Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The operative words are "was about". The Holocaust was about technology and not moral decay. Your original expression is consistent with atheistic beliefs about life being accidental.

So your premise is genocide has no relationship to morality, because morality is subjective. Yet you claim the Nazis' violated a social contract?

Explain how their actions were a violation of the social contract, which is based upon self-interest, and not just a modification.

And since Actor believes this nonsense, AND he also believes, apparently, that the Nuremberg Trials were the greatest expression of justice on the planet -- that these trials were the game-changer for man's treatment of his fellow -- then we must wonder how he can believe this since those trials would have been extremely unjust given that that the Holocaust was not about moral behavior but merely about technology.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The operative words are "was about". The Holocaust was about technology and not moral decay.

I apologize for not explaining as well as I could have, but then my opus was for an internet forum, not a peer reviewed journal, otherwise an editor (human, not software) would have caught it. Allow me to rephrase: the magnitude of the holocaust was made possible by a more advanced technology than was previously available.

I predict the you, boxcar, et al, will try to make as much hay as possible from my clarification.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Your original expression is consistent with atheistic beliefs about life being accidental.

Which original expression?

By the way not all atheists would agree that life is accidental. I do not consider life to be accidental.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

So your premise is genocide has no relationship to morality, because morality is subjective.

No. That is your incorrect conclusion. The point under discussion was whether the (subjective) morality of the human race is in decline. I simply point out that there is no convincing evidence that it is.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yet you claim the Nazis' violated a social contract?

Explain how their actions were a violation of the social contract, which is based upon self-interest, and not just a modification.

Who said the social contract is based on self-interest?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You prove how self-interest can be an objective truth.

I do not recall making any statement as to the truth or falsity of that statement. For one thing the statement is vague. Define "objective truth."

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Your position is the Nazis' violated the social contract. To have a violation there has to exist an objective standard or truth, which the contract is based upon. If according to atheistic thought ...

There is no dogma in atheism. Atheists agree on only one thing: there is no evidence that any deity exists. That's the definition of atheism.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

By definition the contract can be modified by the the governing authority, based on the self-interest of the government or the society it governs.

So? In the case of the holocaust the governing body was international law, i.e., humanity itself. That body did not modify the contract to permit the holocaust and the Nazis paid the price.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you, Mr. Anti-Religion, are implying no one on this planet has an agenda or "vested interest" in anything, unless they're religious?

No, I am not. There are secular agendas. For example, Nero had an agenda when he blamed the great fire on the Christians.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Did the apostles amass a fortune doing their jobs?

You mean the 11, the 12 minus Judas? Unless you can prove these people actually existed the question is meaningless.

Originally Posted by boxcar

They only had status among the faithful, but to the world at large, they were hated and despised. Just as the world hated Christ so, too, did it hate his disciples. The apostles and disciples of Christ had far more to lose in this life than to gain. Besides, people don't risk all, including their life, by propagating what they know are lies.

The sheep, i.e., the rank and file, probably did not know it was a lie. If the Pope is an atheist do you think he would tell the world?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I apologize for not explaining as well as I could have, but then my opus was for an internet forum, not a peer reviewed journal, otherwise an editor (human, not software) would have caught it. Allow me to rephrase: the magnitude of the holocaust was made possible by a more advanced technology than was previously available.

I predict the you, boxcar, et al, will try to make as much hay as possible from my clarification.
Which original expression?

By the way not all atheists would agree that life is accidental. I do not consider life to be accidental.
No. That is your incorrect conclusion. The point under discussion was whether the (subjective) morality of the human race is in decline. I simply point out that there is no convincing evidence that it is.
Who said the social contract is based on self-interest?

Why would I try to make hay out of your omission? Mistakes happen. If my conclusion is incorrect, it is incorrect specifically due to your error of omitting a word making your sentence faulty. You omitted a word which changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Are you going to ask me what word?

I am interested in what other viewpoints atheism holds for the reason of existence of human life. Is it designed?

Where is your convincing evidence German society's morality did not decline?

The more relevant question who said the theory of social contract is not based on self-interest?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Besides, people don't risk all, including their life, by propagating what they know are lies.

No...but people do sometimes risk it all, including their lives...to propagate lies which they consider to be true. Hitler, for instance, thought that he was a "good man"...who was speaking the "truth".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

There is no dogma in atheism. Atheists agree on only one thing: there is no evidence that any deity exists. That's the definition of atheism.

