Well said Richard. The pompous arrogance of the religious, who attempt to take the moral high ground, is antiquated and, quite frankly, nauseating. The inherent goodness of humanity is constantly being crushed by the inherent repression of brainwashed, bronze age beliefs.

Good old Richard.

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, August 26th, 2011 12:28pm PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

That guy got owned hard. It's examples like these that give me a positive overall outlook on society. The voice of rationality is loud and ultimately impossible to ignore. Eventually we'll get all this religious dogma weeded out.

Why is Hitchens in the tags?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dawkins, religion, morality, hitchens, science' to 'richard dawkins, religion, morality, atheism' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Trancecoach:

Why is Hitchens in the tags?


If memory serves, Duckman uses CDM's old insta-sift greasemonkey script and all it does is copy the tags from youtube. On youtube it's common practice to tag things with all sorts of irrelevant shit to get views.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Why is Hitchens in the tags?


I believe it is in reference to the fact that the guy who asked Dawkins the question got "Hitch-Slapped".

*british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Zifnab.

I might find Dawkins personally objectionable, but I'm sure as hell glad he's around.

I wanted a post-pwnage reaction shot.

Might I remind everyone that the question he asked was (paraphrasing) "Is there a leap of faith in an atheist deciding what is right or wrong?" I didn't hear that questioned answered. All I heard was "Religions' version of right and wrong is not today's socially accepted version."

@lampishthing - "I don't think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed..." And afterwards, as you briefly stated, he then goes on to state that in today's society, we find morality completely outside of religion by simply deciding right and wrong. So ultimately, he is saying religion is irrelevant to how we obtain morality, therefore, he shows the question is moot and doesn't have an answer because the question itself is ridiculous. I think he answered it quite thoroughly.

Also, Dawkins expressed his problem with the word choice. Your paraphrase was slightly inaccurate because he was asking "Isn't it a leap of faith that atheists decide "absolute" morality". Well, "absolute morality" is describing a known morality that is simply acknowledged and accepted by everyone. (This is at least how I understand the term, anyway.) I don't recall any atheists stating that they know a morality that is absolute in that regard. So the answer is yes, it *is* a leap of faith. But again, the question is ridiculously flawed, and Dawkins does well breaking down why.

The guy he was sitting next was Steve Fielding, a creationist, conservative wanker of a politician from Victoria (My constituency infact) who thankfully got voted out last year. It was awesome to see him squirm at everything the Dawk had to say.

This was a complete dodge and just an extended diatribe against religion. It's quite a poor reflection on the sift that this is the number one video. Shows the total lack of intellectual honesty here..apparently the upvoters just eat up anything that trashes religion and turn off their brains.

The point of the question was, as I am sure you have perceived, that if you deny an absolute morality, what is your basis for determining right and wrong? How are they even meaningful distinctions? Thus the questioners point about it being a leap of faith in the secular view to say that anything is truly right or wrong. This is a deep philosophical issue that atheism faces and Dawkins really lowers the bar of discourse here.

>> ^lampishthing:
Might I remind everyone that the question he asked was (paraphrasing) "Is there a leap of faith in an atheist deciding what is right or wrong?" I didn't hear that questioned answered. All I heard was "Religions' version of right and wrong is not today's socially accepted version."

Seems a bit contradictory to expect an atheist to have a "leap of faith" since the absence of a faith in God is the primary definition of their spiritual being.

What bothers me more is the people who do believe in God, yet claim that they wouldn't know right from wrong without that belief, without some sort of rulebook for them to follow.

In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

There isn't a good theory for relative morality. It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed. IE, the holocaust. So, if your moral system can accomodate the holocaust, I think it is time to throw it away. I've found most people have no idea why they believe what they do about right and wrong, and fail to see the philosophical implications inherent in trying to determine a relative morality. An absolute morality is the only kind of morality which provides a coherent moral framework to determine how human beings should act. By definition, morality must be unchanging for right and wrong to have any real meaning.
>> ^rougy:
Seems a bit contradictory to expect an atheist to have a "leap of faith" since the absence of a faith in God is the primary definition of their spiritual being.
What bothers me more is the people who do believe in God, yet claim that they wouldn't know right from wrong without that belief, without some sort of rulebook for them to follow.

(I accidentally posted this on your profile, too. Sorry)

Lots of atheists are spiritual; they simply do not believe in God, or the common concept of a singular, all powerful, all knowing super being.

"Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim."

No. A person only has to say "show me your god" and if you can't do that, then they can rationally deduce that your god does not exist.

Don't hang the Holocaust on the atheists. That's a real cheap shot. Atheists had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The Holocaust was perpetrated by people who believed in God, and believed that He justified their actions for the "greater good."

Your claim of an "absolute morality" is itself a relative concept in the sense that it is your definition of an absolute morality versus somebody else's.

The Golden Rule is a form of morality that has nothing to do with a belief in God.

Doing the right thing should always take into account "the greater good" for all mankind and our world; that does not require a belief in God.



