Hitler's belief that the Germanic race was superior isn't based on science or evidence of any kind. It was a belief without evidence and would almost certainly have developed into a religion had Germany won the War and conquered the rest of the world.

Where did WOXOF express a point or opinion? He merely stated a fact.

Nazism would of stayed the same a ideology not a religion that's a fact. My original point was that people are the problem not religion and that anything can be manipulated. He said hitler was Christian as to point to something revelant it's not because hitler manipulated science your right no actual real evidence but nazi doctors did do eugenics and other test they did falsify which proves my point religion is not the problem it's people all things can be twisted for good or bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyways count me out this debate ****s a waste of time peace


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know about New Zealand, but here in the States the thought of an outright ban on alcohol not only occurred to us, but we did it for over a decade. It didn't work. People still got drunk, but courtesy of organized crime or scofflaws instead of through legal means. We've had a ban on marijuana for decades as well, but that also has been a failure as a matter of public policy.

So I don't think you are finding much support for a ban on circumcision in these examples.

A couple responses.

First, I think this is an extremely uncharitable description of religious parenting. That is, I think almost all the religious parents I know would, like Dawkins, disapprove of forcing a child to think a certain way about religion. Rather, parents who are religious typically think of their religion as being an important part of their social and spiritual life, and want their children to be religious so they can be a part of that life with them. But wanting your children to be religious doesn't mean that you think it's right to force them to be religious.

So it seems to me that Dawkins is really objecting more to a particularly style of parenting rather than religion per se. My guess is that most religious parents would agree with him.

Second, there is a disagreement here. You seem to think that the right way to raise children is to raise them as atheists until they are old enough, then have them take a comparative religion course and pick whichever one, if any, they fancy.

This just seems really unrealistic to me. Parents use religion to teach children social rules and norms. This begins happening as soon as they can talk. I would argue that this is one of your responsibilities as a parent. And most people are just going to teach what they know (especially because a lot of this teaching is by example and unintentional). Thus, if they are religious, they will teach or model religious values and lifestyle.

The main disagreement I have is that I don't think there is a neutral perspective here. Everyone has values and beliefs that they pass on to their children. What you are supposed to do as a parent is teach your children good values. If you think learning and rationality are important, your goal should be to pass on those values to your children. Similarly, if you think a love of god and the church are important, then you should endeavor to pass those on to your children as well.

So I am willing to criticize specific values or beliefs that religious people pass on to their children (eg attitudes towards homosexuality), but I don't see the justification for merely trying to pass on their beliefs and values when it seems to me that is exactly what atheists do as well.*

Finally, Dawkins is wrong about Marxist kids. In fact, political beliefs, just like religious beliefs, are heritable. But more pertinently, Dawkins has too narrow a view of religion. For instance, presumably Dawkins wouldn't object to talking about Jewish children. But is that an ethnicity or a religion? It has elements of both. But this is because religion is not just a matter of what you believe, but can also be a matter of the community to which you belong, your ethnicity, and other features of identity. These features of being religious can apply to children too young to have beliefs of their own.

*For instance, notice how your example of how to teach children about religion models a certain kind of rationalistic, objective, scientific way of belief formation popular among many atheists.

This is not a prime example of religious parenting. This is a religious cult of 300 people with extremely peculiar notions of religion and social life. Compare that to the billions of religious people who live in regular society.

Sure, I agree with this. Our disagreement is about where on the continuum the government should intervene, but we both agree that it should intervene in some cases.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe it is wrong to accept a blood transfusion. My view is that doctors should disregard these parent's preferences about this issue when operating on their children if it is critical to the health of the child.

I agree. Evil comes from the person, irrespective of whether or not they have religion. That's why it's equally irrelevant that Stalin (for example) was a non-believer. But so many religious people want to conclude that being a non-believer equals having no morals.

Sorry for derail.

Yes those things need to be created and have been created by someone. But does that mean that the world we live in is created by God? If so please provide some evidence. It might of been created but does that somebody have to be a God?

