"Christian" Dad Whips Kids Over Changed Channel

[JoltinJoe]

Atheists and humanists were the cause of perhaps 100,000,000 deaths in the past century. Do I fear them? Yes, any thinking person would.

Wow... that's a fresh twist

Stillman Drake would pass out in his tea cup if he read that

That you would question the fundamental truth of what I said is disturbing.

[JoltinJoe]

Atheists and humanists were the cause of perhaps 100,000,000 deaths in the past century. Do I fear them? Yes, any thinking person would.

Wow... that's a fresh twist

Stillman Drake would pass out in his tea cup if he read that

Humanists studied biblical texts in the original Greek and Hebrew
And obviously discovered discrepancies
These discrepancies led to more questions about the Catholic Church’s policies and practices - so I see your fear

Most humanists believe in open minded concepts like interpretive flexibility and tolerance
and were very concerned with the overly rigid belief systems that were in place


Sounds scary

You DEFINITELY need to read The Demons ... an excellent analysis of how non-objective morality systems will INEVITABLY devolve from "flexibility and tolerance" in concept to rigidity and intolerance in practice.

Non-objective moral systems had their run in the 20th century and Dostoevsky was proven correct. I'm not about to give it a second chance given the catastrophic outcomes we observed.

[Chizzang]

You DEFINITELY need to read The Demons ... an excellent analysis of how non-objective morality systems will INEVITABLY devolve from "flexibility and tolerance" in concept to rigidity and intolerance in practice.

Non-objective moral systems had their run in the 20th century and Dostoevsky was proven correct. I'm not about to give it a second chance given the catastrophic outcomes we observed.

Joe,
I get it - You're a devout Catholic
And the Catholic church gets kicked around pretty good these days (mostly of it's own doings) but anyway I see that you are embattled and defensive about your faith

I however am not under attack
Nor do I have anything to defend - I enjoy the humanist movement as an important part of the renaissance and have many favorite humanist characters like Galileo and Michelangelo, Raphael...

If in your defense of your position you need to use Humanism as a point of decline in society - okay by me...
I find it funny - honestly like laugh out loud funny.

And the whole Dostoevsky thing is okay too - 1850 was quite a bit after the Humanist movement but if it works for your argument I'm all for it... Dostoevsky was right..!!!

[JoltinJoe]

You DEFINITELY need to read The Demons ... an excellent analysis of how non-objective morality systems will INEVITABLY devolve from "flexibility and tolerance" in concept to rigidity and intolerance in practice.

Non-objective moral systems had their run in the 20th century and Dostoevsky was proven correct. I'm not about to give it a second chance given the catastrophic outcomes we observed.

Joe,
I get it - You're a devout Catholic
And the Catholic church gets kicked around pretty good these days (mostly of it's own doings) but anyway I see that you are embattled and defensive about your faith

I however am not under attack
Nor do I have anything to defend - I enjoy the humanist movement as an important part of the renaissance and have many favorite humanist characters like Galileo and Michelangelo, Raphael...

If in your defense of your position you need to use Humanism as a point of decline in society - okay by me...
I find it funny - honestly like laugh out loud funny.

And the whole Dostoevsky thing is okay too - 1850 was quite a bit after the Humanist movement but if it works for your argument I'm all for it... Dostoevsky was right..!!!

We're not talking about humanism as in Renaissance Humanism, which Catholicism was an essential mover (Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all practicing and professed Catholics ...). You're confusing the way that the term humanism has been used to describe different movements throughout history.

We're talking about humanism as a morals systems, such as "secular humanism." 1850 is actually early in the recognition of humanism, or more correctly secular humanism, as a moral philosophy. The term secular humanism to describe this moral outlook wasn't even recognized until the early 20th century. Its adherents essentially co-opted the term "humanism" in an effort to create some appearance of linkage between them and prior movements in the arts, culture, and sciences.

But this has nothing to do with defending Catholicism. Dostoevsky bitterly disliked Roman Catholicism and espoused a Russian Orthodox faith. This has to do with moral philosophy -- and on this point, Dostoevsky and I share a common view that any morals system not based on objective truth will, when imposed on a collective, state basis, result in the most heinous crimes against humanity.

And this point has been historically tested (unfortunately) and our conclusions affirmed overwhelmingly.

[Chizzang]

Joe,
I get it - You're a devout Catholic
And the Catholic church gets kicked around pretty good these days (mostly of it's own doings) but anyway I see that you are embattled and defensive about your faith

I however am not under attack
Nor do I have anything to defend - I enjoy the humanist movement as an important part of the renaissance and have many favorite humanist characters like Galileo and Michelangelo, Raphael...

If in your defense of your position you need to use Humanism as a point of decline in society - okay by me...
I find it funny - honestly like laugh out loud funny.

And the whole Dostoevsky thing is okay too - 1850 was quite a bit after the Humanist movement but if it works for your argument I'm all for it... Dostoevsky was right..!!!