In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

There isn't a good theory for relative morality. It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed. IE, the holocaust. So, if your moral system can accomodate the holocaust, I think it is time to throw it away. I've found most people have no idea why they believe what they do about right and wrong, and fail to see the philosophical implications inherent in trying to determine a relative morality. An absolute morality is the only kind of morality which provides a coherent moral framework to determine how human beings should act. By definition, morality must be unchanging for right and wrong to have any real meaning.
>> ^rougy:
Seems a bit contradictory to expect an atheist to have a "leap of faith" since the absence of a faith in God is the primary definition of their spiritual being.
What bothers me more is the people who do believe in God, yet claim that they wouldn't know right from wrong without that belief, without some sort of rulebook for them to follow.

the rising and setting of the sun isn't accepted on faith, it's accepted on the fact there are eons of precedence for such an event and we do, indeed, know for a fact how the mechanism works. maybe you mean "we dont know for a fact that the earth won't stop dead in it tracks tonight and never rotate again" and so you assign "faith" to that. i dont have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like someone might have faith that a god is listening to their prayers. i have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like i have "faith" that when i let go of the pen in my hand, it's going to fall to floor.

>> ^shinyblurry:

In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

>> ^shinyblurry:
It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed.

That's always been the case.

Enough people thought stoning people to death was moral, therefore it happened on numerous occasions. Now a majority of us (hopefully) look back and see it at reprehensible. The same is true for death sentences for blasphemy, treating women as second-class citizens, or any number of other behaviors we've "grown out of".

Our collective morality evolves over time (faster in some places than others). I'd say, for the most part, that change has been for the better.

Lots of atheists are spiritual; they simply do not believe in God, or the common concept of a singular, all powerful, all knowing super being.

Yes, I have read a good percentage of atheists pray. So who or what are they praying to and what do they expect as a response? Also, where does a spirit come from if not from God?

No. A person only has to say "show me your god" and if you can't do that, then they can rationally deduce that your god does not exist.

Whether you consider it reasonable or rational to reject a persons claim about God because they cannot provide photographs isn't the point. The point is, to categorically state there is no God is a faith based claim because you would need to be omniscient to say that definitively.

Don't hang the Holocaust on the atheists. That's a real cheap shot. Atheists had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The Holocaust was perpetrated by people who believed in God, and believed that He justified their actions for the "greater good."

I wasn't attempting to hang it on anyone, but if you want to argue about it, Hitler wasn't religious:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Your claim of an "absolute morality" is itself a relative concept in the sense that it is your definition of an absolute morality versus somebody else's.

Unless it is enforced by an authority, it will always be relative.

The Golden Rule is a form of morality that has nothing to do with a belief in God.

Doing the right thing should always take into account "the greater good" for all mankind and our world; that does not require a belief in God.

What is the greater good and how do you determine it? If someone disagrees, how do you determine who is right? To note, I don't consider someone who doesn't believe in God to be immoral. I believe that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong.

1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
- this restores one's faith in politicians

2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

3.A system of religious belief
- the Christian faith

4.A strongly held belief or theory
- the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe

Yes, you actually do have faith in those things, and a whole lot more. Your idea of what is factual doesn't provide absolute knowledge, and often times what you consider factual is the interpertation of an authority whom you have placed faith in as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Many of the things that people consider factual they have never personally investigated but simply blindly trust in them because it seems reasonable to do so. Either because everyone agrees on them, or experts agree on them, etc. A lot of these decisions we make about the nature of reality are merely value judgements based on probabilities. It is inherent to take many leaps of faith every day in our understanding just to be able to operate in the world on a basic level.

>> ^peggedbea:
the rising and setting of the sun isn't accepted on faith, it's accepted on the fact there are eons of precedence for such an event and we do, indeed, know for a fact how the mechanism works. maybe you mean "we dont know for a fact that the earth won't stop dead in it tracks tonight and never rotate again" and so you assign "faith" to that. i dont have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like someone might have faith that a god is listening to their prayers. i have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like i have "faith" that when i let go of the pen in my hand, it's going to fall to floor.
>> ^shinyblurry:
In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed.
That's always been the case.
Enough people thought stoning people to death was moral, therefore it happened on numerous occasions. Now a majority of us (hopefully) look back and see it at reprehensible. The same is true for death sentences for blasphemy, treating women as second-class citizens, or any number of other behaviors we've "grown out of".
Our collective morality evolves over time (faster in some places than others). I'd say, for the most part, that change has been for the better.

You don't have to pray to be spiritual.. Believing we are in some way in tune with nature is a spiritual belief. That doesn't have to involve any praying.

>> ^shinyblurry:
What is the greater good and how do you determine it? If someone disagrees, how do you determine who is right? To note, I don't consider someone who doesn't believe in God to be immoral. I believe that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong.


Your insistence that everybody believe that there is a God, as you believe, is hinting at a lack of your own faith. You are compelled to force others to agree with your viewpoints because deep inside, you aren't so sure.

Hey, Hitler wasn't the only person manning all of those concentration camps. You're telling me all of those people were atheists?

Let's say you and I know somebody who is an atheist. We both agree he's a great guy, and even if we don't agree with him about everything, he's never said or done anything that would indicate that he was some kind of threat or detriment to our society. He has his belief, you have yours, I have mine.

So why this insistence of yours to convince him that he's wrong and you're right?

Why is it so necessary that his conscience be "God Given?"

Why keep forcing your belief upon him?