I wish God existed but let us just simply look at the evidence and circumstances first! If God truly existed would 90% of the worlds population really be living in such poor conditions? Would rapists really get away with with harming innocent people( and it is absolutely pointless/and idiotic to point out that they will get their punishment on judgement day, like so many religious people start spouting)

Would their really be a Satan, that is almost as powerful as the God that created him?

Would God really be God if all these terrible things were happening to his children, us humans?

I mean you can continue to bury your head in the sand and say yes, their is a God. But it is much more likely that God simply does not exist.

Now does another type of entity exist/alien that build this world and perhaps our universe. Perhaps! Are they Godly, definitely not! Can't be Godly. Unless you and I have a vastly different meaning to the word God!

Also one last thing, you are saying that science has no proof and it is therefor the same as religious people who just have a belief. Well there is a difference: Science is about truth, so if their is only belief and no truth or facts then that in itself is proof that God does not exist.

That's how science works, until you can provide evidence, science books will not be changed! It's the same for anything yet to be discovered, science books get updated once enough evidence is provided that it no longer is a belief!

Lastly we really don't even need science to tell us that God really does not exist, do we! All we have to do is look around us, look at the state of the world, to realise that God does not exist.

Again I'm not saying that an entity smarter than us humans don't exist but they can not be Godly.

Can we evolve into Godly creatures? I think it's possible! Does a God exist now! No Way!

I was not talking about if Jesus existed. I am talking about you believing that God exists and that Jesus is the son of God. You believe that without any evidence.

For a logical person, like yourself, don't you find that strange? I mean you wouldn't believe Santa Claus is real because, your logical brain tells you that it's a myth made up by man, you have logically looked for evidence and realised, there was no evidence to support that Santa actually exists, in fact it were your parents that put presents under the tree.

Yet I ask you "why do you believe God exists" without any evidence, you simply ignore my question. With the Santa Claus example you found evidence( your parents buying you presents), yet with God you have found zero evidence of him existing either, yet you simply continue to believe. All I am asking you is why? It does not seem logical!

I remember, you claimed in previous posts, that you did not have any evidence that God did exist! So why believe it then?

Yes the evidence is everywhere If I were to lay out all the supply's I needed to build a house wood doors nails etc what are the odds that it will build its self and a year from now it will be a perfect house. It will never happen yet people want you to believe the world creates its self but useing the house example we can come compare it to the world for an example the world is governed by laws everyone knows this it operates a certain way and to say that these universal laws came into play out of pure randomness is crazy when you study complex nature of the world. We can oberve the world and come to conclusions as to what the creator would be like for an example lives out side of the physical realm why because he created the physical realm highly powerful and intelligent why because the world is extremely complex and governed by laws. Even if you don't know the crew that built your house you can see the intelligence they had in order to build it anyways the hole if God exist why is the world **** that's pretty simple because people are dirtbags if I want to kill someone what does God have to do with it. If a good portion of the world is poor and hungry starving to death what does God have to do with it last time I checked we have enough resources to take care of eacth other but we rather spend trillions of dollars on war preparedness and other bs then care about humanity so the world is crap because people are crap God doesn't have to baby sit his creation and hold your hand. Also death is a fact of life it's not a bad nor good thing it's just a reality theirs a good quote it goes "the world is not a evil place because of the evil people that live in it the world is a evil place because of the good people who do nothing about it" I bet you haven't contributed much to charity or have done much of any volunteer work to help homeless or poor countries like Africa. So don't bash God for giving everyone free will then say he's responsible for the bad things when 99 percent of the people who are pampered that live in richer countries choose to sit on their ass and do nothing for humanity and watch tv. I would ask you to provide proof that God doesn't exist but that can't be done same for the argument that he does. the truth is if we all rely on scientific fact we would all have to be agnostic because both sides argument is a possibility but no side has any proof.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You keep making this assertion. Why? What do you know about what I believe and why I believe it?

No, because you're drawing a terrible analogy between two non-analogous situations. Are you able to understand that?

I have plenty of evidence that I'd be simply wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

Once again, your lack of ability to come up with a meaningful analogy only makes you look dumb and doesn't reflect poorly on me at all.

All of this makes me think you're somewhat lacking in your capacities of reading comprehension. I challenge you to find that post and quote the full context to demonstrate I've said such a thing.

