judge not moving 10 commandments statue from u.s.a. gov. property

" Where is the disproof of the studies that use plants or organisms to be double blind? "

Disproof? Are you serious?
Disproof is not required, only proof.
Are we about to go down the proving a negative route?
What we require is repeatability and independent verification
which HAS NOT happened with this doctors research.

"To use the weak arguments about the control groups using patients and then try to paint the author as dishonest on an entirely different type of study is in my book is dishonest.
"

The doctors track record of flawed studies does NOT
automatically dismiss any further studies he does.
This I agree on. The studies must stand on their own.
The problem is, they dont.

"axe:Stop dodging the question. Answer my question first
doubter: Why? If you can't define it you sure can't recognize it in the mirror."

Intellectual arrogance (from a religious website): Arrogance towards the unlearned, illiterate and the oppressed

Now answer my question which you have DODGED TWICE now.
Would you consider it intellectual pride to ask
ZEUS to prove himself to you?


"It doesn't magically invalidate your position but it calls into question the reason for some of your conclusions. Lets see now you can make all sorts of disparaging conclusions about theists but questioning your motives is off limits? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!"

How is this related? Motive is irrelevant.
Regardless of theists motives, their arguments do
not hold water. Regardless of my motives, my argument
is the only thing which matters and needs to be proven
or disproven.



"axe:False. There is nothing closed or prejudiced with my mind.
Doubter: Laughable."

Your mere opinion.
As I have already described my method of thinking, it is
completely open to all possibilities. But critical thinking
requires you to follow certain rules before accepting things
into your belief system.
You then happily label me closeminded and prejudiced
when I apply the very same rules to theism as I do to
everything else in life. This is called being CONSISTENT.
You seem to want a FREE RIDE for theism.
Sorry.... theism gets no special privledges from me.
I will not turn off my bullshit filters just for theism :D



"Some theists do and some don't just like atheists, some are closed minded and so are some atheists. Just let the symptoms expose the motives. "

Here I agree with you. However, you have not shown
how I am closeminded or why. I am open to ANY claim
which provides sufficient evidence.
You simply have failed to provide this, so you must
resort to labeling me closeminded.

peace

axeman
 
Yes your right... there are no churches in Russia. LOL.
No one practiced religion in russia. LOL.

http://russia-in-us.com/Religion/

The vast majority of the russian people were NOT atheists!
Thats why its so hilarious to watch people attempt
to pin the communist atrocities on atheism.

peace

axeman



Quote from Doubter:

Your are mistaking the actions of a communistic political
system with atheism.

In fact, communist russia was actually very religious, even
thought the government was not religious..
axeman
________________________________________

Now you had better check your facts. I am involved with a pretty widespread work in Siberia. We went in right after the country was opened and what you said is plainly not true.
More...
 
". I'm not saying that they killed because their atheism demanded it -- cleary atheism doesn't demand anything "

Exactly. The point is, there is nothing in atheism that
would drive a man to kill another man.

Atheism is only ONE attribute of a person.
If the person is also a follower of Hitler, who kills Jews,
you cannot pin his actions on his atheism.

"On the other hand though, I could just as easily assert that an atheists, in general, have less regard for life than theists, given that they do not ascribe any inherent value or meaning to life and that given certain circumstances -- such as establishing an authoritarian communist state, for example (a good example, too) -- they would have less/no moral hang ups about taking massive amounts of human life."


Your are implying that since a person IS an atheist, he is therefore
incapable of valuing life since they do not ascribe any inherent
value or meaning to life.

Your premise is false, and therefore so is your assertion.


peace

axeman



Quote from alfonso:




I wasn't addressing correlation though. Just pointing out that clear atheists -- as were the entire Soviet and Chinese power structures -- had no apparent qualms with killing 'innocents'. I'm not saying that they killed because their atheism demanded it -- cleary atheism doesn't demand anything -- just that hear we have substantial numbers of atheists who expressed an abject disregard for human life. I think it's a pertinent point given your contention that atheists value life "far more" than theists.





