or your motive for linking it. That's all also covered in my evaluation in the last comment I made. As it is covered in my example of the propaganda used by Russian media. I just didn't follow along with your red herring and went right back to my points about nationalism, "pro-war nationalistic propaganda" and the actual situation regarding a significant "religious component" to WW II, talking about historical facts that actually made a difference on the thinking and behaviour of those doing the fighting and committing genocide during WW II and other wars, the majority of which were members of Christendom in both World Wars.

Match Russian state-sponsored propaganda some more with the "collaboration" terminology... I think it isn't obvious enough yet for everyone.

Are you ready to admit yet that there was a "religious component" to WW II in spite of the reasons for fighting being (arguably*) non-religious?

*: regardless of whether or not that's the case

Using your terminology earlier when you were talking about "those wars & etc without a religious component".

Here's another "religious component" to a system of governance that is often brought up in discussions about atheism and morality (as it also came up in this thread), also to see how the word "collaboration" is used in the proper context:

BY THE time Nazi Germany invaded Russia in June 1941, the Soviets had practically annihilated the Russian Orthodox Church. But after the Nazi invasion, the Soviets began to change their attitude toward religion. What prompted this?

Richard Overy, professor of modern history at King’s College, London, explained in his book Russia’s War—Blood Upon the Snow: “Metropolitan Sergei [Sergius], head of the Church, appealed to the faithful on the very day of the German invasion to do everything to bring about victory. He published no fewer than twenty-three epistles in the next two years, calling on his flock to fight for the godless state they lived in.” So, as Overy continued, ‘Stalin allowed religion to flourish again.’

In 1943, Stalin finally agreed to recognize the Orthodox Church by appointing Sergius as its new patriarch. “The Church authorities responded by raising money from the faithful to fund a Soviet armored column,” Overy noted. “Priests and bishops exhorted their congregations to observe the faith, God’s and Stalin’s.”

Describing this period of Russian history, the Russian religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko wrote: ‘The official publication of the Russian Orthodox Church, The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, praised Stalin as the greatest leader and teacher of all times and nations, sent by God to save the nation from oppression, landowners, and capitalists. It called upon believers to give their last drop of blood in defending the USSR from its enemies and to give their all to build Communism.’

“Highly Valued by the KGB”

Even after World War II ended in 1945, the Orthodox Church remained useful to the Communists. The Soviet Union: The Fifty Years, edited by Harrison Salisbury, revealed how this was so: “With the war’s end, church leaders fell in with the Cold War demands of Stalin’s foreign policy.”

The recent book The Sword and the Shield describes how church leaders served Soviet interests. It explains that Patriarch Alexis I, who had succeeded Sergius as patriarch in 1945, “joined the World Peace Council, the Soviet front organization founded in 1949.” The book also notes that he and Metropolitan Nikolai “were highly valued by the KGB [the Soviet State Security Committee] as agents of influence.”

Remarkably, in 1955, Patriarch Alexis I declared: “The Russian Orthodox Church supports the totally peaceful foreign policy of our government, not because the Church allegedly lacks freedom, but because Soviet policy is just and corresponds to the Christian ideals which the Church preaches.”

In the January 22, 2000, issue of The Guardian of London, England, dissident Orthodox priest Georgi Edelshtein is quoted as saying: “All the bishops were carefully picked so that they would work with the soviet government. All were KGB agents. It is well known that Patriarch Alexy was recruited by the KGB, under the code-name of Drozdov. Today, they are preserving the same politics that they had 20 or 30 years ago.”

A Handmaiden of the Soviet State

Regarding the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Soviets, Life magazine of September 14, 1959, observed: “Stalin gave some concessions to religion, and the church treated him like a czar. Orthodoxy’s collaboration is ensured by a special government ministry and the Communists have utilized the church ever since as an arm of the Soviet state.”

Matthew Spinka, an authority on Russian church affairs, confirmed the existence of a close Church-State relationship in his 1956 book, The Church in Soviet Russia. “The present Patriarch Alexei,” he wrote, “has deliberately made his Church a tool of the government.” Indeed, the Orthodox Church, in effect, survived by becoming a handmaiden of the State. ‘But is that so reprehensible?’ you may ask. Well, consider how God and Christ view the matter.

Jesus Christ said of his true disciples: “You are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” And God’s Word pointedly asks: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God?” (John 15:19; James 4:4) Thus, as the Bible presents it, the church made itself a religious harlot with whom “the kings of the earth committed fornication.” It has shown itself to be part of what the Bible calls “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.”—Revelation 17:1-6.