You are making an error here. you are using "create" in two different ways. Nothing you have ever seen, and nothing you have ever created, has actually been created in the way that you claim the universe was. Everything you have ever seen, and everything you have created yourself, was already existing, and so while you can claim to have created a painting, you have actually just rearranged existing matter, and havent created anything in the way that you mean when you talk about creating universes, ie "created from nothing" or "created by god".

I understand your point but it's a little off track as to what we're trying to debate. The universe had a point of creation from nothing not what was already existing and out of pure nothing came intelligent crafting of what has now came into existents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyways guys please do not quote me anymore this could go on forever and I don't feel like debating this stuff lol feel like I'm in school again you guys have a good day though good luck at the tables too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not off track at all, you are using human creation as evidence that the universe was created. I don't think it shows that at all

Like I said your off point I my reference to a builder is about the universal laws which we observe like cause and effect some force Something must contribute to another we witness that everywhere from watering a plant and it grows to wind blowing a knocking something over so in the beginning if there is nothing based off what we know and can observe nothing creates nothing unless some force or someone causes something to happen sorry I don't believe in your religion of nothing that some how creates a amazing world out of complete randomness



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

again, you are using your observation of cause and effect and creation, and applying it to a situation that you can have no knowledge of , and is likely nothing like what we observe in everyday life.

Next time use paragraphs. But for now lets look at this quote of yours you like so much.

"the world is not a evil place because of the evil people that live in it the world is a evil place because of the good people who do nothing about it"

So you agree that good people should do more? Yet when I ask you why God does nothing at all, you simply bury your head in the sand again!

Nonsense such as why should God do anything blah blah blah!!! It really is blah, you can't argue that good people should do something but at the same time then turn around and say God should not have to? I mean that's stupidity at it's finest, and most religious people spout that crap all the time! My conclusion, God does not exist or he is a scum bag like the rest of his creations!

Also God made us in his image did he not? So maybe that's why people are such scumbags, just a thought!

God should most definitely babysit his children, it would be absolutely idiotic to suggest otherwise, unless of course you don't care for your children. We are still infants rights now. A mere 2 million years old or so, give or take, the universe is almost 14 billion years old!!! You are saying I should not babysit my 2 year old toddler! Such nonsense!

Just because you think a certain way does not make it right! Keep that in mind!

God has to do a lot with his own creation, he created us in the first place. When you start saying idiotic stuff like, why should he care if people are bad and killing and raping and stuff. He should care because 1. Innocent people get hurt by these animals 2. He is God and he could of stopped them doing this. So is he a sadistic monster, that he just lets these animals do these things?

Unless of course your God can not stop these things? Can your God stop these things, can he make this world a better place?

I like the house example, but it still does not bring anything to the table. As I stated already, even if our universe was created, it does not have to be created by God!

I really do not know why you are trying to start an argument and get all personal, I have given to charity, donated clothes and money. Have I been to Africa or other 3rd world Countries and offered my services, no I have not. I am actually very poor, considering I live in the Western world. I would bet my left nut though that I'd give more than the average rich person if I had their wealth.

Anyway I could go on and on. I would like you to re-think your previous post, and think about why you think God should not be pro-active when it comes to love, nurture, protecting and healing.

Why should a mere mortal give a **** over another mortal, when his creator does not give 2 ****s himself!

You seem to have a lot of excuses but I have heard them all before, it is almost Satanic!

Lets carry on, the assertion I made is correct; Do you want to continue? I am curious about the evidence you have, "The existence of God", this is what I am talking about!

Just edited this in. You say why should God give a **** if he gave free will but then people do bad stuff right. Well don't you think he has a responsibility to make sure that the ones that are doing right should not get hurt by the ones who are doing wrong? I mean he did give out free will but he can't be serious if he expects the ones who also have free will but are not doing bad things to just be abused by these bad people. That is his responsibility, don't you think?

It's not, but that you think you are simply points to your arrogance and delusion and not so much anything about what I believe.

That depends. What depth of intellectual honesty are you willing to put forth in an effort to understand?

