Extraordinary Evidence?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2016, 04:33 AM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
THE NAZI, CHRISTIAN and THE BIBLE CONNECTION

It has been believed for many years that the Nazis and their leaders (Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler etc.), were atheists. They were not. In fact, they were Christians and were influenced greatly by Christianity, its symbols and the Bible, especially the Old Testament. As was Stalin, who was educated in a monastery The Nazis were also especially influenced by Martin Luther who was violently anti-Semitic.
Anyone who reads or listens to the speeches of Adolf Hitler will understand his position on atheism. He was against it. More importantly, was the influence that the Old testament had on Nazi thinking. Anyone who knows the Bible and has read it (many professes to know it, but don’t read it), will understand that it condones: war, genocide, chosen people, slavery, and even a master race. Ironically it is the tenants of the old Testament (the Talmud for the Jews), which was instrumental in their own destruction.
As long as we tolerate, this obscene, immoral, and unethical book and believe that it is the “word of God”, we will continue to be influenced by it as the human race has been influenced in both thinking and behavior over the millennia. Therefore, it has to be “cut off at the knees” so to speak, and every effort should be made to criticize and remove this bigoted meme from our thinking. Don’t believe me? Read it, and check out what has been happening in the backward, ignorant Southern states of the United States and their bigotry towards, LGBTs, transgender, and same sex couples and evolution. And the state of Kentucky wants to make the Bible, the “state book”. Enough already,
William B. Secor, Ph.D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2016, 03:00 PM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
(07-04-2016 04:33 AM)William B. Secor Wrote:  THE NAZI, CHRISTIAN and THE BIBLE CONNECTION

It has been believed for many years that the Nazis and their leaders (Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler etc.), were atheists. They were not. In fact, they were Christians and were influenced greatly by Christianity, its symbols and the Bible, especially the Old Testament. As was Stalin, who was educated in a monastery The Nazis were also especially influenced by Martin Luther who was violently anti-Semitic.
Anyone who reads or listens to the speeches of Adolf Hitler will understand his position on atheism. He was against it. More importantly, was the influence that the Old testament had on Nazi thinking. Anyone who knows the Bible and has read it (many professes to know it, but don’t read it), will understand that it condones: war, genocide, chosen people, slavery, and even a master race. Ironically it is the tenants of the old Testament (the Talmud for the Jews), which was instrumental in their own destruction.
As long as we tolerate, this obscene, immoral, and unethical book and believe that it is the “word of God”, we will continue to be influenced by it as the human race has been influenced in both thinking and behavior over the millennia. Therefore, it has to be “cut off at the knees” so to speak, and every effort should be made to criticize and remove this bigoted meme from our thinking. Don’t believe me? Read it, and check out what has been happening in the backward, ignorant Southern states of the United States and their bigotry towards, LGBTs, transgender, and same sex couples and evolution. And the state of Kentucky wants to make the Bible, the “state book”. Enough already,
William B. Secor, Ph.D.

Godwin


Don't you find it an amusing paradox that a tolerant society cannot tolerate the intolerant?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2016, 04:04 PM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
(03-04-2016 01:51 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  So my question for you all is what kind of evidence would be good enough for you? Should we stop asking for extraordinary proof?

Many of the questions and comments that are repeated time and time again, are always new to someone. It's a thought prevoking idea.

Asking for just a little evidence for why you believe would not fill the requirements for such. I already know why most people are in their religion or belief mind set I was already there. Upbringing, indoctrination, per pressure (society) "personal witness" blah blah blah.

If I say I had eggs and toast for breakfast that isn't an extraordinary claim. Me saying I can fly and shoot laser beams out of my eyes is.

I think the evidence i would need accept a god is simple, at least for him/them.
A physical manifestation, maybe sentient life appearing on a dead planet. Like let's say Mars, we've been studying it for a long time now and haven't found any life. But if lets say 3 days from now we saw a full earth like environment on Mars, and then this being appear to the entire world with full explanations on how he did it. I would be hard for me to disagree. the questions follow would be where was he? Where did he come from? What is he? Is he worthy of praise? etc etc.

But if this being could do all that what dose he need us for?

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2016, 05:30 PM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
(07-04-2016 04:04 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Where did he come from? What is he? Is he worthy of praise? etc etc.
That's the strange reasoning that some Christians give forth.

They think that if we know that a god exists then this takes our choice away with regards to obeying, worshiping, loving it.

But it doesn't. It actually enhances our ability to choose.
We can't, after all, choose to obey, worship or love something that we don't consider exists.