We're not talking about humanism as in Renaissance Humanism, which Catholicism was an essential mover (Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all practicing and professed Catholics ...). You're confusing the way that the term humanism has been used to describe different movements throughout history.

We're talking about humanism as a morals systems, such as "secular humanism." 1850 is actually early in the recognition of humanism, or more correctly secular humanism, as a moral philosophy. The term secular humanism to describe this moral outlook wasn't even recognized until the early 20th century. Its adherents essentially co-opted the term "humanism" in an effort to create some appearance of linkage between them and prior movements in the arts, culture, and sciences.

But this has nothing to do with defending Catholicism. Dostoevsky bitterly disliked Roman Catholicism and espoused a Russian Orthodox faith. This has to do with moral philosophy -- and on this point, Dostoevsky and I share a common view that any morals system not based on objective truth will, when imposed on a collective, state basis, result in the most heinous crimes against humanity.

And this point has been historically tested (unfortunately) and our conclusions affirmed overwhelmingly.

Renaissance is the launching point of Humanism... The re-awakening
It wasn't a secular movement until later but it was part of the Renaissance
And Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all Catholics is indeed true as that was the religion that allowed you to walk the streets as a free man. Adhering to any other religion was a crime - so yes, they we all Catholic Humanists

And weren't they all under house arrest at one point or another Joe..?
Galileo spent over half his life under arrest because he confirmed the accuracy of Copernican theory

[D1B]

We're not talking about humanism as in Renaissance Humanism, which Catholicism was an essential mover (Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all practicing and professed Catholics ...). You're confusing the way that the term humanism has been used to describe different movements throughout history.

We're talking about humanism as a morals systems, such as "secular humanism." 1850 is actually early in the recognition of humanism, or more correctly secular humanism, as a moral philosophy. The term secular humanism to describe this moral outlook wasn't even recognized until the early 20th century. Its adherents essentially co-opted the term "humanism" in an effort to create some appearance of linkage between them and prior movements in the arts, culture, and sciences.

But this has nothing to do with defending Catholicism. Dostoevsky bitterly disliked Roman Catholicism and espoused a Russian Orthodox faith. This has to do with moral philosophy -- and on this point, Dostoevsky and I share a common view that any morals system not based on objective truth will, when imposed on a collective, state basis, result in the most heinous crimes against humanity.

And this point has been historically tested (unfortunately) and our conclusions affirmed overwhelmingly.

Renaissance is the launching point of Humanism... The re-awakening
It wasn't a secular movement until later but it was part of the Renaissance
And Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all Catholics is indeed true as that was the religion that allowed you to walk the streets as a free man. Adhering to any other religion was a crime - so yes, they we all Catholic Humanists

And weren't they all under house arrest at one point or another Joe..?
Galileo spent over half his life under arrest because he confirmed the accuracy of Copernican theory

Joe's position - all morality must be based on an objective truth - is bleak, like Dostoyevsky. It's nothing more than an argument for religion - divine retribution and salvation. This is the dominating myth of human history.

For 2000 years we've witnessed the horrible atrocities of religion - including the tens of millions who perished under communism and fascism.

Funny, ONLY when reason began to enter the picture did our lives get better.

They had their chance, now it's our turn.

[D1B]

Baldy, do you even read what you type? Stalin grew up in Czarist Russia, not the soviet union, you putz.

Rapidly losing respect for you.

Really? Atheism a religion? How so? I'll be waiting with much anticipation for your reply.

Actually, Stalin grew up in Georgia (the country), but there's no need to be exact I guess. You haven't been.

All attempts at deflection aside, it still don't take away from the fact that Stalin was an atheist and has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands he slaughtered only because they followed a religion. Defend the guy if you want, but all your obnoxious boisterous ramblings aren't going to be able to revise that bit of history.

If atheism is a religion, it isn't for me to decide. However, according to Mrs. Webster, and I'll paraphrase, a religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or groups of persons. Generally speaking, atheists aren't organized and while many religions are, there are some who aren't. If you really think about it, much like religions, atheists have a set of convictions and practices they hold to be true. I'm sure to some Atheism could technically be considered a religion, or better maybe even a cult.

Georgia Nice try.

This is embarrassing for you. Still waiting for the religion of atheism.

[D1B]

Joe,
I get it - You're a devout Catholic
And the Catholic church gets kicked around pretty good these days (mostly of it's own doings) but anyway I see that you are embattled and defensive about your faith

I however am not under attack
Nor do I have anything to defend - I enjoy the humanist movement as an important part of the renaissance and have many favorite humanist characters like Galileo and Michelangelo, Raphael...

If in your defense of your position you need to use Humanism as a point of decline in society - okay by me...
I find it funny - honestly like laugh out loud funny.

And the whole Dostoevsky thing is okay too - 1850 was quite a bit after the Humanist movement but if it works for your argument I'm all for it... Dostoevsky was right..!!!

