Giving Up Darwin

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
7,102
10,430
0
**** empathy. You’re the only millennial pussy here who can’t handle this.

What you’re requesting is evidence of something that is by definition outside the realm of normal observation and evidence. But for absence of the divine, it’s around us every day. Maybe my lack of empathy is part of it. Regardless, it is not my burden; it is yours.
I can handle it just fine, thanks.

What I am being asked for, most often by you, is for evidence of something that, as you just said, exists "outside the realm of normal observation and evidence." So why do you bother to ask for any (even though there is plenty, believe it or not)?

Lack of empathy is absolutely a part of it. You cannot put yourself in the shoes of a believer. You cannot understand why believers do or choose to believe what they do. So lacking that understanding you criticize and dismiss out of hand. It is possible to empathize without agreeing.

Regardless, you make the charge that God does not exist. You did it in the second post of this thread. That is your burden, lawyer, to prove your claim or at least to provide evidence of it. Just as easily as you say "For absence of the divine, it's [evidence] around us every day," I could say the same in the other direction. So that does not work.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
7,102
10,430
0
You’re wanting @Duke Silver or any atheist, or even agnostic, to prove or disprove a current invisible man, died more than 2000 years & rose from the dead? Providing “evidence against the divine...”

Is that what you’re asking? Just wanting to clarify
Duke has it right, just the supernatural.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,623
46,287
0
What I am being asked for, most often by you, is for evidence of something that, as you just said, exists "outside the realm of normal observation and evidence." So why do you bother to ask for any (even though there is plenty, believe it or not)?
So let’s ****ing hear it!
Lack of empathy is absolutely a part of it. You cannot put yourself in the shoes of a believer. You cannot understand why believers do or choose to believe what they do. So lacking that understanding you criticize and dismiss out of hand. It is possible to empathize without agreeing.
I WAS A ****ING BELIEVER, YOU GODDAMN DOLT.
Regardless, you make the charge that God does not exist. You did it in the second post of this thread. That is your burden, lawyer, to prove your claim or at least to provide evidence of it.
No I did not and no it is not.
 

eodhorn

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 24, 2018
1,169
2,238
0
42
Surprise, Arizona
Here's one for the pile that the two of you might like. I came across this during the paganism research and I'm pretty sure it will freak everyone out who reads it. @mytopia32 - you might find this interesting as well.

Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity

It's by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Okford PhD who wrote his dissertation on Nazi Occultism. That yielded his first book, which has been pretty popular since the 80's when it came out (The Occult Roots of Nazism). Black Sun is the 3rd book in the trilogy on Nazi Occultism.

This man was "THE" expert on Nazi Occultism for the past 30 years (died in 2012).

Black Sun goes into Himmler's root races ideology and how it actively shapes the politics of the world we see today. Himmler's the man behind the holocaust. He called God an alien basically, playing off Helena Blavatsky's theosophy and root races stuff. Himmler truly believed that the master race he was creating was a lineal descendant of a superior intelligence from outer space.

The TV show ancient aliens actually espouses much of this ideology today, and in the past we knew this as Gnosticism, or the Babylonian Mystery Religions, dating back to before written history. It all shares common threads from the ancient religions to modern occultism and horror literature.

My interest was partly in how it's a counter narrative to the biblical version of creation with roots to pre-dynastic Egypt. And while I don't think any Christians talking about this stuff and their theories are bad, it gets messy, and possibly dangerous, when they start interpreting the bible with any this in their worldview. This stuff primes people to fill in historical gaps for which there is no data.

Christians need to be researching these fringe topics, because we need to keep the theological vocabulary straight and shed light on the deception that's out there. Himmler controlled the masses not by showing them signs and wonders, but by changing the way people think. It was something so powerful that "even the elect were deceived."

This book is a very heady record of how something like this occurred and how the messaging is thriving today.

"More than half a century after the defeat of Nazism and fascism, the far right is again challenging the liberal order of Western democracies. Radical movements are feeding on anxiety about economic globalization, affirmative action, and third-world immigration, flashpoint issues to many traditional groups in multicultural societies. A curious mixture of Aristocratic paganism, anti-Semitic demonology, Eastern philosophies and the occult is influencing populist antigovernment sentiment and helping to exploit the widespread fear that invisible elites are shaping world events.