According to a recent Pew survey, 10 percent of atheists pray and 21 percent believe in God.

http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2008/06/pew-forum-21-percent-of-atheists.html

>> ^Drax:
You don't have to pray to be spiritual.. Believing we are in some way in tune with nature is a spiritual belief. That doesn't have to involve any praying.

Ok...? I wasn't disputing anything concerning that. You just seemed to immediatly attribute being spiritual to praying, and or believing in god. I was explaining how an athiest can be spiritual without either (as it pertains to what was said in the video).

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

My bait? Do you disagree with something in my post?

As far as your question, what does it mean for something to be "truly" right or wrong? Many would say killing another person is morally wrong, but is that still true if the other person is trying to blow up the aircraft you and others are flying in?

What is the distinction between believing something to be wrong versus it being "truly wrong"? Are you saying there is an objective measure of morality outside of personal opinion?

Your insistence that everybody believe that there is a God, as you believe, is hinting at a lack of your own faith. You are compelled to force others to agree with your viewpoints because deep inside, you aren't so sure.

I preach the gospel because I am commanded by the Lord to do. I also do so because I am concerned about peoples eternal salvation and don't want to see anyone go to hell. I am warning people that they will face the judgement of God and to repent. I can tell you honestly that you are projecting your skepticism on to me, because I used to be an agnostic materialist and very skeptical. God has provided enough evidence to me of His existence to assauge that skepticism. I contend for the faith for a number of reasons, but doubt isn't one of them.

Hey, Hitler wasn't the only person manning all of those concentration camps. You're telling me all of those people were atheists?

The nazis were social darwinists. The whole idea of a master race was based on the idea of survival of the fittest.

Let's say you and I know somebody who is an atheist. We both agree he's a great guy, and even if we don't agree with him about everything, he's never said or done anything that would indicate that he was some kind of threat or detriment to our society. He has his belief, you have yours, I have mine.

So why this insistence of yours to convince him that he's wrong and you're right?

Why is it so necessary that his conscience be "God Given?"

Why keep forcing your belief upon him?

No one can forced to believe in God. I wouldn't advocate that anyone be forced to believe what I believe. You can only be saved by a confession of faith which comes by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. It isn't my work, it is Gods work.

Don't be fooled either..atheists these days are heavily evangelizing. Many of them have very indepth questions about the Christian faith which I answer through my knowledge of apologetics. It is an ongoing thing and there is no shortage of debate or interest on this question.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What is the greater good and how do you determine it? If someone disagrees, how do you determine who is right? To note, I don't consider someone who doesn't believe in God to be immoral. I believe that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong.

Your insistence that everybody believe that there is a God, as you believe, is hinting at a lack of your own faith. You are compelled to force others to agree with your viewpoints because deep inside, you aren't so sure.
Hey, Hitler wasn't the only person manning all of those concentration camps. You're telling me all of those people were atheists?
Let's say you and I know somebody who is an atheist. We both agree he's a great guy, and even if we don't agree with him about everything, he's never said or done anything that would indicate that he was some kind of threat or detriment to our society. He has his belief, you have yours, I have mine.
So why this insistence of yours to convince him that he's wrong and you're right?
Why is it so necessary that his conscience be "God Given?"
Why keep forcing your belief upon him?


>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What is the greater good and how do you determine it? If someone disagrees, how do you determine who is right? To note, I don't consider someone who doesn't believe in God to be immoral. I believe that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong.

Your insistence that everybody believe that there is a God, as you believe, is hinting at a lack of your own faith. You are compelled to force others to agree with your viewpoints because deep inside, you aren't so sure.
Hey, Hitler wasn't the only person manning all of those concentration camps. You're telling me all of those people were atheists?
Let's say you and I know somebody who is an atheist. We both agree he's a great guy, and even if we don't agree with him about everything, he's never said or done anything that would indicate that he was some kind of threat or detriment to our society. He has his belief, you have yours, I have mine.
So why this insistence of yours to convince him that he's wrong and you're right?
Why is it so necessary that his conscience be "God Given?"
Why keep forcing your belief upon him?

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

But a consensus based "morality" is based on a consensus based "reality", and that's all we have to go on.


Every religion is consensus-based.


Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.


It may matter on the individual level, but even that is based on a personal belief and not knowledge.


(aside from the Golden Rule - that one is based on knowledge)

Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.

Well, as I said before I believe everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong, so morality is not determined by concensus but rather Gods standard. Whether humans choose to obey that standard is their personal choice.




>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

But a consensus based "morality" is based on a consensus based "reality", and that's all we have to go on.
Every religion is consensus-based.
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
It may matter on the individual level, but even that is based on a personal belief and not knowledge.

Yes that is what I am saying. I am saying that God provides the objective standard, and we all have a god given conscience which informs us of that standard. We know murdering someone for fun is wrong because it is absolutely wrong, not because it is mere opinion. In your example, murder is defined as unlawful killing. Under the law, killing in self defense is legal so it isn't murder.


>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?
My bait? Do you disagree with something in my post?
As far as your question, what does it mean for something to be "truly" right or wrong? Many would say killing another person is morally wrong, but is that still true if the other person is trying to blow up the aircraft you and others are flying in?
What is the distinction between believing something to be wrong versus it being "truly wrong"? Are you saying there is an objective measure of morality outside of personal opinion?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes that is what I am saying. I am saying that God provides the objective standard, and we all have a god given conscience which informs us of that standard.