How could they not? Well, they could have been part of the Soviet or Chinese communist power structures. :)

Seriously, that is really no more than your assertion; one I'm sure you feel much comfort in believing. On the other hand though, I could just as easily assert that an atheists, in general, have less regard for life than theists, given that they do not ascribe any inherent value or meaning to life and that given certain circumstances -- such as establishing an authoritarian communist state, for example (a good example, too) -- they would have less/no moral hang ups about taking massive amounts of human life.

It's a tough call either way. But if, as I suspect, you try and use your side of it to claim it would be a better world if we were all atheist it just doesn't fly. The only cases of mass atheism we have -- the authoritarian communist states -- are surely experiences we wouldn't want to repeat. I know you can cite (many) cases or theistic mistreatment of people, but given that theists in days gone by comprised about 99.9% of the population, it won't do to use the fact the killers were theists to score points against theism; especially not when comparing modern day theists and atheists.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Yes your right... there are no churches in Russia. LOL.
No one practiced religion in russia. LOL.

http://russia-in-us.com/Religion/

The vast majority of the russian people were NOT atheists!
Thats why its so hilarious to watch people attempt
to pin the communist atrocities on atheism.

More...



What I'm "pinning" it on is that atheism simply makes it easier -- or "just as easy", if you like -- to justify killing, because for the atheist there isn't any real sense of morality, it's only a piddly little emotion that he can, in time anyway, easily overcome. And to the extent that communism/marxism demands atheism (and it surely does) then atheism did play a role in what happened in happened in those communist states; unless you want to shoot for the absurd position that values and beliefs play no part in deciding behavior. Now that would be really hilarious.

And although the people in Russia at the time of the revolution may have been quite religious, they were pretty damn quick to give it up, if we're to believe my Britannica 2000 when it says that 72% of the Russian population as "non-religious".
 
Quote from axeman:



"On the other hand though, I could just as easily assert that an atheists, in general, have less regard for life than theists, given that they do not ascribe any inherent value or meaning to life and that given certain circumstances -- such as establishing an authoritarian communist state, for example (a good example, too) -- they would have less/no moral hang ups about taking massive amounts of human life."


Your are implying that since a person IS an atheist, he is therefore
incapable of valuing life since they do not ascribe any inherent
value or meaning to life.

Your premise is false, and therefore so is your assertion.
More...


You're putting word into my mouth. Let's not play games here.

I was addressing was your equally empty assertion that atheists value life "far more" than theists. All I wanted to say was that I could just as easily assert -- with, give or take, the same flimsy supporting argument you made -- that atheists are less likely to value life. But both positions are just pointless generalizations. I think you well understand this so let's not belabor the point.
 
Your are implying that since a person IS an atheist, he is therefore
incapable of valuing life since they do not ascribe any inherent
value or meaning to life.

Your premise is false, and therefore so is your assertion.
axeman
________________________________________________

The arguments in favor of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia reveal that the humanitarian ethic wishes to restrict the right to live and expand the right to die--and to kill. Humanism is a philosophy of death. It embraces death, wishes a good death, speaks of the horrible burdens of living for the baby who is less than perfect, for the sick person in pain....The good-death
people know nothing of life, have small regard for it and embrace the enemy as a friend.
Schlossberg- Idols for Destruction

Chairman Mao took secularism's culture of death to its logical conclusion by institutionalizing death across Chian. Millions of peasants, intellectuals, Christians and entrepreneurs lost their lives to his meglomania. Mao was no abberation. Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and others slaughtered countless people in the name of progress.
Miller - Discipling Nations

Do societies build their institutions based on the comforting but misguided ideal that man is good? If so, then millions die needlessly when reality fails to match the ideal. Maintaining order in such societies requires a totalitarian state. Or do societies build their institutions based upon the reality of man's sin? Those that do will more likely creat institutions that restrain evil, lawlessness and death. That means there must be some kind of democratic political structures and free-market economics.
Miller