Source: How Religion Survived: Awake!—2001

One of the boxes is called:

Church Collaboration With the Soviets

In his 1945 book, Russia Is No Riddle, Edmund Stevens wrote: “The Church took great care not to bite the hand that was now feeding it. It fully realized that in return for the favors bestowed the State expected the Church to give its firm support to the system and to operate within certain limits.”

Stevens went on to explain: “The tradition of centuries as the official State religion was deeply rooted in the Orthodox Church, and it therefore slipped very naturally into its new role of close collaboration with the Soviet Government.”

The Keston Institute thoroughly researched the past collaboration between the Soviets and Alexis II, today’s (2001) patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Its report concluded: “Aleksi’s collaboration was nothing exceptional—almost all senior leaders of all officially-recognised religious faiths—including the Catholics, Baptists, Adventists, Muslims and Buddhists—were recruited KGB agents. Indeed, the annual report that describes Aleksi’s recruitment also covers numerous other agents, some of them in the Estonian Lutheran Church.”

a reply to: chr0naut
Will Hatred Ever End?

...A further divisive element that may blend with nationalism is religion.

Religion. Many of the most intractable conflicts of the world have a strong religious element [whereislogic: or "component" if you will]. In Northern Ireland, the Middle East, and elsewhere, people are hated because of the religion they profess. Over two centuries ago, English author Jonathan Swift observed: “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.”

In 1933, Hitler informed the bishop of Osnabrück: ‘As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy that the Catholic Church has adopted for 1,500 years.’ His hateful pogroms were never condemned by most German church leaders. Paul Johnson, in his book A History of Christianity, notes that “the Church excommunicated Catholics who laid down in their wills that they wished to be cremated, . . . but it did not forbid them to work in concentration or death camps.”

Some religious leaders have gone beyond condoning hatred​—they have consecrated it. In 1936, at the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, Pope Pius XI condemned the Republicans’ ‘truly satanic hatred of God’​—even though there were Catholic priests on the Republican side. Similarly, Cardinal Gomá, the primate of Spain during the civil war, claimed that ‘pacification was impossible without armed struggle.’ ...

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. Consider, for example, the lies that Martin Luther wrote in 1543 about the Jews in Europe: “They have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children . . . They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.” His exhortation to so-called Christians? “Set fire to their synagogues or schools . . . Their houses [should] also be razed and destroyed.”

One does not need to wonder where the anti-Semitic sentiments that Hitler played on in Germany came from (Luther and Lutheranism also being so popular in Germany after all). The last part was from the article in my signature.

a reply to: dfnj2015

This is legitimately one of the single most inaccurate, uninformed, and idiotic posts that i have ever read. Good lord. Theres so much inaccurate stupidity that its hard to even know where to begin. Your ignorance and complete lack is self-awareness are downright staggering.

Im at work, so i cant reply at length until later. But in the meantime, feel free to exain how a lack of materialism somehow proves the existence of god. Spoiler alert: you cant. Because it doesnt. Claim8ng as much is incredibly dumb.

I also liked your claims that theists are more moral than atheists by default, which couldnt possibly be further from the truth. I mean, do i really need to start listing some of the countless atrocities perpetrated by religious, god fearing people? Do i really need to explain that most atheists see people as an equal whole, whereas theists and religious people treat those that dont follow their religion as subhuman enemies?
And i hate to burst your bubble, but repeatedly claiming that there is more scientific evidence for theism than atheism doeant magically make it true. But by all means, feel free to share this scientific evidence supporting the existence of god. Im all ears.

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: dfnj2015 I also liked your claims that theists are more moral than atheists by default, which couldnt possibly be further from the truth. I mean, do i really need to start listing some of the countless atrocities perpetrated by religious, god fearing people? Do i really need to explain that most atheists see people as an equal whole, whereas theists and religious people treat those that dont follow their religion as subhuman enemies?

Joseph Stalin - 20 million (atheist)
Adolf Hitler - the atheist philosophy of evolution (80 million)

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1] In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[2] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition

en.wikipedia.org...

Hitler was an atheist.

Let's not forget the godless atrocities of China and North Korea, where people are treated like cattle.

Why does any of this matter? Good people are good. Bad people are bad. Good people don't argue as to why. Bad people do. Be good to others. No one is perfect, mostly me, but at least realize this fact when it rears it's ugly head. Greed and pride are always our downfall. A trait both sides abhor, but both succumb to.

a reply to: Starhooker

yeah and it's perplexing why it has too be pointed out. It's so stupid pretending their own "brand" has no history of evil....