We know murdering someone for fun is wrong because it is absolutely wrong, not because it is mere opinion. In your example, murder is defined as unlawful killing. Under the law, killing in self defense is legal so it isn't murder.

I said killing, not murder. Surely you aren't suggesting that morality is based upon a country's legal precedent?

If god is the objective standard on morality then is killing truly right or truly wrong? You seem to be implying that the moral justification for taking the life of another human is relative to the situation in which it occurs.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Well, as I said before I believe everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong, so morality is not determined by concensus but rather Gods standard. Whether humans choose to obey that standard is their personal choice.


Good for you! That's your belief and you deserve it.

Now, there are others who think that their morality is based on something that has nothing to do with God, and they have the right to that belief, too.

Both are equally valid.

For once, I absolutely agree with you. Your moral system, the Holy Bible, not only accommodates, but preaches holocaust, not to mention rape, slavery, sexual slavery, killing homosexuals, gross discrimination against women, and incest. So yes, it certainly is time to throw it away.>> ^shinyblurry:

It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed. IE, the holocaust. So, if your moral system can accomodate the holocaust, I think it is time to throw it away.

Yes, there are some exceptions made, such as for self defense. I am not speaking of the law of the land but within the bible.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes that is what I am saying. I am saying that God provides the objective standard, and we all have a god given conscience which informs us of that standard.
We know murdering someone for fun is wrong because it is absolutely wrong, not because it is mere opinion. In your example, murder is defined as unlawful killing. Under the law, killing in self defense is legal so it isn't murder.
I said killing, not murder. Surely you aren't suggesting that morality is based upon a country's legal precedent?
If god is the objective standard on morality then is killing truly right or truly wrong? You seem to be implying that the moral justification for taking the life of another human is relative to the situation in which it occurs.

@messenger

It doesn't preach any of those things. Yes, I will admit male homosexuality was condemned under Mosaic law within the Hebrew society. That doesn't apply today. There is no sex outside of marriage condoned in the bible at all. All men are equal under God according to Jesus:

•There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

Incest was rather unavoidable in the case of Adam and Eve and Noahs family. As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible. Although the bible does say that a woman should submit to their husband, that is between her and God, ie, it is her choice. It also says for the husband to love his wife like Christ loved the church. The bible absolutely does not condone the holocaust.

Which parts of the bible do apply today?

How did you determine which parts of the bible apply today and which ones don't apply today? Is there a formula, or a list? Where did this list or formula come from?>> ^shinyblurry:

@messenger
It doesn't preach any of those things. Yes, I will admit male homosexuality was condemned under Mosaic law within the Hebrew society. That doesn't apply today. There is no sex outside of marriage condoned in the bible at all. All men are equal under God according to Jesus:
•There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
Incest was rather unavoidable in the case of Adam and Eve and Noahs family. As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible. Although the bible does say that a woman should submit to their husband, that is between her and God, ie, it is her choice. It also says for the husband to love his wife like Christ loved the church. The bible absolutely does not condone the holocaust.

Well, this is something plainly spoken by Jesus and His disicples, as well as Paul and others. It isn't a list, but it does require an understanding of the mission of the Savior, the law, and the old and new covenants. Basically, when Jesus came He fulfilled the law in its entirety. When He went to the cross the law was nailed to it along with Him. Previously you could only receive forgiveness for sin by following the tenants of the law. Now Christians are justified by faith and not by the law, because Jesus has already made propitiation for all sin. We are merited by our faith in Him because it is through Him that we are forgiven, because of His substitutionary atonement.

The law was given to the jewish people to govern them in their covenant relationship with God. Jesus established a new covenant with the entire world, which is not by law but by grace. That anyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life.

So, although Christians do not have a free pass to sin, we operate under the grace of God rather than the Mosaic law.


>> ^messenger:
Which parts of the bible do apply today?
How did you determine which parts of the bible apply today and which ones don't apply today? Is there a formula, or a list? Where did this list or formula come from?>> ^shinyblurry:
@messenger
It doesn't preach any of those things. Yes, I will admit male homosexuality was condemned under Mosaic law within the Hebrew society. That doesn't apply today. There is no sex outside of marriage condoned in the bible at all. All men are equal under God according to Jesus:
•There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
Incest was rather unavoidable in the case of Adam and Eve and Noahs family. As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible. Although the bible does say that a woman should submit to their husband, that is between her and God, ie, it is her choice. It also says for the husband to love his wife like Christ loved the church. The bible absolutely does not condone the holocaust.

Utilitarianism provides a rational non-absolutist basis for a moral code that is based upon scientific methods. It is deeply flawed but 100 times more rational than religious deontology and requires no leap of faith. Pain and pleasure in their most basic incarnations are universal ergo absolute. QED.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.



May as well be saying the following:

"The tide comes in, the tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that."

- Bill O'Reilly

Hitler and the Nazis claimed to be devout Christians. Learn a lil history before you go around blaming that shit on atheists, please.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, there are some exceptions made, such as for self defense. I am not speaking of the law of the land but within the bible.

If the christian bible makes exceptions to "Thou shall not kill" then the distinction is the reader's choice. Many christians believe it is wrong to kill ever, even in self-defense. I tend to hold your view, that the moral justification is relative to the situation.