That is your definition of "atheism. At its core, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity, regardless of any supposed reason. It is actually the doctrine of same! (See M-W Collegiate Dictionary.) Also, this dictionary agrees with the biblical definition of atheism, i.e. "The fool says in his heart that there is no God". Such a fool could believe this for any number of reasons. If 12 fools had as many different reasons, the bottom line belief for each of them would be the same. Therefore, atheists are quite dogmatic in their disbelief.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I do not recall making any statement as to the truth or falsity of that statement. For one thing the statement is vague. Define "objective truth."
There is no dogma in atheism. Atheists agree on only one thing: there is no evidence that any deity exists. That's the definition of atheism.
So? In the case of the holocaust the governing body was international law, i.e., humanity itself. That body did not modify the contract to permit the holocaust and the Nazis paid the price.

Objective truth is vague. Now that is amusing. You do understand the difference between subjective criteria and objective criteria, don't you? Maybe you are having a problem of understanding the concept of truth? Maybe this will help? As of yesterday you were not physically deceased.

Do you know what a dogma is?

Do you understand the theory of social contract? There is no international governing body. Look at the impotence of the U.N and its forerunner, the league of nations. We are not globalists yet.

If Germany won the war, there would not have been a so-called international tribunal convicting people of war crimes. The victors imposed their will, based on their self-interests, upon Germany and its leaders and military. Also, if Germany only committed genocide within its sovereign borders and did not wage war against the victors, there would have been no consequences from the rest of humanity for Germany's government actions in governing its citizens.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No...but people do sometimes risk it all, including their lives...to propagate lies which they consider to be true. Hitler, for instance, thought that he was a "good man"...who was speaking the "truth".

But this couldn't possibly be the case with the 11 apostles since they all claimed to have seen the risen Christ for 40 days after his resurrection. Are you telling us that the apostles thought they were good people for spreading what they knew was a lie to the people? The apostles had absolutely nothing to gain by fighting Rome and the Jewish religious establishment by preaching things they knew were untrue.

[thaskalos]

A painting of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus...by an artist whose name might surprise you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painti...yWithJesus.jpg

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But this couldn't possibly be the case with the 11 apostles since they all claimed to have seen the risen Christ for 40 days after his resurrection. Are you telling us that the apostles thought they were good people for spreading what they knew was a lie to the people? The apostles had absolutely nothing to gain by fighting Rome and the Jewish religious establishment by preaching things they knew were untrue.

There are "disciples" of every religious persuasion who place themselves in great personal danger in order to promote their respective religions, and yet...you find their religions thoroughly unconvincing. What makes Christianity so much more "believable"?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, I am not. There are secular agendas. For example, Nero had an agenda when he blamed the great fire on the Christians.
You mean the 11, the 12 minus Judas? Unless you can prove these people actually existed the question is meaningless.
The sheep, i.e., the rank and file, probably did not know it was a lie. If the Pope is an atheist do you think he would tell the world?

Can you prove the disciples didn't exist? I'm still waiting for first century testimony to this effect, especially with regards to Christ. You came up a wee bit short in your last anemic attempt to provide such evidence.

And since you agree that godless, wicked human beings can have biases and their own agendas, then I stand by my take on the high priests of scientism. No one comes into this world loving God. Quite the contrary. All come into the world hating him, which provides quite the motive for fallen mankind to deny him outright or in some other way to rebel against him.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Can you prove the disciples didn't exist? I'm still waiting for first century testimony to this effect, especially with regards to Christ. You came up a wee bit short in your last anemic attempt to provide such evidence.

And since you agree that godless, wicked human beings can have biases and their own agendas, then I stand by my take on the high priests of scientism. No one comes into this world loving God. Quite the contrary. All come into the world hating him, which provides quite the motive for fallen mankind to deny him outright or in some other way to rebel against him.

And I suppose you can provide proof to support this absurd assertion.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There are "disciples" of every religious persuasion who place themselves in great personal danger in order to promote their respective religions, and yet...you find their religions thoroughly unconvincing. What makes Christianity so much more "believable"?

Because unlike those disciples of "every religions persuasion" under the sun testify that they actually saw the risen Christ for 40 days AFTER his resurrection. You cannot see the difference? In the case of all the others, they were delusional and believed what they thought was true; but in the case of Christ's disciples, if they didn't see him and weren't taught by him for 40 days, then they KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY taught a lie to the entire world.

Which disciples of what religious persuasion ever told the world that their Master returned to life?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But this couldn't possibly be the case with the 11 apostles since they all claimed to have seen the risen Christ for 40 days after his resurrection.

You keep asking others for "proof" to back up their opinions...without realizing that you yourself have never provided anything which could even REMOTELY be mistaken as "proof"...for the statements that you have made here. What "proof" have the 11 apostles left behind to suggest that they all saw the "risen Christ" for 40 days after his resurrection? Can you point me to any authentic writings that these apostles left behind?