Before I can get there, you must first understand why your analogy with Santa Claus is a horrible analogy. Here's what you claimed:

Let's actually analyze how poor of a model of belief this is.

(1) This is an assertion that actually needs quite a bit of teasing out. For example, there is a historical figure Saint Nicolas. So depending on which image of Saint Nicolas you're using, you would be making a false claim about a myth made up by man. Also, "logic" as an abstract collection of thoughts doesn't actually tell me anything about "Santa Claus" (either the myth or the actual human at the origin of the myth)

(2) You throw the word "logically" around as if it does work for you even though it doesn't. You make a claim of "looking for evidence" here without actually citing what type of evidence you're considering. When analyzing your argument, at (4) you refer to parents putting presents under the tree. Well, presents under the tree would actually be a form of evidence of Santa Claus, not evidence against. So it's not clear how consistent your reasoning here is.

(3) This is just an assertion. Much like your other assertions, you're just throwing around the phrase "no evidence" as if you actually understand what it means even though it seems quite apparent you really have very little clue what you're talking about.

(4) This claim doesn't really fit into your argument at all. You've been talking about logic a whole bunch, but now you're inserting an evidentiary claim (specifically, an observation) but then you don't explain the origins of this claim. You've imagined that somehow I've figured out that my parents put the presents under the tree. Was this because I saw them do it? Or did I reason this from circumstantial evidence? It's far from clear in your presentation.

Mostly, the problem at hand is that you seem to have no actual clue how people come to believe things. And because of that, you will have no actual clue about how I have come to believe things.

So let's start with this analysis. Are you able to comprehend why your own argument sucks so badly? Are you able to form an actual argument that shows how one would actually conclude that Santa Claus (as a mythological person that climbs down chimneys and leaves presents under trees for children) doesn't exist as a physical entity?

So you are saying that my assertion is incorrect and you do not believe God exists? I could of sworn you were a Christian.

Just to make things clear, you are not a Christian and God does not exist, correct?

Aaaaaaaaron is a diehard catholic but he always gets a little cranky when the worthless little fairytales he believes in are under attack.

It's a funny sight when he flings all of these sciency words around, claiming to effectively defend the fairytales.
Poor soul does not realize that the very logic he (unsuccessfully) tries to use auto-debunks every single one of his weird claims.

I already suggested going back to SMP to him where he can help young people understand very basic math. He's pretty good at it.
But defending religion? Nah. Totally out of his zone. Every post of him reads like a clueless geezer stubbornly defending his unimportant belief systems.

I see, that clears some things up for me, especially why he uses so much logic around my posts that are not very relevant to my question. I hoped he would use that logic to answer my questions.

I am not berating anybody BTW, you may believe what you want. I am just curious, really. I asked Aron in particular because he does come across as a smart guy and seems quite logical. Hence why I think it would make for a good debate!

I for one do not dismiss the idea of a God completely. I mean I lean defo more in the God does not exist camp, but anything is possible, I guess, just because it seems implausible in my eyes that God does exist, does not make it true!

So I ask and engage with people, as to why they believe, hoping to perhaps pick up some wisdom along the way.

In a way I kind of understand people like Aron, especially on a forum like this, were a lot of other posters are just plain rude and sometimes way out of line. I also understand how you can get quite defensive about people questioning your beliefs.

Hope I haven't offended anyone here, I have been known in the past to get a little carried away but I have tried my best to be as civil as possible.

Flickstracey was a troll account of a previously banned user, so I would be cautious about believing what he says about anyone.

The assertion Aaron responded to here was:

"You [Aaron W.] believe that without any evidence." Not whether he is a Christian or God exists.

You've at least confirmed that my challenge to your approach has merit:

But the question at this point is not particularly intellectual. (As in, it's not something where what we might consider "intelligence" or the lack thereof as the defining characteristic of the issue.) It's one of perspective. You come here with guns blazing and making all sorts of claims, but in reality you have no idea what you're talking about at all.

Maybe that should give you pause, and that it should perhaps open you up to the idea that maybe this entire enterprise of knowing and understanding things probably shouldn't be reduced to you simply coming through and asserting this and that about what others believe. Maybe you should start by doing a more honest assessment of what you believe and why you believe those things.