That's very similar to what Dawkins believes. People follow religious texts when they agree with them and ignore the parts they don't agree with. Would you feel morally justified killing someone for blasphemy or adultery if your god said it's the right thing to do? I doubt it (at least I would hope not).

Discussion about morality is a good thing. People are much more likely to behave morally when they understand why a certain behavior is positive or negative rather than simply being told to do (or avoid) a behavior.

Well, it is in our nature as a social animal to share and to help each other, etc. There are built-in reward systems that make you feel good when you give something to someone else (you feel better than if you kept it for yourself). You feel bad when you hurt someone else. You could base your morality around your natural emotional system that has been built by evolution to ensure the survival of the species. Why nature produces life in ever more complex forms is the big question but I think it is scientifically clear that all animals have evolved emotional responses to help the species survive and that we are a social animal like many other animal species who, like us, go out of their way to help and protect each other.

-Karl
PS. edited for rushed grammar.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
Well, as I said before I believe everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong, so morality is not determined by concensus but rather Gods standard. Whether humans choose to obey that standard is their personal choice.


>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

But a consensus based "morality" is based on a consensus based "reality", and that's all we have to go on.
Every religion is consensus-based.
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
It may matter on the individual level, but even that is based on a personal belief and not knowledge.

I love me some Dawkins. Was super excited when I saw him crossing the street the other day.

The bible always gives clarification in this way, that it gives a blanket distinction of what is right and wrong, (killing) and then further clarifies how this may be applied in different situations (self-defense).

As far your comment regarding blasphemy and the like, that is part of the Mosaic law which was given to the Jewish people. Christians are not under the Mosaic law because Jesus did away with it. That was only for the nation of israel in that time and place. If I killed someone for blasphemy I would be guilty of murder. Jesus told us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and murder I don't think would be very loving.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, there are some exceptions made, such as for self defense. I am not speaking of the law of the land but within the bible.
If the christian bible makes exceptions to "Thou shall not kill" then the distinction is the reader's choice. Many christians believe it is wrong to kill ever, even in self-defense. I tend to hold your view, that the moral justification is relative to the situation.
That's very similar to what Dawkins believes. People follow religious texts when they agree with them and ignore the parts they don't agree with. Would you feel morally justified killing someone for blasphemy or adultery if your god said it's the right thing to do? I doubt it (at least I would hope not).
Discussion about morality is a good thing. People are much more likely to behave morally when they understand why a certain behavior is positive or negative rather than simply being told to do (or avoid) a behavior.

>> ^blankfist:

I love me some Dawkins. Was super excited when I saw him crossing the street the other day.


Why did Dawkins cross the street?

Well, we can't explain that. However, what I mean is that we put a tremendous amount of faith just in our basic ability to rationally comprehend the world around us. Our worldly knowledge is hopelessly incomplete and constantly changing, and must be continually re-evaluated. It's the same thing for science; it doesn't prove anything. Here's a letter to the editor quote from Science magazine:

The title of the 6 May News of the Week story “At long last, Gravity Probe B satellite proves Einstein right” (p. 649) made me cringe. I find myself frequently repeating to students and the public that science doesn’t “prove” theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement. I wouldn’t have expected Science magazine, of all places, to say a theory was “proved.”

The reply:

Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.

As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:

27th February, 1942, midday

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)

Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..



>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.


May as well be saying the following:
"The tide comes in, the tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that."
- Bill O'Reilly
Hitler and the Nazis claimed to be devout Christians. Learn a lil history before you go around blaming that shit on atheists, please.

Some people feel good when they hurt people..I would say the reward systems of human beings is one of the most suspect things in existence. If it feels good do it is not a basis for morality. Popular culture says to follow your heart. The bible says in contrast:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?


>> ^swedishfriend:
Well, it is in our nature as a social animal to share and to help each other, etc. There are built-in reward systems that make you feel good when you give something to someone else (you feel better than if you kept it for yourself). You feel bad when you hurt someone else. You could base your morality around your natural emotional system that has been built by evolution to ensure the survival of the species. Why nature produces life in ever more complex forms is the big question but I think it is scientifically clear that all animals have evolved emotional responses to help the species survive and that we are a social animal like many other animal species who, like us, go out of their way to help and protect each other.
-Karl
PS. edited for rushed grammar.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
Well, as I said before I believe everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong, so morality is not determined by concensus but rather Gods standard. Whether humans choose to obey that standard is their personal choice.
>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

But a consensus based "morality" is based on a consensus based "reality", and that's all we have to go on.
Every religion is consensus-based.
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
It may matter on the individual level, but even that is based on a personal belief and not knowledge.

Morality is what we make of it. There is no rulebook against which we can measure it. We weigh it in our experiences and in what our ancestors taught us. Our evolutionary development has also imprinted certain aspects, which stay with us, like community building and "people skills".

Nature and nurture, not "god did it".

There is zero evidence that points to the bible being the origin of any morality at all, neither is a supernatural being which happens to hide whenever we look for it.

Even if there was evidence that pointed to the bible as the rule of morals, would we even want that? It's antiquated and dare I say, evil?