We're not talking about humanism as in Renaissance Humanism, which Catholicism was an essential mover (Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all practicing and professed Catholics ...). You're confusing the way that the term humanism has been used to describe different movements throughout history.

We're talking about humanism as a morals systems, such as "secular humanism." 1850 is actually early in the recognition of humanism, or more correctly secular humanism, as a moral philosophy. The term secular humanism to describe this moral outlook wasn't even recognized until the early 20th century. Its adherents essentially co-opted the term "humanism" in an effort to create some appearance of linkage between them and prior movements in the arts, culture, and sciences.

But this has nothing to do with defending Catholicism. Dostoevsky bitterly disliked Roman Catholicism and espoused a Russian Orthodox faith. This has to do with moral philosophy -- and on this point, Dostoevsky and I share a common view that any morals system not based on objective truth will, when imposed on a collective, state basis, result in the most heinous crimes against humanity.

And this point has been historically tested (unfortunately) and our conclusions affirmed overwhelmingly.

Joe, what about the crimes of the church - past and present?

How did objective truth guide your church when preists were fucking little boys, same age as your kids, left and right without punishment for centuries?

How did objective truth play in the antisemitism created and fueled by your church for centuries, culminating the deaths of 6 million in WWII?

How bout the mass murders and torture of non believers by your church for 1800 years?

How bout the current bigotry against gays? How is objective truth working for that?

How did objective truth create Martin Luther and numerous murderous and psychopath popes over the centuries?

How about the historical denigration of women by the catholic church for 1900 years?

How did objective truth cause your church to acquiesce to Hiter and legitimize the nazi party for the world, thus setting the stage for WWII and the holocaust?

Yeah, Joe, morality based on man made gods is dangerous and the results horrendous.

For anyone interested in learning more about modern secular humanism, visit: http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.ph ... q7b31349h4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Forbidden Fruit - the ethics of humanism by Paul Kurt is excellent

Paul Kurtz, America's leading secular humanist philosopher, affirms that it is possible to live the good life and be morally responsible, without belief in religion. In this original and penetrating book, Kurtz delineates the means by which humanity can transcend the limitations of traditional religious loyalties and achieve a higher stage of ethics.

Fundamentalists deny the possibility of ethics without belief in God. Conservatives rail against secularists. Yet belief in God is no guarantee of moral virtue - as the evils committed in the name of religion have vividly shown. Are there secular ethical principles and values that are vital for a world in crisis?

In this new edition of Forbidden Fruit, Kurtz defends the ethics of secularism and humanism. In order to progress to a maximum level of creative development, he maintains that we must be nourished by the "forbidden fruit" of the knowledge of good and evil, grounding principles and values in autonomous reason. This is the path that leads to the discovery of significant ethical truths that can guide both self-reliant conduct and consideration for the rights of others. By breaking the bonds of theistic illusion, we can summon the courage and wisdom to develop a rational ethic based on a realistic appraisal of nature and an awareness of the centrality of the moral decencies common to all peoples.The ultimate key to the good life, Kurtz writes, is to eat of the fruit of the second tree in the Garden of Eden - the tree of life - discovering for ourselves the manifold potentialities for a bountiful existance.

Forbidden Fruit contains important chapters on ethical excellences for individuals, moral education for children, and thoughts on privacy and human rights, in addition to presenting concrete ethical recommendations as alternatives to the reigning orthodoxies.

Author Bio:
Paul Kurtz, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is the author or editor of more than fifty books, including The Transcendental Temptation, The Courage to Become, Embracing the Power of Humanism, plus nine hundred articles and reviews. He is currently the chairman of the Institute for Science and Human Values and president of the International Academy of Humanism. In addition, he is the founder and chairman of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational, the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He has appeared on many major TV and radio talk shows, such as Larry King Live, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Good Morning America, Today, and NPR programs. He has lectured at universities worldwide and his books have been translated into many languages.

[JohnStOnge]

In my opinion atheism can reasonably be construed as meeting one definition of "religion" among those available at the Merriam Webster on line dictinoary site (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) when the atheism is practiced with ardor. For example: When you go to the point of trying to convert other people to "atheism" such as is the case with people who manage certain web sites, etc., and go out of their way to attack theism I think it can fit.

The definition I'm talking about, which is number 4 among 4 listed by Merriam Webster, is:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith "

So if atheism is important to you and you have "faith" that there is no God or gods or supernatural, etc., I think you are arguably practicing a religion. On the other hand, if you personally think there is no supernatural but it's not really that big a deal to you; you don't go out of your way to try to convince others of it, etc., I'd say you're not.

I tink humanism can meet that definition #4 as well.

[kalm]

Joe,
I get it - You're a devout Catholic
And the Catholic church gets kicked around pretty good these days (mostly of it's own doings) but anyway I see that you are embattled and defensive about your faith

I however am not under attack
Nor do I have anything to defend - I enjoy the humanist movement as an important part of the renaissance and have many favorite humanist characters like Galileo and Michelangelo, Raphael...