Black Sun examines the new neofascist ideology, showing how hate groups, militias and conspiracy cults attempt to gain influence. Based on interviews and extensive research into underground groups, Black Sun documents the new Nazi and fascist sects that have sprung up from the 1970s through the 1990s and examines the mentality and motivation of these far-right extremists. The result is a detailed, grounded portrait of the mythical and devotional aspects of Hitler cults among Aryan mystics, racist skinheads and Nazi satanists, Heavy Metal music fans, and in occult literature.

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke offers a unique perspective on far right neo-Nazism viewing it as a new form of Western religious heresy. He paints a frightening picture of a religion with its own relics, rituals, prophecies and an international sectarian following that could, under the proper conditions, gain political power and attempt to realize its dangerous millenarian fantasies."

@bHero just curious why history considers Nazi’s as far right? When I think of the right wing idealism I think of smallest possible governments, limits on government power, capitalism, religious, big on personal freedoms, small taxation, and nationalism.

Almost all of those things conflict with the Nazi idealism, except maybe Nationalism. Identity politics, big government (in fact going to socialism), anti-religion, high taxation, and globalism are all left leaning ideology. I often wonder how if some organization shares 1-2 of ideas of one side, but is more closely associated with the other, it is on those 1-2 ideals that it gets identified.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
7,102
10,430
0
So let’s ****ing hear it!

I WAS A ****ING BELIEVER, YOU GODDAMN DOLT.

No I did not and no it is not.
Let me guess. The answer is god! Get the **** outta here.
Post #2, you dolt. I would like to better understand, if you're willing to share, what made you come to stop believing. All I've ever gotten from you is that it happened when you were a teenager, but never a really solid why. I'm very interested and would be happy to know, if you would tell me.
 
Last edited:

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,840
54,999
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
@bHero just curious why history considers Nazi’s as far right? When I think of the right wing idealism I think of smallest possible governments, limits on government power, capitalism, religious, big on personal freedoms, small taxation, and nationalism.

Almost all of those things conflict with the Nazi idealism, except maybe Nationalism. Identity politics, big government (in fact going to socialism), anti-religion, high taxation, and globalism are all left leaning ideology. I often wonder how if some organization shares 1-2 of ideas of one side, but is more closely associated with the other, it is on those 1-2 ideals that it gets identified.
They were hyper-nationalist to genocidal lengths, authoritarian and anti-communist. The extremes of both sides share some extreme characteristics, namely an oppressive, authoritarian government and paranoid state. They clearly rejected universal equality (see: Holocaust) and openly rejected Marxism and Capitalism. The Nazi's wanted the people focused on growing the political state and the master race. So the government's interests were above free markets and the individual and people were expected to serve the common good toward achieving this goal (master race everywhere).

Hitler called the people on the left traitors and the people on the right cowards. Think of it like a tyrannical monarchy.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,623
46,287
0
Post #2, you dolt. I'm curious what legitimate court of law allows accusations to be sustained without evidence.
I said I bet his answer to his newfound Darwin problem was god. And I was correct. I didn’t claim there is no god.
And you have never explained why you stopped believing. May I ask why? All you've ever said is that you realized as a teenager that it didn't add up. I'm curious to know more. Not trying to bring you back, because that would be torture for you, but I do want to understand.
People don’t come back from the dead. People don’t live 600 years. Children shouldn’t get brain cancer. Jesus was just a crazyass Jew, and the church is a self-serving, political institution. Excuse the glibness, but I’m not going to re-litigate my years from 17-20. Suffice to say that I think most of the core beliefs of Christianity are patent bull**** meant to control people.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
62,263
12,880
0
I do love how so many Christians try to lump secularists and atheists in with the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, Lenin, et al. There are plenty of moral and ethical societies that are NOT believers in Jesus Christ or in the God that Christians believe in.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,623
46,287
0
what made you come to stop believing.
Also the idea that any divine being who “loves us” would punish anyone for an eternity is grotesque. If god is the most perfect being one can imagine, then it’s certainly not an Abrahamic god.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
7,102
10,430
0
I said I bet his answer to his newfound Darwin problem was god. And I was correct. I didn’t claim there is no god.