This raises more questions than it answers. There must be things that are sins, and things that aren't. How do we know?>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, this is something plainly spoken by Jesus and His disicples, as well as Paul and others. It isn't a list, but it does require an understanding of the mission of the Savior, the law, and the old and new covenants. Basically, when Jesus came He fulfilled the law in its entirety. When He went to the cross the law was nailed to it along with Him. Previously you could only receive forgiveness for sin by following the tenants of the law. Now Christians are justified by faith and not by the law, because Jesus has already made propitiation for all sin. We are merited by our faith in Him because it is through Him that we are forgiven, because of His substitutionary atonement.
The law was given to the jewish people to govern them in their covenant relationship with God. Jesus established a new covenant with the entire world, which is not by law but by grace. That anyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life.
So, although Christians do not have a free pass to sin, we operate under the grace of God rather than the Mosaic law.

>> ^rougy:

>> ^blankfist:
I love me some Dawkins. Was super excited when I saw him crossing the street the other day.

Why did Dawkins cross the street?



To get to the other side.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins makes the point that not only should we not get our morals from the Bible, as a matter of fact we don't get our morality from the Bible. We all use our own sense of morality to decide which bits of the Bible are reprehensible and which bits are laudable. If our sense of right and wrong came from the Bible, then we would all agree with every jot and tittle of that most morally confused of bronze-age texts.

Sociopaths are a vanishingly small percentage of the population. I was talking about scientific studies with large samples which statistically tend to show that there are certain behaviors that are encouraged by our genes and some that are discouraged by our genes. Emotions are defined as the automatic programs that are executed in an animal in response to certain stimuli. Your life experience can certainly skew the triggers but our nature as social animals and the evolutionary advantage of cooperating with each other means and history has shown that culture corrects and steadily moves towards something that matches our nature. Why nature through evolution has led to nature being what it is currently is where your God or my "mind of the All" or the great mystery enters the picture.

-Karl
>> ^shinyblurry:

Some people feel good when they hurt people..I would say the reward systems of human beings is one of the most suspect things in existence. If it feels good do it is not a basis for morality. Popular culture says to follow your heart. The bible says in contrast:
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

>> ^swedishfriend:
Well, it is in our nature as a social animal to share and to help each other, etc. There are built-in reward systems that make you feel good when you give something to someone else (you feel better than if you kept it for yourself). You feel bad when you hurt someone else. You could base your morality around your natural emotional system that has been built by evolution to ensure the survival of the species. Why nature produces life in ever more complex forms is the big question but I think it is scientifically clear that all animals have evolved emotional responses to help the species survive and that we are a social animal like many other animal species who, like us, go out of their way to help and protect each other.
-Karl
PS. edited for rushed grammar.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
Well, as I said before I believe everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong, so morality is not determined by concensus but rather Gods standard. Whether humans choose to obey that standard is their personal choice.
>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

But a consensus based "morality" is based on a consensus based "reality", and that's all we have to go on.
Every religion is consensus-based.
Whether or not there is actually a higher power that is divinely judicial is irrelevant if everything we do here on earth, on a collective level, is consensus based.
It may matter on the individual level, but even that is based on a personal belief and not knowledge.

>> ^gwiz665:

Morality is what we make of it. There is no rulebook against which we can measure it. We weigh it in our experiences and in what our ancestors taught us. Our evolutionary development has also imprinted certain aspects, which stay with us, like community building and "people skills".
Nature and nurture, not "god did it".
There is zero evidence that points to the bible being the origin of any morality at all, neither is a supernatural being which happens to hide whenever we look for it.
Even if there was evidence that pointed to the bible as the rule of morals, would we even want that? It's antiquated and dare I say, evil?


This is exactly it. There is plenty of evidence to show that nature through evolution does give us encouragement or discouragement in response to threat, empathy, needs, etc. What triggers those emotions and how we deal with those emotions are influenced by culture. People have lived together for millions of years before the Bible or Christianity or even before the written word. Cooperation in order to survive and even selfless sacrifice to save someone else is something we see in many social animals not just ourselves. Morality is a reasoned thing combined with a natural tendency and always has been. Religions come from people and while religion can influence other people they are initially created by people and their culture. Why nature made us this way I don't know but I know that something experienced by a few people 2000 years ago did not create the concept of morality nor does it influence all the humans and other social animals who have never heard of religion of any kind who still manage to have a concept of how to treat each other well in order for all in the group to prosper.

-Karl

God, I hate the Bible. It has to be one of the most evil books ever written. I don't have one in my home, and every time I stay in a motel I'm tempted to toss the one that the Jesus freaks always pack in the nightstand.

The only thing worse than the Bible are the Bible beaters, because 90% of them don't want to help you, they just want to control you; they just want to make you feel bad about being a human being who isn't under their control

God knows how many people's lives were ruined by the Bible beaters foisting their ugly, depraved, mean-spirited and ultimately shallow beliefs on folks who were doing just fine until they came along.

“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.” - Buddha

Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

>> ^messenger:
This raises more questions than it answers. There must be things that are sins, and things that aren't. How do we know?>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, this is something plainly spoken by Jesus and His disicples, as well as Paul and others. It isn't a list, but it does require an understanding of the mission of the Savior, the law, and the old and new covenants. Basically, when Jesus came He fulfilled the law in its entirety. When He went to the cross the law was nailed to it along with Him. Previously you could only receive forgiveness for sin by following the tenants of the law. Now Christians are justified by faith and not by the law, because Jesus has already made propitiation for all sin. We are merited by our faith in Him because it is through Him that we are forgiven, because of His substitutionary atonement.
The law was given to the jewish people to govern them in their covenant relationship with God. Jesus established a new covenant with the entire world, which is not by law but by grace. That anyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life.
So, although Christians do not have a free pass to sin, we operate under the grace of God rather than the Mosaic law.