There is no use trying to build a republic for saints. There are too few of them, and even the ones there are, are difficult to live with. No, if you wish to build a republic that will last, you must design it for sinners. That is the only "moral majority" there is.....a republic of sinners-----and therefore, a republic of checks and balances, as well as other "auxiliary precautions" (James Madison).
No city of man is the City of God. The massive illusion that citizens are inherently and infallibly good, and that government officials may establish happiness on earth, has met reality. Entire realms of social and psychological theory, based upon utopic theories, have failed to account for the ordinary sinfulness of ordinary human beings. Look around you. You see the ruins.
Michael Novak - The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
 
Russian Orthodox church originated at the end of the 10th century, when missionaries from Byzantium converted the ruler of Kievan Rus to Christianity. For the past 1,000 years the Orthodox church has been the dominant faith of the Russian people. There are other Christian denominations as well, though none as large as the Orthodox.
________________________________________

What this very superficial article leaves out is that the Othodox Church to keep open under Stalin etc. was forced to become a church in name only and absolutely devoid of anything christian. It became like the official church of the Soviet Union. After the fall and the breakup of the Union the leadership didn't change and felt threatened by the influx of other church and para=church entities. Hence they have pressured the government to adopt very restrictive rules like "needing to be in operation since before the breakup to be allowed by the government to operate". There was a small sprinkling of christians and many tribal people were animistic.
 
Quote from alfonso:

"What I'm "pinning" it on is that atheism simply makes it easier -- or "just as easy", if you like "

Incorrect again. How can a LACK of belief make anything
easier or more difficult? Atheism, ALONE, gives man no
reason to kill, unlike religion. It is also not mutually
exclusive with a moral/ethical code.

"-- to justify killing, because for the atheist there isn't any real sense of morality, it's only a piddly little emotion that he can, in time anyway, easily overcome. "

Yet another completely false premise.
You have NO IDEA what sense of morality an atheist has.
Atheism does NOT address or exclude morality. Period.


Your premise is therefore invalid, and your assertion still invalid.


"And to the extent that communism/marxism demands atheism (and it surely does) then atheism did play a role in what happened in happened in those communist states; unless you want to shoot for the absurd position that values and beliefs play no part in deciding behavior. Now that would be really hilarious."

You have failed to make any connection between a LACK
of belief and the russians terrible behavior.
You also choose to IGNORE the obvious, that their tyrannical
communistic ideals were the driving force of these events,
and instead attempt to make the leap to atheism.
Not THAT is truly hilarious.

Whereas the church and the pope himself have explicitly
put people to death for heresy in the name of god,
im not aware of a single case where a communist put anyone
to death for NOT BEING A GOOD LITTLE ATHEIST.


Using your very same logic, I could just as easily assert
that Hitlers slaughter of the Jews was because of his
christian (catholic) beliefs. That THIS was the reason,
and not the more OBVIOUS reason, that he was a raving lunatic.

If you claim that atheism is responsible for the deaths
of communistic people, then you must also accept that Hitlers murder
of millions was due to his christian beliefs. Absurd.


peace

axeman
More...
 
Not putting words in your mouth.
Using your very own words:

"On the other hand though, I could just as easily assert that an atheists, in general, have less regard for life than theists, given that they do not ascribe any inherent value or meaning to life "

Your premise is that atheists do not ascribe any inherent
value or meaning to life.

This is patently false.
I'm an atheist who deeply values life.
There are many others.

Your premise is false and therefore your assertion false.


peace

axeman


Quote from alfonso:




You're putting word into my mouth. Let's not play games here.

I was addressing was your equally empty assertion that atheists value life "far more" than theists. All I wanted to say was that I could just as easily assert -- with, give or take, the same flimsy supporting argument you made -- that atheists are less likely to value life. But both positions are just pointless generalizations. I think you well understand this so let's not belabor the point.
More...
 
"Would you consider it intellectual pride to ask
ZEUS to prove himself to you?"

You have dodged THREE times now Doubter.


peace

axeman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top