Atheists praying

[Adrift]

I'm not interested in constructing timelines, so you're not going to get the exact, last time, but many times with you, especially when you disagree with me, regularly with the piglet, who also disagrees with me regularly, and surprisingly, for me, in a recent exchange with MM.

If I'm honest, it's hard to tell because you often have a habit of talking down at people as though we're a bunch of lowbrow rubes that you barely deign to reply to. I think part of that perception comes from your grandiloquent vocabulary (I have to keep a dictionary handy every time I read one of your posts), but also the sardonic little jabs you throw in that you seem to think are clever, but I think a lot of people just see as condescending. When reading your posts I often imagine you looking over your glasses tut-tutting while swirling a glass of brandy. You really don't have to show off how smart you are, we know you're smart. Come down to our level, and just enjoy a normal conversation once in awhile without all of the pretension and condescension.

[Juvenal]

If I'm honest, it's hard to tell because you often have a habit of talking down at people as though we're a bunch of lowbrow rubes that you barely deign to reply to. I think part of that perception comes from your grandiloquent vocabulary (I have to keep a dictionary handy every time I read one of your posts), but also the sardonic little jabs you throw in that you seem to think are clever, but I think a lot of people just see as condescending. When reading your posts I often imagine you looking over your glasses tut-tutting while swirling a glass of brandy. You really don't have to show off how smart you are, we know you're smart. Come down to our level, and just enjoy a normal conversation once in awhile without all of the pretension and condescension.

I enjoyed that, and not just the parts I agree with.

But really. I'm not an English professor.

We drink coffee.

And some of us, like myself, use reading glasses. But before you gripe again about how you need to read a dictionary to follow my posts, you should keep in mind that to follow your posts, I have to read books.

I used to use answers one-click, but a right-click brings me to a lookup with an option to google it now, which works just as well, and is easier than wrestling with even a metaphorical dictionary. A lot of the writers I read use words I've never seen before, or in unfamiliar ways. I enjoy that, too.

Certainly there are posters here I'm not going to respond to, and others I respond to only reluctantly. That's the nature of debate, especially when one is outnumbered, and a great deal of the responses aren't so much insults, which I can appreciate, but lame insults, which I never will.

The sardonic jabs are there because they have to be, or you get dogpiled with parroted inanity, like that crib from Lennox that element tried to pass off as his own thoughts, I dunno, maybe thinking I wouldn't recognize the source, despite having named Lennox in the post he was quoting.

Arthur Briggs said in 1945:

"A humanist is one who believes in man as centre of the universe"

Your fellow humanists may disagree with your assertion that humanity is not special.

...

Homo homini deus est...didn't Feuerbach write that?

Academics don't do that.

On the other hand, TWeb lets me ban jabs from my own threads, which is my standing preference.

There's nothing remarkable about preferring disagreement, though. A conversation, even with someone more thoughtful than myself, on a subject where we're in near agreement, can't help but be boring, at best, if it isn't kept mercifully short.

[element771]

The sardonic jabs are there because they have to be, or you get dogpiled with parroted inanity, like that crib from Lennox that element tried to pass off as his own thoughts, I dunno, maybe thinking I wouldn't recognize the source, despite having named Lennox in the post he was quoting.

Academics don't do that.

.

Academics don’t do what?

When I am learning new things in science about a new field, I typically get a review on the topic. This gives an overview and provides primary sources. You then check the sources to make sure the review is accurate.

I just so happened to be reading that book by Lennox and had highlighted those parts.

Why does it matter where I get the quotes from as long as they are accurate?

[Teallaura]

1) Most of them (the Taiping rebellion, Japan's holy war, the Indian mutiny, the Crusades) were religious wars.

2) It wouldn't matter if they weren't, since the others you cited weren't atheistic wars.

If all you can do is distort the truth and move the goalposts, your claim is dead in the water. Are you going to abandon it, or are you going to continue pushing falsehoods like most Xtian apologists do?