It isn't that the bible is the origin of morality, it is that God is the lawgiver who has written His moral law on our hearts. Humans know what is right and wrong because their God given conscience informs them. We both know murder is wrong, just by intuition alone. Why? Because some things are in fact absolutely and universally wrong. If we seem to share any similiarites with the animal kingdom in spirit, it is because we all have a common design.

A point of fact is that sin is what keeps us separated from God. It is not that God is hiding from you, it is that we are born spiritually dead because of sin and thus spiritually separated from a Holy God.

Isaiah 59:2 (NIV) But your iniquities have separated you from
your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will
not hear.

This is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to God. The wages of sin is death, and He paid that price for us, so that we could be forgiven and receieve eternal life.

>> ^swedishfriend:
>> ^gwiz665:
Morality is what we make of it. There is no rulebook against which we can measure it. We weigh it in our experiences and in what our ancestors taught us. Our evolutionary development has also imprinted certain aspects, which stay with us, like community building and "people skills".
Nature and nurture, not "god did it".
There is zero evidence that points to the bible being the origin of any morality at all, neither is a supernatural being which happens to hide whenever we look for it.
Even if there was evidence that pointed to the bible as the rule of morals, would we even want that? It's antiquated and dare I say, evil?

This is exactly it. There is plenty of evidence to show that nature through evolution does give us encouragement or discouragement in response to threat, empathy, needs, etc. What triggers those emotions and how we deal with those emotions are influenced by culture. People have lived together for millions of years before the Bible or Christianity or even before the written word. Cooperation in order to survive and even selfless sacrifice to save someone else is something we see in many social animals not just ourselves. Morality is a reasoned thing combined with a natural tendency and always has been. Religions come from people and while religion can influence other people they are initially created by people and their culture. Why nature made us this way I don't know but I know that something experienced by a few people 2000 years ago did not create the concept of morality nor does it influence all the humans and other social animals who have never heard of religion of any kind who still manage to have a concept of how to treat each other well in order for all in the group to prosper.
-Karl

So, in all of the books of the New Testament,

1. anything that's taught represents high moral values;
2. anything that is taught against is sinful and immoral; and
3. anything that's not specifically mentioned either way is OK.

Perhaps some people use religion as a means of control, but that isn't the goal or interest of christians. It is merely to preach the good news of Jesus Christ our Lord. I can't save anyone, that is Gods work. I would call your anger here misplaced and quite irrational. You seem to have extremely strong opinions on Christianity which are not very well researched. Have you ever actually read the bible? If not, how can you hate something you know nothing about?

“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.” - Buddha

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

>> ^rougy:
God, I hate the Bible. It has to be one of the most evil books ever written. I don't have one in my home, and every time I stay in a motel I'm tempted to toss the one that the Jesus freaks always pack in the nightstand.
The only thing worse than the Bible are the Bible beaters, because 90% of them don't want to help you, they just want to control you; they just want to make you feel bad about being a human being who isn't under their control
God knows how many people's lives were ruined by the Bible beaters foisting their ugly, depraved, mean-spirited and ultimately shallow beliefs on folks who were doing just fine until they came along.
“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.” - Buddha

>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to God. The wages of sin is death, and He paid that price for us, so that we could be forgiven and receieve eternal life.

And the doctrine of vicarious atonement is one of the most morally objectionable concepts in the whole Bible.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, August 27th, 2011 8:11pm PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

Common fucking sense. Some people have it, some don't.

>> ^shinyblurry:

tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

>> ^shinyblurry:

What is the greater good and how do you determine it?



>> ^shinyblurry:

if you deny an absolute morality, what is your basis for determining right and wrong?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Incest was rather unavoidable in the case of Adam and Eve and Noahs family.
And let's not forget Lot and his 2 daughters.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The bible absolutely does not condone the holocaust.
Well, not hitler's holocaust anyway...

>> ^shinyblurry:

As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.

12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

Guys... seriously? You're still responding to Shiny Blurry?. You're wasting your time trying to stuff some knowledge into a black hole of ignorance.

OMG, I've been converted!!!!!!!!!!

We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.

Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)

"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)

“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

I can post more if you're still not convinced.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, we can't explain that.

The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.

If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.







>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

Ok Hitchens, lets hear your argument as to why it is morally objectionable.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to God. The wages of sin is death, and He paid that price for us, so that we could be forgiven and receieve eternal life.

And the doctrine of vicarious atonement is one of the most morally objectionable concepts in the whole Bible.

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)


21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)





>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

So, in other words you intuitively know right from wrong? This is what I have stated, that we all know right from wrong based on our God given conscience. Common sense doesn't tell you why something is right or wrong. For that you need a logical argument..do you have one?

1 Timothy 2:11-12
11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.

12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

That's in church, and between her and God.


