O'Reilly -Tides prove God!

[granfire]

Ahem, Columbine.

No, seriously.

Not to Goth kids snapping....

 

[Rayban]

More have killed in the name of atheism, than religion. Scientific socialism, is that what those camps were for? the atheists killed for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," because religion is the opiate of the masses. Some of the greatest scientists in the world, explored the nature of the world to understand God and how he made things work. The murder of abortion doctors is the act of a lone religous extremist, the creation of gulags, and death camps is organized atheism at its worst, and they kill millions at a go.

Sorry you're dead wrong there. Not saying Atheists are saints (no pun intended) But religion has had its hands in more wars and schisms and have claimed far more lives. Most of the first wars were about differing culture and points of view. Throughout most of human history religion has been central to almost every culture.

As for the dictators.

First off, they have nothing to do with the discussion of Religion and Atheism. What they believe is irrelevant. Bad people will do bad things regardless of their spiritual orientation.

But for the record:

http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/10/hitler-stalin-and-mao-were-not-atheists.html

 

[Rayban]

Ahem, Columbine.

Again, what has that got to do with atheism. Forgive my ignorance, I'm only partially familiar with the shooting.

Bad people will do bad things reguardless of their chosen religion.

 

[Tanaka]

Time began at the big bang? You do realize that it is quite possible and probable that other universes exist as well?

I do have a problem with many of the arguments being provided here in that they are false.

Let's look at a few of them.

And?

Time began with Big Bang
Other possible existing universes do not have any relevance to that statement.

 

[Tanaka]

I have to go nighty night, but I will leave you with these, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il sung and his son, Mao, and all the little atheists aroundthe world who are trying to become big atheists.

Hitler was Catholic, who also did what he did based on his Catholic beliefs. Which I have access to quotes from his diary where he directly said this. Hitler was one of those Christians that forgot Jesus was Jewish, so he hates Jews for Jesus's death. (Btw Hitler was a church going man)

You may find Atheist that have killed people or even many people.
But you won't really find anyone killing people "In the name of Atheism"

Or for Oppression of religion. It was usually other religious people oppressing another religious group.

 

[Tanaka]

Ahem, Columbine.

Columbine was not done in the name of Atheism. If I am remembering correctly. This was a school shooting in response to school bullying that occurred to a group of students that went to the school. I think the same type of occurrence happened at Virginia Tech.

 

[Tanaka]

More have killed in the name of atheism, than religion. Scientific socialism, is that what those camps were for? the atheists killed for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," because religion is the opiate of the masses. Some of the greatest scientists in the world, explored the nature of the world to understand God and how he made things work. The murder of abortion doctors is the act of a lone religous extremist, the creation of gulags, and death camps is organized atheism at its worst, and they kill millions at a go.

If they were doing their research to understand "God"
Then they weren't "Greatest scientist" in my opinion. Greatest Scientist start with no Bias and are lead by their evidence.
Not to say they don't believe in God, but they don't put their belief in God inside their studies. What Bill O'Reily and a couple of others are doing. Is what is formally called "God of Gaps" fallacy.
It's a common occurrence, especially when you have those of religion who like to constantly question the cause of each explanation you give them. For example,
"Where did humans come from"
"They evolved from previous ancestor"
"Where did they come from"
"That previous ancestor also evolved from a previous ancestor"
"Oh yeah... well where did life come from?"
"Life came from self replicating organic molecules that were left chirality bias due to a type of early natural selection process"
"Where did those molecules come from"
"They were formed due to conditions of early earth(which was a reducing atmosphere) which caused carbon to bond and form amino acids"
"Oh yeah, where did the earth come from?"
The earth is a product of a proto planetary disc cloud around the center of our current sun/star as you had matter clashing together in this cloud(Along with the help of gravity). You start to have the formation of planets."

I could go on, but the point is... What they're doing is looking for one gap to place God in. If I would to lack an explanation at the point of. "Where did life come from"
The person would of just slipped in God at that point. For example "See, God exist or else you wouldn't have life on earth"

There's many variations to the God of gaps arguments, but I am too sleepy to be specific anymore. Usually when anyone who is trying to give reason for God ask "Well how do you explain this?"(in some fashion)
They are more than likely about to make "God of Gaps" fallacy.

 

[Carol]

Hitler was Catholic, who also did what he did based on his Catholic beliefs.

His Catholic beliefs told him to send [Catholic] Priests to Dachau?

 

[Tanaka]

His Catholic beliefs told him to send [Catholic] Priests to Dachau?

Ones that resisted his Nazi beliefs... he probably saw them as blaspheme.
He didn't lock them up merely for being Catholic Priest if that is what you're hinting. He was actually very close to them, until they resisted his Nazi regime.