If in your defense of your position you need to use Humanism as a point of decline in society - okay by me...
I find it funny - honestly like laugh out loud funny.

And the whole Dostoevsky thing is okay too - 1850 was quite a bit after the Humanist movement but if it works for your argument I'm all for it... Dostoevsky was right..!!!

We're not talking about humanism as in Renaissance Humanism, which Catholicism was an essential mover (Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all practicing and professed Catholics ...). You're confusing the way that the term humanism has been used to describe different movements throughout history.

We're talking about humanism as a morals systems, such as "secular humanism." 1850 is actually early in the recognition of humanism, or more correctly secular humanism, as a moral philosophy. The term secular humanism to describe this moral outlook wasn't even recognized until the early 20th century. Its adherents essentially co-opted the term "humanism" in an effort to create some appearance of linkage between them and prior movements in the arts, culture, and sciences.

But this has nothing to do with defending Catholicism. Dostoevsky bitterly disliked Roman Catholicism and espoused a Russian Orthodox faith. This has to do with moral philosophy -- and on this point, Dostoevsky and I share a common view that any morals system not based on objective truth will, when imposed on a collective, state basis, result in the most heinous crimes against humanity.

And this point has been historically tested (unfortunately) and our conclusions affirmed overwhelmingly.

So you're linking Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al together as one movement? I suppose next you're gonna warn us against the evils of socialism.

Sorry Joe, there just ain't no system there and even less of one now.

Humanism and religion can coexist. In fact many of our founding fathers insisted upon it.

[JoltinJoe]

We're not talking about humanism as in Renaissance Humanism, which Catholicism was an essential mover (Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all practicing and professed Catholics ...). You're confusing the way that the term humanism has been used to describe different movements throughout history.

We're talking about humanism as a morals systems, such as "secular humanism." 1850 is actually early in the recognition of humanism, or more correctly secular humanism, as a moral philosophy. The term secular humanism to describe this moral outlook wasn't even recognized until the early 20th century. Its adherents essentially co-opted the term "humanism" in an effort to create some appearance of linkage between them and prior movements in the arts, culture, and sciences.

But this has nothing to do with defending Catholicism. Dostoevsky bitterly disliked Roman Catholicism and espoused a Russian Orthodox faith. This has to do with moral philosophy -- and on this point, Dostoevsky and I share a common view that any morals system not based on objective truth will, when imposed on a collective, state basis, result in the most heinous crimes against humanity.

And this point has been historically tested (unfortunately) and our conclusions affirmed overwhelmingly.

Renaissance is the launching point of Humanism... The re-awakening
It wasn't a secular movement until later but it was part of the Renaissance
And Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all Catholics is indeed true as that was the religion that allowed you to walk the streets as a free man. Adhering to any other religion was a crime - so yes, they we all Catholic Humanists

And weren't they all under house arrest at one point or another Joe..?
Galileo spent over half his life under arrest because he confirmed the accuracy of Copernican theory

First, there is no honest connection between the humanism of the Renaissance/Enlightenment (the former being the product of the Catholic Church's patronage of the arts and the latter initiated by political philosophers, many of whom were actually educated by the Jesuit universities of Europe) and the "secular humanism" of the 20th century. In fact, the reason that many hard-line Catholics began to become suspicious of the Jesuits around that time is that they educated many of the Enlightenment writers who then criticized then-existing Catholic leadership.

Indeed, secular humanism contradicts the thought of the Enlightenment. Secular humanism denies the existence of an objective source of truth, while the Enlightenment philosophers held that not only was there an objective source of truth, but that this source infused individual rights and liberty. Or as Jefferson propounded: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There is a certain unread person here who claims to be both a "humanist" and the product of the Enlightenment. To anyone actually familiar with these concepts, the claim demonstrates either a lack of honesty or a lack of understanding. But the leaders of the "secular humanism" movement knew what they were doing when they co-opted the term to describe themselves.

Second, it was never a requirement anywhere that one had to be Catholic to be a free man.

Third, Galileo offended certain church leaders with his teachings, but he had MANY influential members of the Church who actively protected him from persecution. The house arrest which was arranged for Galileo by Cardinal Bellarmine, a Jesuit, protected him from others in the church who favored harsher penalties. Bellarmine, in fact, had no opinion on Copernican theory, believing it should be studied more, and encouraged Galileo to continue his studies and writings while under house arrest, even though these writings were never published in Galileo's lifetime.

[D1B]

In my opinion atheism can reasonably be construed as meeting one definition of "religion" among those available at the Merriam Webster on line dictinoary site (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) when the atheism is practiced with ardor. For example: When you go to the point of trying to convert other people to "atheism" such as is the case with people who manage certain web sites, etc., and go out of their way to attack theism I think it can fit.