Slide Nazi Germany back to atheism where it belongs. Hitler was openly contemptuous of Christianity, Lutheranism had already lost much of its power by the 1930's and even if it hadn't, the government in power was very much NOT a 'religious' one. WWII was a power grab - the rest of the related issues were secondary at best.

Indian mutiny was liberation based, as I recall.


The 'religion is the source of most/all wars' theory is dead - it was never alive in any real sense. All the death tolls answer is the spurious claims of who killed more in all of history - which is a stupid argument in and of itself.

[Teallaura]

If religious societies engage in a war it is not atheistic.

Yeah, no - whether or not a war has religion or atheism as part of its causality has to do with governance and circumstance. A government that disavows religion cannot engage in a war based on religion (it can declare war on religion, of course). Yeah, yeah, I know Element said 'societies' but you're both being silly to continue this one.

Only the ignorant think war is about religion - war was, is and always will be about power.

[Tassman]

I think your point was easy enough to get. The basic idea is that people are people, and can march under the flag of any worldview/ideology/what-have-you and still do great evil, whether they're marching under the banner of Buddhism or Marxist–Leninist atheism. Contra Tassman, religion (or any other ideology) has an effect on its adherents as far as they're willing to actually accept and follow that religion/ideology's doctrines, ideas, and precepts.

So you're saying that the justifying of slavery by Christians for several centuries and the brutal destruction of entire cultures during the colonial expansions by the Christian powers had nothing to do the religion to which the perpetrators adhered. They were just being bad Christians in doing what they were doing, is that what you're saying?

I would say that the religious powers were just doing what they wanted to do in their own best interests and justifying it via their religious texts.

[Charles]

Slide Nazi Germany back to atheism where it belongs. Hitler was openly contemptuous of Christianity, Lutheranism had already lost much of its power by the 1930's and even if it hadn't, the government in power was very much NOT a 'religious' one. WWII was a power grab - the rest of the related issues were secondary at best.

Indian mutiny was liberation based, as I recall.


The 'religion is the source of most/all wars' theory is dead - it was never alive in any real sense. All the death tolls answer is the spurious claims of who killed more in all of history - which is a stupid argument in and of itself.

This post reminded me of what Martin Luther said about the jews. Here's a few quotes:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping.

Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly acts, especially since they boast so proudly and despicably when we do help and serve them that God has ordained them as lords and us as servants.

Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands - these venomous serpents and devil's children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. Then let him boast of his mercy, then let him boast that he has strengthened the devil and his brood for further blaspheming our dear Lord and the precious blood with which we Christians are redeemed. Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy for which Christ will reward him on the Day of Judgment, together with the Jews in the eternal fire of hell!

All the quotes are taken from: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resourc...73-luther-1543

This seems to remind me quite a lot of ...?

[Juvenal]

Academics don’t do what?

Plagiarize.

James L. Beebe said ...

I do not propose to be lectured by a dean of a law school, of which a State Bar publication reports that only one of 25 students passes the examinations.

Here's the deal. I won't pretend I didn't pull that from Wikipedia, guessing it's about the same Briggs cited by Lennox, and you won't pretend Lennox is a reliable source on humanism, or that you've checked his sources, let alone examined his reasoning critically.

When I am learning new things in science about a new field, I typically get a review on the topic. This gives an overview and provides primary sources. You then check the sources to make sure the review is accurate.

I do not propose to be lectured on best practices in academics by a plagiarist.

I just so happened to be reading that book by Lennox and had highlighted those parts.

What Roy said.

You quoted Lennox because you read my comment on him, and hid your source because you thought it'd be worth a chuckle if I didn't twig to it, and got busted, and now you're backing and filling like a three year-old after mom made him look at the trail of cookie crumbs leading back to the kitchen.

Why does it matter where I get the quotes from as long as they are accurate?

I've heard better defenses of plagiarism from freshmen.

I'm critical of attacks on Christians by those unfamiliar with Christianity, and even more so when the source is, for example, a muslim, or anyone else religiously antagonistic toward Christianity.

Lennox is all of that on humanism, with a financial incentive besides.

The first humanist manifesto was written in 1933. The second manifesto, superseding the first, was written in 1973. The third, superseding the second, was released in 2003, signed by a score of Nobel laureates leading a list of notable scientists and literary figures from Vonnegut to E.O. Wilson.

Lennox published Against the Flow in 2015.

And he cited Arthur Briggs on humanism, who signed none of these, because he couldn't find any quote that supported his chosen line of propaganda more recent than 1945 from anyone more prominent, or from any document more authoritative, assuming the quote is real, and assuming Monarch didn't assign him a staff assistant to go hunting for a quote of a humanist that'd work for the book.

Doc, I read all three of the manifestos by the American Humanists. I'm not finding anything.

Keep looking.

It's not honest. Which would make continuing a conversation with Lennox on the subject a waste of time.

Mut. mut.

Have a nice day.

[Teallaura]

This post reminded me of what Martin Luther said about the jews. Here's a few quotes:















All the quotes are taken from: http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resourc...73-luther-1543

This seems to remind me quite a lot of ...?

Nothing - nice job cherry picking but there are several substantive differences - most notably that Luther acknowledges that at least some Jews may be saved - and that their confiscated property should be set aside for that purpose. utterly unlike the Nazis who confiscated property to use for their own purposes.

Read in context, Luther isn't Hitler - and he specifically disavows revenge in the part you so conveniently didn't quote.

You want to read hate into something that predates you and comes from a very different worldview. That's just as stupid as assuming that Luther's motives are all perfectly pure if you just read it right. The truth lies in reading fairly with an understanding of both the worldview and the times. Pulling out bits and pieces to support your prejudiced conclusion doesn't prove anything other than you are prejudiced.

[element771]

Plagiarize..

How is quoting something plagiarism? Lennox used the quote in his book, I used the quote in my post. It is a quote regarding what someone who said or wrote. There was no content other than that.

So if you use a quote in a post and actually say who said it, that is plagiarism? Give me a break.

As far as setting a trap for you, I hate to tell you but I had no intention of doing that. I really was just reading Lennox's book. Yes, you mentioned him in your post but that isn't very surprising. He is a Christian and a mathematician....big surprise that you have an issue with him.

Think about what you are implying, I set this up to do what exactly? Trap you into not knowing two quotes that come from a book by Lennox? What exactly does that accomplish? What would that prove from my side...that you don't like Lennox but don't remember two quotes from a decent sized book? How would me pointing that out actually invalidate anything you wrote?

I can't believe you are that paranoid.

[Charles]

Nothing - nice job cherry picking but there are several substantive differences - most notably that Luther acknowledges that at least some Jews may be saved - and that their confiscated property should be set aside for that purpose. utterly unlike the Nazis who confiscated property to use for their own purposes.

Read in context, Luther isn't Hitler - and he specifically disavows revenge in the part you so conveniently didn't quote.

You want to read hate into something that predates you and comes from a very different worldview. That's just as stupid as assuming that Luther's motives are all perfectly pure if you just read it right. The truth lies in reading fairly with an understanding of both the worldview and the times. Pulling out bits and pieces to support your prejudiced conclusion doesn't prove anything other than you are prejudiced.

I did not say they were identical. I said it reminded me quite a lot of nazism.

I like the fact that you point to the "substantive difference" that Luther acknowledges that at least some Jews may be saved and if they are saved they can get their confiscated properties back.Their properties should of course not be confiscated in the first place, the critieria for returning it to them is absurd, and - regarding your words about context - it is said in an utterly hateful context.