>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Common fucking sense. Some people have it, some don't.
>> ^shinyblurry:
tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?
>> ^shinyblurry:
What is the greater good and how do you determine it?
>> ^shinyblurry:
if you deny an absolute morality, what is your basis for determining right and wrong?

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Perhaps some people use religion as a means of control, but that isn't the goal or interest of christians. It is merely to preach the good news of Jesus Christ our Lord. I can't save anyone, that is Gods work. I would call your anger here misplaced and quite irrational. You seem to have extremely strong opinions on Christianity which are not very well researched. Have you ever actually read the bible? If not, how can you hate something you know nothing about?
“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.” - Buddha
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
>> ^rougy:
God, I hate the Bible. It has to be one of the most evil books ever written. I don't have one in my home, and every time I stay in a motel I'm tempted to toss the one that the Jesus freaks always pack in the nightstand.
The only thing worse than the Bible are the Bible beaters, because 90% of them don't want to help you, they just want to control you; they just want to make you feel bad about being a human being who isn't under their control
God knows how many people's lives were ruined by the Bible beaters foisting their ugly, depraved, mean-spirited and ultimately shallow beliefs on folks who were doing just fine until they came along.
“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.” - Buddha



You don't know about God any better than anybody else. It's your hubris that annoys me. You do much more harm than good. It is your heart that is deceitful, and desperately wicked. You should reconsider laying your hangups and shortcomings on other people.

Why did Dawkin's cross the street?

Because God said he couldn't.

*****

“Where ones treasure is, there also is his heart.” - Jesus Christ

I just gave you a contradiction right there in the quote from Matthew. Asking me to go read Galatians just proves my point. Surly you aren't claiming that the rest of the bible contains no contradictions.

Which church by the way? There are hundreds of denominations, and any of them that denounce homosexuality are following mosaic law.

What about the 10 commandments? That tossed out too?

Why should we pay any attention to the bible vs. any other religious text?





>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview.
>> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

So you are saying Hitler contradicts himself constantly in his own book (if that's where your quotes came from, since most of them only site page numbers and not the source) much like the Bible? Sorry not buying it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler on propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)


>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

Actually there is a whole wikipedia entry on Matthew 5:17 and the contention around it, so to say that there is no debate and never has been is clearly false. A quick google search shows that there's actually quite a bit of debate about it within the christian community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

Also from wikipedia:

---------------
New Covenant Theology is an Evangelical position,but within evangelicalism there are divergent views on a number of topics. One of those topics is how the salvation history fits together, and the relationship of the covenants within salvation history.
Some logical deductions of New Covenant Theologians and advocates have been that since "the whole Old Covenant is obsolete", "none of the commands of the Mosaic Law are binding on believers today." Covenant Theologians, on the other hand, believe that at least portions of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians, though there is some variation on which parts and how they apply.

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

Sure looks like there is some debate going on to me. This is hardly the only issue that is under contention in the christian faith.




>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

Yup, you're wasting your time. You will propose rational arguments and reason... Shiny will respond with religious dogma. Rinse, repeat, bang head on desk.

You cannot reason with blind faith.

But as you are blind, Shiny, others will continue to look and poke in those dark places you claim your god exists. The light of our inquiry and skepticism will illuminate that which is hidden in your god's domain. We will take it from your god and convert it to science. You will be painted ever further into the corner of your own ignorance until such a point that you have no ground upon which to stand. While you remain rigid in your unquestioning belief, we will seek understanding and truth and know them by their ability to stand up to scientific inquiry.

No god can hide from science. And someday we will place those that are left, like toys long outgrown, on a shelf... along with those gods from the past which you yourself do not believe in.

In all seriousness though, if you've heard or are hearing the voice(s) of your god, you might want to look into the possibility that you have schizophrenia, Shiny. This is not a jab or an attempt to imply that you are mentally unstable, but actual concern. The reality is that there are numerous sufferers of schizophrenia who hear auditory hallucinations, some of these take the form of "God". Something to consider.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Guys... seriously? You're still responding to Shiny Blurry?. You're wasting your time trying to stuff some knowledge into a black hole of ignorance.

I agree with Hitchens's take on this topic. You're already familiar with the objections, so I won't waste my time repeating them for you.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Ok Hitchens, lets hear your argument as to why it is morally objectionable.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So, in other words you intuitively know right from wrong? This is what I have stated, that we all know right from wrong based on our God given conscience. Common sense doesn't tell you why something is right or wrong. For that you need a logical argument..do you have one?
1 Timothy 2:11-12
11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
That's in church, and between her and God.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Common fucking sense. Some people have it, some don't.
sizset="661" sizcache="2">>> ^shinyblurry:
tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?
>> ^shinyblurry:
What is the greater good and how do you determine it?
>> ^shinyblurry:
if you deny an absolute morality, what is your basis for determining right and wrong?


Honestly, if you don't know why killing another human being is wrong and you need "god" to tell you that then you have some wires crossed in your brain. I think that's called a "sociopath". My argument IS logic, that's why you don't get it.

What verse says "BTW, this is only in church. And it'll be our little secret." ?
Because what you said was "As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible." Are there not female priests today? Aren't the female priests teaching god's word? Isn't that verse in opposition of this fact?

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's what we call propaganda.


Really?

http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*dead

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #4784 (supplied by member dead_tofu) - video declared dead by member chicchorea.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chicchorea.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.