The definition I'm talking about, which is number 4 among 4 listed by Merriam Webster, is:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith "

So if atheism is important to you and you have "faith" that there is no God or gods or supernatural, etc., I think you are arguably practicing a religion. On the other hand, if you personally think there is no supernatural but it's not really that big a deal to you; you don't go out of your way to try to convince others of it, etc., I'd say you're not.

I tink humanism can meet that definition #4 as well.

Baldy and St. Wronge pulling out the Webster!

Joe, what dictionary are you going to use?

[kalm]

In my opinion atheism can reasonably be construed as meeting one definition of "religion" among those available at the Merriam Webster on line dictinoary site (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) when the atheism is practiced with ardor. For example: When you go to the point of trying to convert other people to "atheism" such as is the case with people who manage certain web sites, etc., and go out of their way to attack theism I think it can fit.

The definition I'm talking about, which is number 4 among 4 listed by Merriam Webster, is:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith "

So if atheism is important to you and you have "faith" that there is no God or gods or supernatural, etc., I think you are arguably practicing a religion. On the other hand, if you personally think there is no supernatural but it's not really that big a deal to you; you don't go out of your way to try to convince others of it, etc., I'd say you're not.

I tink humanism can meet that definition #4 as well.

I still think evangelicalism is a better description.

[Baldy]

Actually, Stalin grew up in Georgia (the country), but there's no need to be exact I guess. You haven't been.

All attempts at deflection aside, it still don't take away from the fact that Stalin was an atheist and has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands he slaughtered only because they followed a religion. Defend the guy if you want, but all your obnoxious boisterous ramblings aren't going to be able to revise that bit of history.

If atheism is a religion, it isn't for me to decide. However, according to Mrs. Webster, and I'll paraphrase, a religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or groups of persons. Generally speaking, atheists aren't organized and while many religions are, there are some who aren't. If you really think about it, much like religions, atheists have a set of convictions and practices they hold to be true. I'm sure to some Atheism could technically be considered a religion, or better maybe even a cult.

Georgia Nice try.

Just correcting you, again. You should be used to it by now.

This is embarrassing for you. Still waiting for the religion of atheism.

That's OK, I'm still waiting on your proof of Hitlers religious based antisemitism.

[D1B]

Renaissance is the launching point of Humanism... The re-awakening
It wasn't a secular movement until later but it was part of the Renaissance
And Galileo, Michelangelo and Raphael being all Catholics is indeed true as that was the religion that allowed you to walk the streets as a free man. Adhering to any other religion was a crime - so yes, they we all Catholic Humanists

And weren't they all under house arrest at one point or another Joe..?
Galileo spent over half his life under arrest because he confirmed the accuracy of Copernican theory

First, there is no honest connection between the humanism of the Renaissance/Enlightenment (the former being the product of the Catholic Church's patronage of the arts and the latter initiated by political philosophers, many of whom were actually educated by the Jesuit universities of Europe) and the "secular humanism" of the 20th century. In fact, the reason that many hard-line Catholics began to become suspicious of the Jesuits around that time is that they educated many of the Enlightenment writers who then criticized then-existing Catholic leadership.

Indeed, secular humanism contradicts the thought of the Enlightenment. Secular humanism denies the existence of an objective source of truth, while the Enlightenment philosophers held that not only was there an objective source of truth, but that this source infused individual rights and liberty. Or as Jefferson propounded: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There is a certain unread person here who claims to be both a "humanist" and the product of the Enlightenment. To anyone actually familiar with these concepts, the claim demonstrates either a lack of honesty or a lack of understanding. But the leaders of the "secular humanism" movement knew what they were doing when they co-opted the term to describe themselves.

Second, it was never a requirement anywhere that one had to be Catholic to be a free man.

Third, Galileo offended certain church leaders with his teachings, but he had MANY influential members of the Church who actively protected him from persecution. The house arrest which was arranged for Galileo by Cardinal Bellarmine, a Jesuit, protected him from others in the church who favored harsher penalties. Bellarmine, in fact, had no opinion on Copernican theory, believing it should be studied more, and encouraged Galileo to continue his studies and writings while under house arrest, even though these writings were never published in Galileo's lifetime.

Morality for secular humanists is derived from the process of critical ethical inquiry and reflection. Morality for you, theists, emerges from your man made gods (thousands of different ones), already packaged in the form of dogma and commandments.

You, Joe, think people need to be trained like a dog. You do this, and you get hit with the newspaper if you fail. Otherwise the culture will fall apart .... passively obey and believe without questioning or thinking about it! Yeah, that's worked well for us. That's the reason Hitlers, Stalins and Joltin Joes pop up every 100 or so years in christian nations and ravage humanity.


Modern secular humanism proposes we need to move to the next level of moral and ethical development and live by the light of reason, not some bronze age hallucination of unimaginable stupidity as clearly exposed in the bible.