It is said in a context in which their synogoges and houses should be burned or destroyed, their prayerbooks should be taken away from them, they should stay at home, sheltering them and giving them food is called taking part in their "devilish ranting" and so on.

You wrote: "You want to read hate into something that predates you and comes from a very different worldview." Let me hear the non hateful interpretation of this quote:

Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands - these venomous serpents and devil's children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. Then let him boast of his mercy, then let him boast that he has strengthened the devil and his brood for further blaspheming our dear Lord and the precious blood with which we Christians are redeemed. Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy for which Christ will reward him on the Day of Judgment, together with the Jews in the eternal fire of hell!

[Charles]

Slide Nazi Germany back to atheism where it belongs. Hitler was openly contemptuous of Christianity, Lutheranism had already lost much of its power by the 1930's and even if it hadn't, the government in power was very much NOT a 'religious' one. WWII was a power grab - the rest of the related issues were secondary at best.

I fint it worth the time to mention a few details in this context:

The idea that the Jews were evil persisted during the Protestant Reformation. Although Martin Luther expressed positive feelings about Jews, especially earlier in his life, and relied on Jewish scholars for his translation of the Hebrew scriptures into German, he became furious with Jews over their rejection of Jesus. “We are at fault for not slaying them,” he wrote. “Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite their murder, cursing, blaspheming, lying and defaming.” Such views were emphasized by the Nazis. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ant...edieval-Europe

Bishop Sasse was a leading figure in the German Christian movement, an alliance of pastors, bishops, theologians and lay people, formed in 1932, who supported Hitler and sought to create a nazified, unified German Protestant church, one that was manly, free of doctrinal control and anti-Semitic. As a faction within the Protestant church of Germany, not a separate sect, the German Christian movement eventually attracted between a quarter and a third of Protestant church members. Enthusiastically pro-Nazi, the movement sought to demonstrate its support for Hitler by organizing itself after the model of the Nazi Party, placing a swastika on the altar next to the cross, giving the Nazi salute at its rallies and celebrating Hitler as sent by God. https://www.jewishquarterly.org/issu...?articleid=452

On November 15, just days after the pogrom, Bishop Sasse distributed a pamphlet entitled Martin Luther on the Jews: Away with Them! (Martin Luther über die Juden: Weg mit Ihnen!), in which he reprinted excerpts from Luther’s notorious 1543 pamphlet, Against the Jews and Their Lies, urging the destruction of Jewish property. Kristallnacht, he claimed, was fulfilling the goals of Luther; the Nazis were acting as Christians. https://www.jewishquarterly.org/issu...?articleid=452

[Charles]

Slide Nazi Germany back to atheism where it belongs. Hitler was openly contemptuous of Christianity, Lutheranism had already lost much of its power by the 1930's and even if it hadn't, the government in power was very much NOT a 'religious' one. WWII was a power grab - the rest of the related issues were secondary at best.

And another interesting point:

Despite the many anti-Christian elements in Nazism, the vast majority of Nazis considered themselves to be religious, and most German anti-Semites supported Christianity purged of its “Jewish” elements. The pro-Nazi German Christians, who were part of the Lutheran church in Germany, held that Christ had been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan, and male members called themselves “SS men for Christ.” In many German families children began their prayers before meals with the phrase, “Führer, my Führer, bequeathed to me by the Lord.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/fas...cism#ref742213

[Roy]

Slide Nazi Germany back to atheism where it belongs.

Nazi Germany was 98+% theistic.

Indian mutiny was liberation based, as I recall.

That's a simplification. Like most wars, there were multiple causes. Some were religious, some were not.

All the death tolls answer is the spurious claims of who killed more in all of history - which is a stupid argument in and of itself.

Tell that to the person who used it.

[Roy]

Why does it matter where I get the quotes from as long as they are accurate?

Because they are often not accurate. If you cite the original source, and not the secondary source you actually used, then you are effectively lying about your source, and any discrepancy between the actual text and your quoted version is your responsibility.