 

[Carol]

Ones that resisted his Nazi beliefs... he probably saw them as blaspheme.
He didn't lock them up merely for being Catholic Priest if that is what you're hinting. He was actually very close to them, until they resisted his Nazi regime.

Hitler was most intent on creating his master race. He was too concerned about upsetting the apple cart with his precious aryans in his own country, but he found priests for the taking amongst the Poles, who -- like the Czechs -- were racially undesirable. The Poles lost half their total priests at Dachau

 

[Cryozombie]

Again, what has that got to do with atheism. Forgive my ignorance, I'm only partially familiar with the shooting.

Columbine was not done in the name of Atheism. If I am remembering correctly. This was a school shooting in response to school bullying that occurred to a group of students that went to the school. I think the same type of occurrence happened at Virginia Tech.

The Columbine shooters did, however, target students who professed a belief in god. It's been a while, but IIRC Initial reports tried to claim the shooters were satanists, and later pagans to explain why they chose to do this, but these claims were refuted by one of the shooter's own diaries stating that as an atheist he had no reason to suppress his instinct to kill.

So, while the school shootings in Columbine were not necessarily predicated on Atheism, both his decision TO carry out the shooting a choice of Victims most certainly was. At least that's how I'd interperate what he wrote. You're mileage may vary.

 

[Archangel M]

The "religion killed more than atheism (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc) is a diversion from the original statement that Atheists mind their own business and "I care less if you believe or not" blabber for up thread. I "believe" that many Atheists do indeed care what I believe, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much money on billboards, or time on the internet arguing who killed more people than who.

 

[Tanaka]

Hitler was most intent on creating his master race. He was too concerned about upsetting the apple cart with his precious aryans in his own country, but he found priests for the taking amongst the Poles, who -- like the Czechs -- were racially undesirable. The Poles lost half their total priests at Dachau

Well you could say that, or it could be that since the Poles resisted Hitler instead of agreeing to his demands when he was being "nice" to them. I put quotations around nice for a reason.(Because Hitler's Nice is... If you meet my demands we will get a long just fine.)

I merely based what I said off of the things he said himself.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

 

[Empty Hands]

The "religion killed more than atheism (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc) is a diversion from the original statement that Atheists mind their own business and "I care less if you believe or not" blabber for up thread. I "believe" that many Atheists do indeed care what I believe, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much money on billboards, or time on the internet arguing who killed more people than who.

Perhaps imagining yourself in a different context will explain the intent of the billboards. Imagine you live in Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the dominant religion. On a regular basis, you are asked which mosque you attend. On a regular basis, you are told that being a Christian makes you a bad person - not only that your beliefs are wrong, but that they make you incapable of goodness. In a recent poll, Christians came in dead last in a list of groups that people would vote into political office (OK, doesn't jive with SA, but you get the point). Everywhere you turn is the default assumption that you are a Muslim, that you believe in Islam, that everyone believes in and respects Islam.

Now imagine in that context you begin to make your arguments in the public square is that not only is it acceptable to be a Christian, not only can you be a good person and a Christian, but that Christianity is right. Are you being "militant"? Are you being "intolerant"? Are you trying to force your beliefs onto all your Muslim neighbors?

Or are you standing up for yourself and your beliefs, fighting for equal standing, and trying to change the default assumption around you that Islam is the only true and right course for all? Put yourself in the atheists' shoes. Militancy and evangelism has almost nothing to do with their actions.

 

[Tanaka]

The Columbine shooters did, however, target students who professed a belief in god. It's been a while, but IIRC Initial reports tried to claim the shooters were satanists, and later pagans to explain why they chose to do this, but these claims were refuted by one of the shooter's own diaries stating that as an atheist he had no reason to suppress his instinct to kill.

So, while the school shootings in Columbine were not necessarily predicated on Atheism, both his decision TO carry out the shooting a choice of Victims most certainly was. At least that's how I'd interperate what he wrote. You're mileage may vary.

Good point. But he only did this for one student, and she was already injured before they asked her about her belief in God. Which the conversation consisted of her yelling "Oh, please God help me" while she was seriously wounded. The shooter went back to ask if she believed in God. And she wavered between yes and no(trying to get the answer he wanted). Then the shooter asked "why" and she responded "Because my family believes." Then he taunted her and left her there wounded. So it was clear they were there not to oppress religion. In fact it was quite clear that they were going specifically after the ones they disliked for more "emotional" reasons(aka Bullying). As you can see from these quotes.