People don’t come back from the dead. People don’t live 600 years. Children shouldn’t get brain cancer. Jesus was just a crazyass Jew, and the church is a self-serving, political institution. Excuse the glibness, but I’m not going to re-litigate my years from 17-20. Suffice to say that I think most of the core beliefs of Christianity are patent bull**** meant to control people.
Cheers, Duke.
 

eodhorn

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 24, 2018
1,169
2,238
0
42
Surprise, Arizona
They were hyper-nationalist to genocidal lengths, authoritarian and anti-communist. The extremes of both sides share some extreme characteristics, namely an oppressive, authoritarian government and paranoid state. They clearly rejected universal equality (see: Holocaust) and openly rejected Marxism and Capitalism. The Nazi's wanted the people focused on growing the political state and the master race. So the government's interests were above free markets and the individual and people were expected to serve the common good toward achieving this goal (master race everywhere).

Hitler called the people on the left traitors and the people on the right cowards. Think of it like a tyrannical monarchy.
Okay so a healthy mix of craziness from both sides. But they get Right Wing as the label. That’s my issue.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,840
54,999
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
Okay so a healthy mix of craziness from both sides. But they get Right Wing as the label. That’s my issue.
It's the way it's been as long as I can remember. Authoritarianism on the left is Communism, on the right it's Fascism. Nazis are uber-fascists.

I wouldn't get hung up on it. Neither versions are accepted and people will always attempt to taint current events and people with the extremes on both sides.

I mean people have tried to call trump a fascist forever. Guy can't even pass a bill but somehow he's going to be a dictator?
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,623
46,287
0
Of course it shouldn't, but I'm thankful for it.

I bet it could be measured by comparing church goers to those who don't: Happiness, contentment, crime stats, etc. A lot of that would circle back to family.
OK. Start with Denmark.
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
58,911
294,460
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
OK. Start with Denmark.
The Viking period would have lasted longer, so there's a knock on Christianity.

Why start with Denmark? I'm thankful for Christianity in this country and its impact on the Constitution - the greatest document ever written.

Denmark runs contra to your "control people" statement. They have a national religion but don't enforce it.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,623
46,287
0
The Viking period would have lasted longer, so there's a knock on Christianity.

Why start with Denmark? I'm thankful for Christianity in this country.

Denmark runs contra to your "control people" statement. They have a national religion but don't enforce it.
Their national religion is a European vestige. They don’t go to church and don’t consider religion important. Yet they have some of the lowest crime rates and happiness in the world. Same for Finland.
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
58,911
294,460
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
Their national religion is a European vestige. They don’t go to church and don’t consider religion important. Yet they have some of the lowest crime rates and happiness in the world. Same for Finland.
Yeah, they don't need it.

We have an entirely different scale in this country, much greater population, much, much more diverse. Their combined populations are about the same as Metro NYC. They're homogenous. Might as well throw Switzerland in there too.

Christianity's fingerprints are all over this country, decreasingly so of course, and it became the country people from all these other places wanted to go.

We know Christians are more charitable than others.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,840
54,999
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
Fascism defeated socialism in a battle for the same "type" of mind. They're very similar. I don't agree that Fascism is right-winged. See: Antifa for a modern example.
It's all authoritarianism. "Right wing" in essence is a conservative mindset vs "left wing" is continual change. So you can argue that the ANTIFA water-heads are right wing in the sense that they think they are trying to prevent a nazi takeover of UC Berkeley (too late dummies).

I don't want to defend the label though - that's just always been there as far as I can remember. The political spectrum as I understood it was a matrix with one axis being change and the other being control. High control = authoritarianism, low control = liberalism. Left/Right was change. Lots of constant change, reformation, radical change, "change we can believe in," "yes you can" [change] blah blah blah - left. Conserving the way of life, the country, the constitutional framework = right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PFD

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
14,178
4,564
0
I think it's something like that. That's what the bible says anyways.

EDIT: It's taken me a lot of study to get to this place and I tried to explain it every other way possible first.
I’ve reached the same, apparently unpopular, conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,840
54,999
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
I’ve reached the same, apparently unpopular, conclusion.
The word "Angels" has a stigma and historically loaded with a lot of pagan iconography like little babies with wings making people fall in love. But it's also not the word used here.