Joe, PM me and I'll send you Kurtz's book. You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[JoltinJoe]

So you're linking Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al together as one movement? I suppose next you're gonna warn us against the evils of socialism.

Sorry Joe, there just ain't no system there and even less of one now.

Humanism and religion can coexist. In fact many of our founding fathers insisted upon it.

What Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all grasped was, if there is no source or reason for objective truth, nothing commanded that the moral vacuum created by the "death of God" be filled with a comparable moral code, as envisioned by Nietzsche. So they exploited that hole, just as Dostoevsky predicted they would.

There is a huge distinction between the enlightenment humanism of our founding fathers and "secular humanism." Our founding fathers were adherents of natural law and believed that we were all made equal, and imbued with inalienable rights, by our Creator.

[JoltinJoe]

First, there is no honest connection between the humanism of the Renaissance/Enlightenment (the former being the product of the Catholic Church's patronage of the arts and the latter initiated by political philosophers, many of whom were actually educated by the Jesuit universities of Europe) and the "secular humanism" of the 20th century. In fact, the reason that many hard-line Catholics began to become suspicious of the Jesuits around that time is that they educated many of the Enlightenment writers who then criticized then-existing Catholic leadership.

Indeed, secular humanism contradicts the thought of the Enlightenment. Secular humanism denies the existence of an objective source of truth, while the Enlightenment philosophers held that not only was there an objective source of truth, but that this source infused individual rights and liberty. Or as Jefferson propounded: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There is a certain unread person here who claims to be both a "humanist" and the product of the Enlightenment. To anyone actually familiar with these concepts, the claim demonstrates either a lack of honesty or a lack of understanding. But the leaders of the "secular humanism" movement knew what they were doing when they co-opted the term to describe themselves.

Second, it was never a requirement anywhere that one had to be Catholic to be a free man.

Third, Galileo offended certain church leaders with his teachings, but he had MANY influential members of the Church who actively protected him from persecution. The house arrest which was arranged for Galileo by Cardinal Bellarmine, a Jesuit, protected him from others in the church who favored harsher penalties. Bellarmine, in fact, had no opinion on Copernican theory, believing it should be studied more, and encouraged Galileo to continue his studies and writings while under house arrest, even though these writings were never published in Galileo's lifetime.

Morality for secular humanists is derived from the process of critical ethical inquiry and reflection. Morality for you, theists, emerges from your man made gods (thousands of different ones), already packaged in the form of dogma and commandments.

You, Joe, think people need to be trained like a dog. You do this, and you get hit with the newspaper if you fail. Otherwise the culture will fall apart .... passively obey and believe without questioning or thinking about it! Yeah, that's worked well for us. That's the reason Hitlers, Stalins and Joltin Joes pop up every 100 or so years in christian nations and ravage humanity.


Modern secular humanism proposes we need to move to the next level of moral and ethical development and live by the light of reason, not some bronze age hallucination of unimaginable stupidity as clearly exposed in the bible.

Joe, PM me and I'll send you Kurtz's book. You obviously don't know what the **** you're talking about.

You are irrelevant.

[D1B]

Georgia Nice try.

Just correcting you, again. You should be used to it by now.

This is embarrassing for you. Still waiting for the religion of atheism.

That's OK, I'm still waiting on your proof of Hitlers religious based antisemitism.

Was Georgia not under Czarist rule Baldy? It was, and there was no need to correct anything. You needed an out, and you got into further trouble. Like this:


Here's a fair assessment:

``THE PLACE where we are standing," Pope Benedict XVI said last week, ``is a place of memory." He was standing at Auschwitz, but what he said and did there raised questions less about remembering than forgetting. Is the new pope prepared to carry forward his predecessors' revolutionary moral reckoning with Christianity's co-responsibility for the Holocaust, or does he intend to initiate a new era of denial? Similarly, does he intend to roll back the doctrinal revolution that has taken place in the church's view of the Jewish religion, reasserting the ``replacement theology" that was the ground of the religious anti-Judaism that morphed into racial anti-Semitism?

The question about the Holocaust has a special edge because Benedict is German, and it first surfaced during his visit to Cologne last August. In addressing an audience of Jews in that city's synagogue, the pope roundly condemned the Nazi genocide campaign. But then he defined the lethal Nazi anti-Semitism that spawned the genocide as having been ``born of neo-paganism." He made no mention of anti-Semitism's other parent, the long tradition of Christian contempt for Jews and the Jewish religion, which both fed the hatred of the perpetrators and justified the inaction of the bystanders. Little was made of the pope's omission of reference to such Christian responsibility, as if to give him time to make his position clearer.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... holocaust/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Nazis would never have been able to do what they did if the roots of their anti-semitic beliefs were not rooted many centuries before. In the Roman Empire, in the name of Christianity, by the Romanians, in Poland and during the Russian Empire, European Jews have a long history of being subjected to religious hatred, persecutions as well as some brief times of tolerance.

Wikibooks

In an unprecedented gesture, Pope John Paul II on Sunday publicly asked God's forgiveness for the sins of Roman Catholics through the ages, including wrongs inflicted on Jews, women and minorities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/675361.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Furthermore, Nazi propagandists exploited the long tradition of religious anti-Semitism in the Lutheran and Catholic churches. Jews were considered outcasts by both religious communities because of their refusal to convert to Christianity and for the charge of deicide in killing Christ. Martin Luther became an especially popular historical reference for Nazi propagandists who liberally quoted the religious reformer's incendiary pamphlet, "The Jews and Their Lies" (1543). Luther vented his rage against the Jews by drawing on old economic stereotypes depicting Jews as greedy moneylenders with an aversion to physical labor. The negative connotation of usury and lust for money, part of both Christian traditions, remained alive and well under the Third Reich. As vital as Jews were to the emerging market economy of Europe, they were still held as parasites and criminals. The social and economic power of anti-Semitic stereotypes like these was central to William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice (1596), which portrays the rejection and suffering of Shylock, the Jewish merchant. Under the Third Reich, the new anti-Semitism, steeped in the language of race biology and yet connected to traditional hatred for Jews in the marketplace and church, provided an even more powerful ideological justification for persecution of a distinct minority.



Read more: Holocaust - world, body, life, history, cause, time, person, human, The Road to Auschwitz, The Dynamics of Nazi Mass Murder http://www.deathreference.com/Gi-Ho/Hol ... z1Iqj9aZWg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are thousands. It's common knowlege that catholic and protestant ant-semitism was necessary for the holocaust.

[JoltinJoe]

Unbelievable.

Baldy, when did I say they were revenge killings? You're turning into Joltin Joe and setting up your own arguements so you can defeat them.

All I said was the root cause of the holocaust was antisemitism. It is a fact that antisemitism in europe is a result of catholic and protestant dogma. Hitler would have never gotten away with it without this root hatred of the jew.

I also believe that religion kills people. Religion conditions people to acquiesce to authority. Again, no religion, no dictators. Stalin, Hitler, Musolinni and Hirohito were created by the most oppressively religious nations on the planet at the time - Russian Orthodox, Catholic/protestant Germany, Catholic Italy and whatever the **** Japan was.

Seriously?

Stalin was created by an oppressively religious atheist Soviet Union?

You do realize this was the same atheist Soviet Union that executed hundreds of thousands of Russian Orthodox bishops, priests and worshipers, sent countless others to the Siberian gulags, confiscated all church property, razed churches, prohibited the publication of religious materials, etc. etc. etc. etc. ????

Now, if you're trying to say that atheism is a religion, you might be onto something.

D1B is lifting this idea from Hitchens -- that because Russia had a strong religious tradition, it made it an ideal state for the imposition of a totalitarian government. That nonsense sounds impressive to the unlearned, because Hitchens speaks with apparent authority and with an English accent, but no learned person takes this rubbish seriously.

As you note, D1tchens is simply blaming the victims of Stalin's purges -- the religious -- for Stalin's purges. Only a dupe could accept such a statement uncritically.

In an ironic way, the purges of Stalin were indeed caused by Russia's strong historical religious tradition. Because of that tradition, Stalin had many, many adversaries to exterminate.

Cue D1tchens to say that Stalin wasn't such a bad guy. There just wasn't enough food to go around. God knows what scary website taught him that.

[D1B]

So you're linking Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al together as one movement? I suppose next you're gonna warn us against the evils of socialism.

Sorry Joe, there just ain't no system there and even less of one now.

Humanism and religion can coexist. In fact many of our founding fathers insisted upon it.

What Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all grasped was, if there is no source or reason for objective truth, nothing commanded that the moral vacuum created by the "death of God" be filled with a comparable moral code, as envisioned by Nietzsche. So they exploited that hole, just as Dostoevsky predicted they would.

There is a huge distinction between the enlightenment humanism of our founding fathers and "secular humanism." Our founding fathers were adherents of natural law and believed that we were all made equal, and imbued with inalienable rights, by our Creator.

All three had gods and moral codes

Germany - God was replaced by Hitler. Joe, you even admitted Hitler attempted to start another religion, in this thread! Also, the catholic and protestant churches were alive and well in Nazi Germany and Italy.

Stalin - The state manifested in Stalin/Lenin was god, communism is nothing but religion. You said, in this thread, the creation of a workers utopia replacing religion is the final stage of communism.

Pol Pot - Pol Pot was god.

What about the atrocities of your church Joe? Still waiting.

[JoltinJoe]

What Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all grasped was, if there is no source or reason for objective truth, nothing commanded that the moral vacuum created by the "death of God" be filled with a comparable moral code, as envisioned by Nietzsche. So they exploited that hole, just as Dostoevsky predicted they would.

There is a huge distinction between the enlightenment humanism of our founding fathers and "secular humanism." Our founding fathers were adherents of natural law and believed that we were all made equal, and imbued with inalienable rights, by our Creator.