"Everyone with white hats, stand up! This is for all the **** you've given us for the past four years!" and "All jocks stand up! We'll get the guys in white hats!" (wearing a white baseball cap at Columbine was a tradition amongst sports team members).-Taken from the Wiki article

Atheism really doesn't come with any emotions attached. While you do have some kids who are angry at "God" and want to backslide(or whatever you call it)
They are not considered atheist, since they are "angry at God" in the first place. While Atheism is the belief of God not existing. So it's really hard to find someone to kill in the "name of Atheism"
So in conclusion I believe the reason why they carried out the shooting was due to bullying.
The reason why they targeted certain students was due to bullying and probably rejection.
And they used their Atheistic beliefs to reduce their cognitive dissonance.

 

[granfire]

I did not follow the morbid tale, but I have heard that the 'do you believe in God' episode was not in fact true.

Not to mention that it could have been meant differently.

 

[elder999]

I do have a problem with many of the arguments being provided here in that they are false.

Let's look at a few of them.



I am neither a scientist or a religious person and I have to say that the scientific method is the best method I have uncovered at understanding truth to date.

To say that it is not the place of the scientific method to uncover the truth about a being that is omnipotent is ridiculous.

I'm sorry but who has the right to say that we don't have the right to sanely apply reason to understand anything is employing a cop out to uncovering the truth.

It’s not a cop-out at all. As one who routinely utilizes the scientific method, I can demonstrate that in this instance it is wholly inadequate to the task.

First, let us postulate a being who created everything. Most call this hypothetical (not “theoretical&#8221 being “God,” though “Creator” does just as well, and I sometimes call he/she/it “foot.”:lol:

For such a being to have brought everything into existence-for such a being to have been responsible for the “big bang,” it would have to have existed before the big bang-which means that such a being likely exists-or, at least, existed- outside our space/time.

We cannot measure, predict or test for such a being-therefore the scientific method cannot be applied. If we posit that such a being paradoxically exists both within and without our space/time,we still clearly lack the means to measure, predict or test for such a being. And, as far as direct experience of such a being goes, such experiences are, by definition, subjective, and-more to the point-not disprovable , however duplicable they may or may not be-though they usually are not.

Of course, you have the right to apply reason to understanding anything, and one can certainly use science to investigate certain things: archaeology to investigate the various religions of the world, or medicine for so-called “faith healings.” A lot of interesting work on religious experience that people associate with “god” is being done in neuroscience.But there is no room, as yet, within the scientific method for an investigation of “God.”

The tools and metrics for measuring, testing and predicting simply don’t exist.

 

[Tanaka]

I did not follow the morbid tale, but I have heard that the 'do you believe in God' episode was not in fact true.

Not to mention that it could have been meant differently.

Yeah it wasn't true in the fact of Cassie Bernall's case.
Which christians have been using as a "martyr" type case. They were saying that before the shooter shot her in the head. They asked her if she believed in God. And she said "yes"

Students around her and ones that were hiding underneath the table testified that she said nothing(She was only silently praying under the table). The shooter merely ducked under the table and said "Peekaboo" than shot her in the head.

 

[Empty Hands]

But there is no room, as yet, within the scientific method for an investigation of “God.”

The tools and metrics for measuring, testing and predicting simply don’t exist.

Ah, but very few people espouse the Clockmaker God of the deists, most posit a God that intervenes in the world from time to time. Even if that God restricts itself to producing feelings of ineffability and wonder in your mind, that God is still causing changes in the physical universe since all workings of the brain are based on physical processes. Thus, in principle at least, this God must produce physical changes that are measurable, and could be used to deduce characteristics of this God. Where I would start the search would be in physical changes that appear to violate our own rules such as causality, since a being outside our space-time would be outside our Universe's causal chain.

Of course those tools and metrics may not exist, maybe could never exist, but we are speaking in principle - if we couldn't invent tools to measure neutrinos, that does not make the theory predicting their existence non-scientific. No more so than the scientific prediction of black holes long before physical evidence of their existence was found.

 

[elder999]

Ah, but very few people espouse the Clockmaker God of the deists, most posit a God that intervenes in the world from time to time. Even if that God restricts itself to producing feelings of ineffability and wonder in your mind, that God is still causing changes in the physical universe since all workings of the brain are based on physical processes. Thus, in principle at least, this God must produce physical changes that are measurable, and could be used to deduce characteristics of this God. Where I would start the search would be in physical changes that appear to violate our own rules such as causality, since a being outside our space-time would be outside our Universe's causal chain.

Of course those tools and metrics may not exist, maybe could never exist, but we are speaking in principle - if we couldn't invent tools to measure neutrinos, that does not make the theory predicting their existence non-scientific. No more so than the scientific prediction of black holes long before physical evidence of their existence was found.

Hence my saying that the two were mutually exclusive "for the present time and forseeable future" in my original post.

However, as I said, interesting work is being done in neuroscience measuring what people mean when they say that they are "experiencing God,"-measuring those very brain changes you spoke of.....