If the god is proven to exist we may still decide that the god is a douche or just merely some fascinating creature but not deserving of worship or love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 06:30 AM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
(07-04-2016 04:04 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 01:51 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  So my question for you all is what kind of evidence would be good enough for you? Should we stop asking for extraordinary proof?

Many of the questions and comments that are repeated time and time again, are always new to someone. It's a thought prevoking idea.

Asking for just a little evidence for why you believe would not fill the requirements for such. I already know why most people are in their religion or belief mind set I was already there. Upbringing, indoctrination, per pressure (society) "personal witness" blah blah blah.

If I say I had eggs and toast for breakfast that isn't an extraordinary claim. Me saying I can fly and shoot laser beams out of my eyes is.

I think the evidence i would need accept a god is simple, at least for him/them.
A physical manifestation, maybe sentient life appearing on a dead planet. Like let's say Mars, we've been studying it for a long time now and haven't found any life. But if lets say 3 days from now we saw a full earth like environment on Mars, and then this being appear to the entire world with full explanations on how he did it. I would be hard for me to disagree. the questions follow would be where was he? Where did he come from? What is he? Is he worthy of praise? etc etc.

But if this being could do all that what dose he need us for?

That really wouldn't prove much. With what we can do with technology now, we are practically gods compared to people thousands of years ago. What if a thousand years from now, we can change the environment on Mars to earthlike in three days? All a change like that would prove is that someone has a much higher level of tech than we do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 06:46 AM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
I think it is spot on to ask for extraordinary (more than ordinary) evidence for extraordinary claims, because that is exactly how science works.

Scientist A: "This species went extinct around 356.9 ± 1.6 million years ago based on its last occurrence in the fossil record and the radiometric ages of two ashfall layers, one above and one below the last occurrence."

Scientist B: "Actually, that species went extinct exactly 357,462,132 years, 226 days, and 16 hours ago."

Scientist A: "That claim seems to defy the logic of the practicable application of radiometric dating. Do you have any evidence to back this up?"

Scientist B: "Yeah, I have evidence. The radiometric ages of those ashfall layers you used give me that age."

Scientist A: "That evidence isn't sufficient to support your claim. You need something that has no error associated with it, analytical or otherwise."

Scientist B: "I think the species went extinct because of alien abduction."

Scientist A slowly backs away: "Okay...okay, 'Scientist' B, I believe you."

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 12:14 PM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
I think the point is we need to stop saying it because the average theist (in my experience) has about as much appreciation of the nuances of science as a cabbage has appreciation of fine art. By saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as Girly says, they sorta infer from that that *some* claims don't require evidence at all. Also they have got fuck all idea what "claim" or "evidence" actually mean. For example, they will cheerfully submit exhibit A, The Bible, as "extraordinary evidence".

And probably preach a sermon about it next Sunday. Something along the lines of "You know, I was chatting to my atheist friend the other day and he ran this line past me about extraordinary claims and I thought *by crikey* he's darn right! And I thought some more and you know *Jesus rose from the dead to save us all from sin!!!!* Can I get a hallelujah? HALLELUJAH! Amen. Is that not an extraordinary claim. And then I thought 'Well what about the evidence then?' and do you know what, *we* have been granted the evidence my friends. By *grace* ye are saved. *WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE GRACE* of the might Lord Jesus Christ to *understand* and *interpret* the scriptures! Is the BIBLE not all the evidence we need?" etc etc.

Never underestimate a Christee's ability to be a complete tool when it comes to such concepts. That's what I say. Fuck me. I feel unclean. Sadcryface

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
08-04-2016, 12:49 PM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
(08-04-2016 12:14 PM)morondog Wrote:  I think the point is we need to stop saying it because the average theist (in my experience) has about as much appreciation of the nuances of science as a cabbage has appreciation of fine art. By saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as Girly says, they sorta infer from that that *some* claims don't require evidence at all. Also they have got fuck all idea what "claim" or "evidence" actually mean. For example, they will cheerfully submit exhibit A, The Bible, as "extraordinary evidence".

And probably preach a sermon about it next Sunday. Something along the lines of "You know, I was chatting to my atheist friend the other day and he ran this line past me about extraordinary claims and I thought *by crikey* he's darn right! And I thought some more and you know *Jesus rose from the dead to save us all from sin!!!!* Can I get a hallelujah? HALLELUJAH! Amen. Is that not an extraordinary claim. And then I thought 'Well what about the evidence then?' and do you know what, *we* have been granted the evidence my friends. By *grace* ye are saved. *WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE GRACE* of the might Lord Jesus Christ to *understand* and *interpret* the scriptures! Is the BIBLE not all the evidence we need?" etc etc.