All three had gods and moral codes

Germany - God was replaced by Hitler. Joe, you even admitted Hitler attempted to start another religion, in this thread! Also, the catholic and protestant churches were alive and well in Nazi Germany and Italy.

Stalin - The state manifested in Stalin/Lenin was god, communism is nothing but religion. You said, in this thread, the creation of a workers utopia replacing religion is the final stage of communism.

Pol Pot - Pol Pot was god.

What about the atrocities of your church Joe? Still waiting.

What atrocities? Should I respond to actual history, or your gross distortions and inaccurate version of history?

[D1B]

Seriously?

Stalin was created by an oppressively religious atheist Soviet Union?

You do realize this was the same atheist Soviet Union that executed hundreds of thousands of Russian Orthodox bishops, priests and worshipers, sent countless others to the Siberian gulags, confiscated all church property, razed churches, prohibited the publication of religious materials, etc. etc. etc. etc. ????

Now, if you're trying to say that atheism is a religion, you might be onto something.

D1B is lifting this idea from Hitchens -- that because Russia had a strong religious tradition, it made it an ideal state for the imposition of a totalitarian government. That nonsense sounds impressive to the unlearned, because Hitchens speaks with apparent authority and with an English accent, but no learned person takes this rubbish seriously.

As you note, D1tchens is simply blaming the victims of Stalin's purges -- the religious -- for Stalin's purges. Only a dupe could accept such a statement uncritically.

In an ironic way, the purges of Stalin were indeed caused by Russia's strong historical religious tradition. Because of that tradition, Stalin had many, many adversaries to exterminate.

Cue D1thcens to say that Stalin wasn't such a bad guy. There just wasn't enough food to go around. God knows what scary website taught him that.

Never heard Hitchens use this line Joe. Provide a quote from him please with the source text. You're resorting to lying and now namecalling again. Nice smokescreen attempt too.

You're officially off the deep end Joe.

[D1B]

All three had gods and moral codes

Germany - God was replaced by Hitler. Joe, you even admitted Hitler attempted to start another religion, in this thread! Also, the catholic and protestant churches were alive and well in Nazi Germany and Italy.

Stalin - The state manifested in Stalin/Lenin was god, communism is nothing but religion. You said, in this thread, the creation of a workers utopia replacing religion is the final stage of communism.

Pol Pot - Pol Pot was god.

What about the atrocities of your church Joe? Still waiting.

What atrocities? Should I respond to actual history, or your gross distortions and inaccurate version of history?

Go ahead and pick one and tell us all how objective truth played it's most critical part. How bout the sex abuse abuse scandel and the horrendous way your leaders handled it.

[JoltinJoe]

D1B is lifting this idea from Hitchens -- that because Russia had a strong religious tradition, it made it an ideal state for the imposition of a totalitarian government. That nonsense sounds impressive to the unlearned, because Hitchens speaks with apparent authority and with an English accent, but no learned person takes this rubbish seriously.

As you note, D1tchens is simply blaming the victims of Stalin's purges -- the religious -- for Stalin's purges. Only a dupe could accept such a statement uncritically.

In an ironic way, the purges of Stalin were indeed caused by Russia's strong historical religious tradition. Because of that tradition, Stalin had many, many adversaries to exterminate.

Cue D1thcens to say that Stalin wasn't such a bad guy. There just wasn't enough food to go around. God knows what scary website taught him that.

Never heard Hitchens use this line Joe. Provide a quote from him please with the source text. You're resorting to lying and now namecalling again. Nice smokescreen attempt too.

Are you seriously trying to tell me you didn't lift this from Hitchens? He said precisely this in God is Not Great. You mean you didn't even read that.

http://lehmann.typepad.com/in_lehmanns_ ... n-sta.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Until 1917, millions of Russians had been told for…hundreds of years that the czar is the head of the church – which he was, the Russian Orthodox Church. That the leader of the country should be something a little more than human. Not a god, but a little more. He’s not divine, but a holy father.

If you’re Josef Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you don’t know how to exploit an inheritance like that: millions of credulous, servile people.

[D1B]

Never heard Hitchens use this line Joe. Provide a quote from him please with the source text. You're resorting to lying and now namecalling again. Nice smokescreen attempt too.

Are you seriously trying to tell me you didn't lift this from Hitchens? He said precisely this in The God Delusion. You mean you didn't even read that.

http://lehmann.typepad.com/in_lehmanns_ ... n-sta.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Until 1917, millions of Russians had been told for…hundreds of years that the czar is the head of the church – which he was, the Russian Orthodox Church. That the leader of the country should be something a little more than human. Not a god, but a little more. He’s not divine, but a holy father.

If you’re Josef Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you don’t know how to exploit an inheritance like that: millions of credulous, servile people.

Never read that book. For me, the essense of this argument came from Voltaire's "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."