Bene elohim, in short, means a being directly created by God (son of God), whereas Angel (malakh) is the standard word for messenger (doesn't have to be anyone divine).

In the passage you are talking about, the phrases bene (son) elohim (of god) and benoth (daughter) adam (of man) are used. I've left of some semantics so it's easier to follow. And the offspring of this is nephilim.

As for the popularity of the conclusion, that's been unpopular with mainstream Christians for about 1700 years. But to be clear, it was the only "mainstream" interpretation of the passage until the 3rd century.

I think I'll default to the understanding and context that Jesus and the early church fathers had.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 40A

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,623
46,287
0
Yeah, they don't need it.

We have an entirely different scale in this country, much greater population, much, much more diverse. Their combined populations are about the same as Metro NYC. They're homogenous. Might as well throw Switzerland in there too.

Christianity's fingerprints are all over this country, decreasingly so of course, and it became the country people from all these other places wanted to go.

We know Christians are more charitable than others.
I’m not sure of the relevance of most of this, but charitable donations are only as good as the charity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SAhornfan

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
58,911
294,460
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
I’m not sure of the relevance of most of this, but charitable donations are only as good as the charity.
The relevance is Christianity is a net good (speaking post Revolution), so why would we want it disproven?

I guess if I was an intellectual atheist I would want something I deemed silly yet harmless to preoccupy as many people with the pursuit of self-improvement as possible. I'd even encourage it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero and eodhorn

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
62,263
12,880
0
The relevance is Christianity is a net good (speaking post Revolution)
Debatable, very debatable.

One could argue that the advances of recent centuries were made in spite of, not because of, religion.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,623
46,287
0
The relevance is Christianity is a net good (speaking post Revolution), so why would we want it disproven?

I guess if I was an intellectual atheist I would want something I deemed silly yet harmless to preoccupy as many people with the pursuit of self-improvement as possible. I'd even encourage it.
First off, Christianity is only silly yet harmless because people have been fighting against its dogmatism for centuries.

And you are just assuming Christianity per se is a "net good." As I said, that's a pretty tricky thing to measure. Regardless, I don't think it's much better at creating happy, productive citizens than many belief systems. Are all Christians even that? I don't think so. And you have the internecine yahoos on this board who don't really even think these "net benefit Christians" are Christians at all. "They've got it all wrong!" Just seems silly to try to measure. Also, Jews are probably much happier and productive.
 

Eric Nahlin

Recruiting Editor
Staff member
Dec 19, 2011
58,911
294,460
0
Thoreau'd on Walden
First off, Christianity is only silly yet harmless because people have been fighting against its dogmatism for centuries.

And you are just assuming Christianity per se is a "net good." As I said, that's a pretty tricky thing to measure. Regardless, I don't think it's much better at creating happy, productive citizens than many belief systems. Are all Christians even that? I don't think so. And you have the internecine yahoos on this board who don't really even think these "net benefit Christians" are Christians at all. "They've got it all wrong!" Just seems silly to try to measure. Also, Jews are probably much happier and productive.
I think the case to make that it's silly yet harmless is because it's detached from government.

That's a good point regarding Jewish people, although an assumption. Mormons too. We should extend it to religion in general (in the West) not just Christianity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke Silver

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
62,263
12,880
0
One could try making that argument, but it would be rather weak.
Make the argument that these advances happened because of Christianity.

The same religion whose members did things like the Inquisition and “converting” natives in the New World. The same religion whose member countenanced slavery for centuries.

It was not Christianity that led to the end of these behaviors. It was the democratic movements spawned by the American and French Revolutions.

These ideas spread because humans began to realize that they could choose to be free.

The religion didn’t change. It was the same religion, same religious texts and beliefs. PEOPLE changed.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,623
46,287
0
The relevance is Christianity is a net good (speaking post Revolution), so why would we want it disproven?

I guess if I was an intellectual atheist I would want something I deemed silly yet harmless to preoccupy as many people with the pursuit of self-improvement as possible. I'd even encourage it.
Oh yeah. What did you mean by post revolution?