Never underestimate a Christee's ability to be a complete tool when it comes to such concepts. That's what I say. Fuck me. I feel unclean. Sadcryface

Theists simply misunderstand what the word "evidence" means when it comes to their claims. If they think that humans existing is "evidence" of their god because it is consistent with their worldview, then there is not really anything to argue. But in this case, asking for "extraordinary evidence" really just means asking for evidence of their supernatural being.

But yeah, the misinterpretation is on the theistic end of it, but it isn't going to go away by dropping the phrase because they already think they have evidence of their claims.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
08-04-2016, 02:41 PM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
(07-04-2016 05:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's the strange reasoning that some Christians give forth.

They think that if we know that a god exists then this takes our choice away with regards to obeying, worshiping, loving it.

But it doesn't. It actually enhances our ability to choose.
We can't, after all, choose to obey, worship or love something that we don't consider exists.

If the god is proven to exist we may still decide that the god is a douche or just merely some fascinating creature but not deserving of worship or love.

Ramen!

I had a conversation with a christian a while back on youtube. I never got a response from my last post with him.

I asked him how he would define a god, or how i could pike one out of a crowed. He said the omni's. I later said why don't you think god show's himself? He said it would hurt our free will. I said how could it? Even in the bible god makes himself know. He Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, the followers of Jesus. Now and days the pope supposedly has conversations with god. Why can't he just clear it all up and set things straight?

(08-04-2016 06:30 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  That really wouldn't prove much. With what we can do with technology now, we are practically gods compared to people thousands of years ago. What if a thousand years from now, we can change the environment on Mars to earthlike in three days? All a change like that would prove is that someone has a much higher level of tech than we do.

True. Can't really argue with that.

But i think that just leads to how a person would define a god. To a dog we may come off as God's.

If we found a race that lived 100 times longer then us, we might consider them immortal. Or with greater knowledge then us, we would say they have a vaslty Superior intellect. Really any race that would travel the stars would be.

But the big kicker is usually how the god is outside of our reality. (always a "convenient" fall back for the believer.)

Definitions of God/gods are always different.
I've been told he's microscopic and lives inside the atoms.
I've been told he's a tall handsome man with a halo.
that he's a beam of light.
that he's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent
That he can be anything he wants to be.

But even with that these descriptions they are not definitions.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Commonsensei's post
08-04-2016, 02:52 PM
RE: Extraordinary Evidence?
(08-04-2016 02:41 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  
(07-04-2016 05:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's the strange reasoning that some Christians give forth.

They think that if we know that a god exists then this takes our choice away with regards to obeying, worshiping, loving it.

But it doesn't. It actually enhances our ability to choose.
We can't, after all, choose to obey, worship or love something that we don't consider exists.

If the god is proven to exist we may still decide that the god is a douche or just merely some fascinating creature but not deserving of worship or love.

Ramen!

I had a conversation with a christian a while back on youtube. I never got a response from my last post with him.

I asked him how he would define a god, or how i could pike one out of a crowed. He said the omni's. I later said why don't you think god show's himself? He said it would hurt our free will. I said how could it? Even in the bible god makes himself know. He Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, the followers of Jesus. Now and days the pope supposedly has conversations with god. Why can't he just clear it all up and set things straight?

(08-04-2016 06:30 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  That really wouldn't prove much. With what we can do with technology now, we are practically gods compared to people thousands of years ago. What if a thousand years from now, we can change the environment on Mars to earthlike in three days? All a change like that would prove is that someone has a much higher level of tech than we do.

True. Can't really argue with that.

But i think that just leads to how a person would define a god. To a dog we may come off as God's.

If we found a race that lived 100 times longer then us, we might consider them immortal. Or with greater knowledge then us, we would say they have a vaslty Superior intellect. Really any race that would travel the stars would be.

But the big kicker is usually how the god is outside of our reality. (always a "convenient" fall back for the believer.)

Definitions of God/gods are always different.
I've been told he's microscopic and lives inside the atoms.
I've been told he's a tall handsome man with a halo.
that he's a beam of light.
that he's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent
That he can be anything he wants to be.

But even with that these descriptions they are not definitions.

You seem to be assuming that you are arguing with people that have a definition. They do not. To define it in any substantial way, can be disproven. They are vague for good reason. Give us an exact definition and we can test for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Birdguy1979's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: