ChatterBank1 min ago
no more religion
50 Answers
Will all the major religions eventually die out due to lack of interest and irrelevance ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Interesting viewpoint Stlyley, I had a run in with 3 lads in a car yesterday (foul mouthed horrible little turds) maybe they were Presbyterians!
I love this atheistic mantra that they are free thinkers and possess some form of wisdom bereft of others.
I could show you free thinkng atheists who just repeat adhom wht they read, critical thinking eh?
I love the way they view creationists as mindless drones wasting their lives on self denial and drudgery.
Creationism is diverse and colourful, go to a gospel church, go to a Muslim country and see the diversity of religious expression, they all think, we all think. We all think differently that's all.
In my experience the most spiteful, the most malevolent, the most intolerant, the nastiest and most bigotted people are atheists.
I'm no Charlie Church, I can get along with them (I have to I work with em), but I shudder at some of the notions and "insights" they have.
But atheism has no ideology so that has nothing to do with atheism, as another said "it's a tidy little loop hole".
Simple question, is this country, are we as a people better off without God?
I love this atheistic mantra that they are free thinkers and possess some form of wisdom bereft of others.
I could show you free thinkng atheists who just repeat adhom wht they read, critical thinking eh?
I love the way they view creationists as mindless drones wasting their lives on self denial and drudgery.
Creationism is diverse and colourful, go to a gospel church, go to a Muslim country and see the diversity of religious expression, they all think, we all think. We all think differently that's all.
In my experience the most spiteful, the most malevolent, the most intolerant, the nastiest and most bigotted people are atheists.
I'm no Charlie Church, I can get along with them (I have to I work with em), but I shudder at some of the notions and "insights" they have.
But atheism has no ideology so that has nothing to do with atheism, as another said "it's a tidy little loop hole".
Simple question, is this country, are we as a people better off without God?
That's a little bit like asking whether we, in this country, are better off without heroin. Those who are into it like it and it makes them feel good, but it doesn't say anything about whether or not it's true.
As for creationists, creationism is just nonsense that requires either massive self-delusion or ignorance to believe in, though you seem to be using it in some new and special sense which I don't recognise, akin to any belief in religion (which it is not).
As for creationists, creationism is just nonsense that requires either massive self-delusion or ignorance to believe in, though you seem to be using it in some new and special sense which I don't recognise, akin to any belief in religion (which it is not).
I agree with 123 Everton. In my experience the most spiteful, the most malevolent, the most intolerant, the nastiest and most bigotted people are atheists. Because when you know that once you are dead there would be no question answer session because you do not even believe in it. Then you would do whatever you feel like in this world.
Yes all the atheists believe that creationists are dumb and have no brain at all. But one question I asked so many times and no evolutionist could answer satisfactorily so far. If human evolved from whatever they say he evolved from then why since then he has not changed anymore You do need brain to think about this simplest of the questions.
However one man had breathing problems,
1. Heart specialist operated on his heat with no success,
2. ENT specialist suggested inflamed sinuses, operated on, no result,
3. Gastro specialist suggested a different operation to reduce something else, no result
4. Psychologist suggested a different kind of therapy, still no result.
5. Personal trainer suggested more cardio exercises, guess what? No result.
He goes to a tailor to get few new clothes stitched (no ready made), measuring his neck man suggested that collar should be a bit tighter as it helps with his neck tie at work. Tailor said �You always wear shirt with a bit too tight collar, no wonder you have breathing problems� Problem solved, but a bit too late. Reason, Well he used his brain a bit too much and did not use common sense at all.
Yes all the atheists believe that creationists are dumb and have no brain at all. But one question I asked so many times and no evolutionist could answer satisfactorily so far. If human evolved from whatever they say he evolved from then why since then he has not changed anymore You do need brain to think about this simplest of the questions.
However one man had breathing problems,
1. Heart specialist operated on his heat with no success,
2. ENT specialist suggested inflamed sinuses, operated on, no result,
3. Gastro specialist suggested a different operation to reduce something else, no result
4. Psychologist suggested a different kind of therapy, still no result.
5. Personal trainer suggested more cardio exercises, guess what? No result.
He goes to a tailor to get few new clothes stitched (no ready made), measuring his neck man suggested that collar should be a bit tighter as it helps with his neck tie at work. Tailor said �You always wear shirt with a bit too tight collar, no wonder you have breathing problems� Problem solved, but a bit too late. Reason, Well he used his brain a bit too much and did not use common sense at all.
Another quality bunch of non-sequiteurs and gibberish from the Holocaust denier.
"If human evolved from whatever they say he evolved from then why since then he has not changed anymore?"
That just shows a basic lack of understanding of evolution and time on your part, not a problem with evolution.
Plenty of things haven't evolved very much in millions of years. Sharks, for example, have barely evolved at all. The reason for this is that they're already pretty much perfectly adapted to their environment.
Modern humans have only been about for about 250,000 years, but nevertheless, there is a substantial period of 150,000 years or so where fossils show a gradual change from the features of Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens as we know them today.
Homo Erectus from which we evolved was around from about 1.8 million years ago to 70,000 years ago.
The point about evolution is that change is very gradual over a long period of time. You don't have a Homo Erectus that gives birth to Homo Sapien. There would be many many stages inbetween each only slightly different from the one before (this is why Clanad's oft-claimed problem that evolutionary biologists can't even define a species is such a nonsense - the whole point about evolution is that one species becomes another over a long time with loads of in-between' stages).
We don't know how humans will evolve, but it's certain that if we survive long enough, we will.
"If human evolved from whatever they say he evolved from then why since then he has not changed anymore?"
That just shows a basic lack of understanding of evolution and time on your part, not a problem with evolution.
Plenty of things haven't evolved very much in millions of years. Sharks, for example, have barely evolved at all. The reason for this is that they're already pretty much perfectly adapted to their environment.
Modern humans have only been about for about 250,000 years, but nevertheless, there is a substantial period of 150,000 years or so where fossils show a gradual change from the features of Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens as we know them today.
Homo Erectus from which we evolved was around from about 1.8 million years ago to 70,000 years ago.
The point about evolution is that change is very gradual over a long period of time. You don't have a Homo Erectus that gives birth to Homo Sapien. There would be many many stages inbetween each only slightly different from the one before (this is why Clanad's oft-claimed problem that evolutionary biologists can't even define a species is such a nonsense - the whole point about evolution is that one species becomes another over a long time with loads of in-between' stages).
We don't know how humans will evolve, but it's certain that if we survive long enough, we will.
Welcome back Waldo.
The point is before liberal militancy decided to preach that you're better off without God, that by the mere mention of God they'd cry foul. We had a cohesive identity, we had a set of values that all people could identify with as a base point. They still went out and got drunk etc but what they did'nt do was harrass people in their own homes, vandalise their cars and beat them to death, p1ss on their walls and beat them to death, steal their cars and kill them for it, steal from shops and walk casually away and stand there laughing at the staff, stand on street corners spitting and swearing profusely wrecking parks and smashing bottles in the childrens play area, setting fire to schools, I said at the beginning that humanism is a failure (a nice idea) you just can't sell it to the people en-mass because people will always want more, and will always lust for power over others.
I'll simplify it for you.
How many Jesuits ave you seen vandalising a phone box?
How many Jews have you seen mugging old ladies?
How many people have been beaten up by Quakers?
Most if not all of these crimes, and the many such scumbags I deal with daily would profess not to believe in God, they are certainly not practising any religion that I recognise.
People who have or practise belief statistically are far less likely to turn to violent crime.
If you plan to cite religious wars and conflicts in your riposte, perhaps you could indulge us by naming them?
The point is before liberal militancy decided to preach that you're better off without God, that by the mere mention of God they'd cry foul. We had a cohesive identity, we had a set of values that all people could identify with as a base point. They still went out and got drunk etc but what they did'nt do was harrass people in their own homes, vandalise their cars and beat them to death, p1ss on their walls and beat them to death, steal their cars and kill them for it, steal from shops and walk casually away and stand there laughing at the staff, stand on street corners spitting and swearing profusely wrecking parks and smashing bottles in the childrens play area, setting fire to schools, I said at the beginning that humanism is a failure (a nice idea) you just can't sell it to the people en-mass because people will always want more, and will always lust for power over others.
I'll simplify it for you.
How many Jesuits ave you seen vandalising a phone box?
How many Jews have you seen mugging old ladies?
How many people have been beaten up by Quakers?
Most if not all of these crimes, and the many such scumbags I deal with daily would profess not to believe in God, they are certainly not practising any religion that I recognise.
People who have or practise belief statistically are far less likely to turn to violent crime.
If you plan to cite religious wars and conflicts in your riposte, perhaps you could indulge us by naming them?
Who's back? Who's been anywhere. Not me.
When did this mythical time where no one got mugged etc happen? Dates please.
Since I've never seen anyone in the process of getting mugged or beaten up, and since I've never seen anyone in the act of vandalising a phone, since even if I had, I would hardly be stupid enough to try and ascertain their religious convictions in the middle of such acts, I am unable to answer your question.
My question remains however; even if that is 100% true (and your portrayal is frankly ridiculous), what does it say about whether God exists?
Nada.
When did this mythical time where no one got mugged etc happen? Dates please.
Since I've never seen anyone in the process of getting mugged or beaten up, and since I've never seen anyone in the act of vandalising a phone, since even if I had, I would hardly be stupid enough to try and ascertain their religious convictions in the middle of such acts, I am unable to answer your question.
My question remains however; even if that is 100% true (and your portrayal is frankly ridiculous), what does it say about whether God exists?
Nada.
My mistake Waldo.
I was just answering the question of whether religion "will die out due to lack of interest and irrelevance" I say no, I've proffered my observation based on history and personal experience that politics would replace it.
Nobody's said a word about the existence of God (completely different question).
P.S.
I deal with scumbags on a daily basis, so I can speak with a little authority on their mindsets.
But on a lighter note perhaps you could give us the "humanist" calendar of festivals now that we've established the abolition of Valentines day (for all of us who are cerebally chemicaly osmotically attached) what other festivals shall we have? I've come up with 3, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and May Day (for the Socialist in me).
Any advances on 3?
I was just answering the question of whether religion "will die out due to lack of interest and irrelevance" I say no, I've proffered my observation based on history and personal experience that politics would replace it.
Nobody's said a word about the existence of God (completely different question).
P.S.
I deal with scumbags on a daily basis, so I can speak with a little authority on their mindsets.
But on a lighter note perhaps you could give us the "humanist" calendar of festivals now that we've established the abolition of Valentines day (for all of us who are cerebally chemicaly osmotically attached) what other festivals shall we have? I've come up with 3, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and May Day (for the Socialist in me).
Any advances on 3?
My mistake - I understood you were making some point about the apparent failures of atheism (Incidentally, I would point to the US as perhaps the best proof that high levels of belief in God and religion does not translate to a crime free society, and compare with Sweden where atheism is extremely high and crime low (I wouldn't suggest this is a reflection of atheism either, merely progressive social policies)).
You can't have it both ways. Either religion and God won't die out, or we're in the middle of a crisis that is caused by the very fact that it is. Which is it?
As for the holidays, I don't particularly care; there's a million and one things the nation could choose to celebrate, but ultimately they'd mean no more or less than the saint's days do - a day off work.
'National How Come If Atheists Are So Bad, They Make Up A Lower Percentage Of The Prison Population Than Their Percentage Of Overall Population In the UK, Huh? Huh? Huh? Riddle Me That, Jeebus-Botherer Day' sounds pretty catchy though.
You can't have it both ways. Either religion and God won't die out, or we're in the middle of a crisis that is caused by the very fact that it is. Which is it?
As for the holidays, I don't particularly care; there's a million and one things the nation could choose to celebrate, but ultimately they'd mean no more or less than the saint's days do - a day off work.
'National How Come If Atheists Are So Bad, They Make Up A Lower Percentage Of The Prison Population Than Their Percentage Of Overall Population In the UK, Huh? Huh? Huh? Riddle Me That, Jeebus-Botherer Day' sounds pretty catchy though.
The failure I was venturing to point out is humanism, it is (I understand) to be taught in schools during RE.
I'm not having it both ways, I believe that religion offers the answers to world peace, and by definition (to make it clearer for you) we need more religion and more understanding of religion in our society and that will make it better.
From what I can read at the end of your post is yet another example of the dullness of atheism.
You are a commited and passionate atheist(?) which is to your credit but even you can't think of things to bring people and nations together for one day, religion can.
On Christmas day 1914 the guns fell silent, and for several more they largely remained. Humanism could'nt bring about that effect.
The great dictator and atheist Hitler began the Battle of the Bulge on the same day 30 years later, ironic or what?
I don't bother anyone with my faith, only yourselves! ;-)
I'm not having it both ways, I believe that religion offers the answers to world peace, and by definition (to make it clearer for you) we need more religion and more understanding of religion in our society and that will make it better.
From what I can read at the end of your post is yet another example of the dullness of atheism.
You are a commited and passionate atheist(?) which is to your credit but even you can't think of things to bring people and nations together for one day, religion can.
On Christmas day 1914 the guns fell silent, and for several more they largely remained. Humanism could'nt bring about that effect.
The great dictator and atheist Hitler began the Battle of the Bulge on the same day 30 years later, ironic or what?
I don't bother anyone with my faith, only yourselves! ;-)
I don�t often profess to admire anything much of what is written by individuals on Answerbank, or R&S � whether they be of a religious throng or a lonesome atheist - but I have to say 123, I find your prose distinctly profound and most equitable.
I was not aware of a religious crisis, merely a dip in the natural cycle. If anything, it is something that has the whole world talking, even today.
I was not aware of a religious crisis, merely a dip in the natural cycle. If anything, it is something that has the whole world talking, even today.
The ceasefire on Christmas Day 1914 was down to Paul MacCartney, as you well know.
But seriously, you're claiming a few localised ceasefires on one day of the year is symptomatic of religion's power for goodness? Those same religious people went back to blowing the sh*t out of each other the next day, both knowing God was on their side and willing them to butcher the opposing side. Gott Staffe England.
What did God do? The most bloody conflict the world had ever known. The senseless slaughter of millions of men as a result of botched international diplomacy and for a few yards of filth, the ceasationof which conflict directly laid the foundations for an even bigger and more disgusting slaughter and tragedy just over twenty years later.
B*ggered if I can see the great hand of God in that almighty clusterf*ck.
B*ggered if I can see anything that suggests relgion is worthy of special attention.
Well done, religion. How much better off we are with you? Just think how barbaric we could be without your civilising influence to convince poor, stupid boys that what they were doing was noble.
Not one single, pointless, crude, jot.
You say humanism couldn't bring about the silencing of the guns. Maybe it couldn't. Perhaps another pertinant factor to consider is that those stupid, naive and murderous boys on both sides of the battlefield were almost all Christians.
But seriously, you're claiming a few localised ceasefires on one day of the year is symptomatic of religion's power for goodness? Those same religious people went back to blowing the sh*t out of each other the next day, both knowing God was on their side and willing them to butcher the opposing side. Gott Staffe England.
What did God do? The most bloody conflict the world had ever known. The senseless slaughter of millions of men as a result of botched international diplomacy and for a few yards of filth, the ceasationof which conflict directly laid the foundations for an even bigger and more disgusting slaughter and tragedy just over twenty years later.
B*ggered if I can see the great hand of God in that almighty clusterf*ck.
B*ggered if I can see anything that suggests relgion is worthy of special attention.
Well done, religion. How much better off we are with you? Just think how barbaric we could be without your civilising influence to convince poor, stupid boys that what they were doing was noble.
Not one single, pointless, crude, jot.
You say humanism couldn't bring about the silencing of the guns. Maybe it couldn't. Perhaps another pertinant factor to consider is that those stupid, naive and murderous boys on both sides of the battlefield were almost all Christians.
The ceasefire did though happen, and it did last a while longer than Christmas day.
Humanism did'nt prevent the WW2 (although it favoured appeasement) and we do agree it was'nt for God's greater glory that the wars were prosecuted.
God did'nt kill the men in the Great War, other men did.
But religion reminded them of their own humanity for a moment the war ended and peace threatened to give the Empires a jolt as mighty as Gabriel's trumpet blow. Threatened, cajoled and manipulated men went back to fighting the government's war.
That's politics for you.
That's politicians for you.
Look at Hitler.
An atheist, staunchly anti-Christian his political policies are described by historians as "neo-Darwinist".
Thankyou Darwin for the barbarities you gave to us, thankyou for the gassing of the Jews, the "feeble minded", the gypys, the enslavement of the Slavs, the persecution of homosexuals and all the others.
If only I believed that, then I could concur with your take on aspects of religious history. But people wil take God's word and perjure for their own ends, people will take Darwin's word and perjure it for their own ends.
All sin is founded in reason.
Humanism did'nt prevent the WW2 (although it favoured appeasement) and we do agree it was'nt for God's greater glory that the wars were prosecuted.
God did'nt kill the men in the Great War, other men did.
But religion reminded them of their own humanity for a moment the war ended and peace threatened to give the Empires a jolt as mighty as Gabriel's trumpet blow. Threatened, cajoled and manipulated men went back to fighting the government's war.
That's politics for you.
That's politicians for you.
Look at Hitler.
An atheist, staunchly anti-Christian his political policies are described by historians as "neo-Darwinist".
Thankyou Darwin for the barbarities you gave to us, thankyou for the gassing of the Jews, the "feeble minded", the gypys, the enslavement of the Slavs, the persecution of homosexuals and all the others.
If only I believed that, then I could concur with your take on aspects of religious history. But people wil take God's word and perjure for their own ends, people will take Darwin's word and perjure it for their own ends.
All sin is founded in reason.
Firstly, obviously, since I don't believe in God, I don't blame God. My point was that it's manifestly obvious that there is no such God and all such claims are hollow.
You can espouse religion and God, these mystical, supernatural wonders as these great and magical things, but they did nothing. Why does God always do nothing? Why is your God so utterly pathetic?
Saying, 'oh, God didn't kill the soldiers' is just a get out clause. I'm certainly not suggesting he did. I don't think he exists.
But what *does* he do? You claim he's loving and mighty, but he's not by his own followers' testimony . He's utterly ineffectual and cr@p. His followers swear that they have person experience of God, that he appeared to them or intervened, yet he only does it when it's trivial and insignificant. He'll apparently rescue two believers from a forest fire, maybe, but not stop a genocide.
Humanism, on the other hand, doesn't claim to be magical or supernatural, so it's a bit ridiculous to complain when a stated human edifice fails to be magical or supernatural. But at least the 'power' it invokes (human beings) provably exist.
By the way, even if you claim not to believe it, PZ Myers wrote a pertinant repost against the Darwin=Nazism claim: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the _simple_falsehood_at_the_he.php
You can espouse religion and God, these mystical, supernatural wonders as these great and magical things, but they did nothing. Why does God always do nothing? Why is your God so utterly pathetic?
Saying, 'oh, God didn't kill the soldiers' is just a get out clause. I'm certainly not suggesting he did. I don't think he exists.
But what *does* he do? You claim he's loving and mighty, but he's not by his own followers' testimony . He's utterly ineffectual and cr@p. His followers swear that they have person experience of God, that he appeared to them or intervened, yet he only does it when it's trivial and insignificant. He'll apparently rescue two believers from a forest fire, maybe, but not stop a genocide.
Humanism, on the other hand, doesn't claim to be magical or supernatural, so it's a bit ridiculous to complain when a stated human edifice fails to be magical or supernatural. But at least the 'power' it invokes (human beings) provably exist.
By the way, even if you claim not to believe it, PZ Myers wrote a pertinant repost against the Darwin=Nazism claim: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the _simple_falsehood_at_the_he.php
I agree with the link, I certainly don't blame Darwin for the acts of the Nazis (and I've always said the same) but Nazism was neo-Darwinism, it was the perjuring of his works survival of the fittest etc. that gave them the justification for their acts, it gave them the scientific credibility to produce their heaven on Earth. The fact that he never said go and kill those people is irrelevnt to them, they read his works, interpreted it and put it to use for their own motives.
Don't ask where was God? Ask where was man?
I agree that humanism is a nice idea (I said so earlier) the trouble is it's never stuck. People don't buy into it, it espouses being nice to people and respecting them and their right to be who they are and to express it freely within the bounds of personal discipline (I think creationists call that exestensalism).
Even you can't manage that! ;-)
Don't ask where was God? Ask where was man?
I agree that humanism is a nice idea (I said so earlier) the trouble is it's never stuck. People don't buy into it, it espouses being nice to people and respecting them and their right to be who they are and to express it freely within the bounds of personal discipline (I think creationists call that exestensalism).
Even you can't manage that! ;-)
Let's be very careful about the term 'neo-Darwinism' here. It has been used to discribe three different things;
Until about 1937, it meant a theory based on Darwin's ideas stating evolution occured exclusively through natural selection. Natural selection, you will note, is entirely different from artificial selection which is what the Nazi's advocated and which is what Myers is referring to as being capable of being understood by any idiot.
From about 37-47 it specifically meant the ideas of RAH Fisher (who was both a racist eugenicist and a committed Christian, atheism=Nazism fans) and others in creating the modern evolutionary synthesis.
From 47- it is considered by some to be modern evolutionary theory.
Obviously you must mean it in one of the first two senses.
The use of the word Darwinian is highly disputed for the reason that although Darwin kickstarted the process, modern evolutionary theory is not Darwin's theory. Creationists are well known for liking the term Darwinian becuase they - as has been seen on here many times - attempt to poison the well by saying because Darwin was racist (yes, he was, (although not very by the standards of the day, in fact he was reasonably progressive)), therefore evolutionary theory must be. This should be self-evidentally inane. As I've said before, it would be a bit like claiming that because Newton was homosexual, gravity is a bit gay.
Until about 1937, it meant a theory based on Darwin's ideas stating evolution occured exclusively through natural selection. Natural selection, you will note, is entirely different from artificial selection which is what the Nazi's advocated and which is what Myers is referring to as being capable of being understood by any idiot.
From about 37-47 it specifically meant the ideas of RAH Fisher (who was both a racist eugenicist and a committed Christian, atheism=Nazism fans) and others in creating the modern evolutionary synthesis.
From 47- it is considered by some to be modern evolutionary theory.
Obviously you must mean it in one of the first two senses.
The use of the word Darwinian is highly disputed for the reason that although Darwin kickstarted the process, modern evolutionary theory is not Darwin's theory. Creationists are well known for liking the term Darwinian becuase they - as has been seen on here many times - attempt to poison the well by saying because Darwin was racist (yes, he was, (although not very by the standards of the day, in fact he was reasonably progressive)), therefore evolutionary theory must be. This should be self-evidentally inane. As I've said before, it would be a bit like claiming that because Newton was homosexual, gravity is a bit gay.
I do not want to interfere in this intellectual debate between two well versed people but for only few things.
When people kill each other, they do not kill because God or Allah says them to kill. They do so because someone like them interpreted that to them as God�s will. Otherwise all divine religious scriptures oppose unlawful killings. If there is somewhere a mention of killing then it becomes clear if you read it with the context of the situation.
Human are the best creation of God, only if they do what God ordered them to do. That is the reason why God asked angels to prostate to Adam.
However when human think they are clever enough to break all the codes and do not need divine guidance at all. Then the intellect given to them is not even a fraction of what God knows. Then they become a name in the history which people hate. The problem is the people only read about them but do not learn a lesson and instead try to come up with different theories only to fail again and again.
This is human life, spent according to the manufacturer�s manual then the best machine try to find things out of the manual, then end up worse than an animal.
When people kill each other, they do not kill because God or Allah says them to kill. They do so because someone like them interpreted that to them as God�s will. Otherwise all divine religious scriptures oppose unlawful killings. If there is somewhere a mention of killing then it becomes clear if you read it with the context of the situation.
Human are the best creation of God, only if they do what God ordered them to do. That is the reason why God asked angels to prostate to Adam.
However when human think they are clever enough to break all the codes and do not need divine guidance at all. Then the intellect given to them is not even a fraction of what God knows. Then they become a name in the history which people hate. The problem is the people only read about them but do not learn a lesson and instead try to come up with different theories only to fail again and again.
This is human life, spent according to the manufacturer�s manual then the best machine try to find things out of the manual, then end up worse than an animal.
Darwin's works were perjured to create neo-Darwinism" God's word is perjured to create the Spanish Inquisition. Neither event were what the author intended.
But the term neo-Darwinism and the use of it to describe aspects of Nazism is not purely a creationist term, to suggest so is a bit lame.
Nazism was "incompatible with Christianity" said Martin Borrmann, Borrmann never spoke or acted without Hitler's approval, Goebells said "one day we will have to have a reckoning with the Church" if you look at Hitler's plans for the conquered East it did not involve the Church in any way shape or form (do you want me to go on?).
There were arguably more Pagans in Hitler's cabinet than anything else, Himmler (definitely) and Goebells arguably.
So if it was'nt the fault of the Christians and it was'nt the fault of Darwin, shall we blame it on the Pagans then?
Of course not lets blame it on the people who chose to behave that way out of their own free will, and sought to justify it by whatever means were popular at the time.
"I was just following orders", "God wills me to kill", "you are an enemy of the people" same meat different gravy.
All sin is founded in reason...
But the term neo-Darwinism and the use of it to describe aspects of Nazism is not purely a creationist term, to suggest so is a bit lame.
Nazism was "incompatible with Christianity" said Martin Borrmann, Borrmann never spoke or acted without Hitler's approval, Goebells said "one day we will have to have a reckoning with the Church" if you look at Hitler's plans for the conquered East it did not involve the Church in any way shape or form (do you want me to go on?).
There were arguably more Pagans in Hitler's cabinet than anything else, Himmler (definitely) and Goebells arguably.
So if it was'nt the fault of the Christians and it was'nt the fault of Darwin, shall we blame it on the Pagans then?
Of course not lets blame it on the people who chose to behave that way out of their own free will, and sought to justify it by whatever means were popular at the time.
"I was just following orders", "God wills me to kill", "you are an enemy of the people" same meat different gravy.
All sin is founded in reason...
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
News11 mins ago
People Really Enjoy Been An Alcoholic
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Body & Soul15 mins ago
News21 mins ago
