What amazes me is that even the people who believe in a god because most of the country does, dismiss this.
I would have thought this would appeal directly to those influenced by the masses.
The other 99% of prisoner swear to god they are innocent.
Scott ... and the cameraman ...
What about the remaining 6% ... unless your hundred, is made up of 94 ... and excludes the remaining 6, from the "human hundred" ... living in the world !
Or is this Statistic, compiled by the remaining 6% ...
You did not read the quote correctly. It's not a math problem.
It is saying that a whopping 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, and only 1% of the prison population, are atheist.
That means that 7% of the National Academy of Sciences members, and 99% of the prison population, would remain in America.
Well ... I am really bad at calculating ... for that matter, even correctly reading, or understanding, the underlying meanings of mathematical statistics ... representing "Humans" ...
In fact, I find these a sort of a practical joke, played on fools like me, viz. ... When someone says ... that a mother's 99.342 % time ... or, more correctly, calculated to four decimal points ... as, 99.3421% time ... is spent, looking after the child ! ...
Thus, I need someone to explain ... That the reported ... calculated ... mother care percentages, actually refer to an Australian Bush mother's situation ... that these averages represent a certain group ... the Aborigines Mothers of Australia ... and do not represent all the mothers, and Motherhood's related universal Reality ... that these do not represent the state of Motherhood ... just, the Australian Aborigines Mother's preoccupation !
Because, I treat one mother, as Representing Motherhood ... not Asian, American, or Australian Mothers ...
And regarding your talking of Humans, as Mathematical figures ... to me the Foolish Scientists, and Jail Inmates ... as Humans ... one behind bars, and the other, Imprisoned in the Make Believe Castle of Logics and Theory... are first Humans, then statics, or any thing else.
These "Percentages and Statistics" make me wonder, if your Academics, have descended from heavens, and the jail Inmates, from Hell ...
Don't they represent a Cross Section Model of your, or any human Society ?
Manipulating statistics, let's not take into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in the United States have some kind of belief in the spiritual matters, hence there are naturally gooing to be less athiests in prison by shear demigraphics.
This is why you cause so much conflict.
You all act as though these are real figures.
"If all the atheists left the U.S.A. it would lose 93% of the National Academy of Science but less than 1% of the prison population".
Wow, is that supposed to be a DEEP comment? If it is, it did not even come up to the tops of my shoes.
It is a real fact you're going to have to contend with. Being stuck in a set of impossible human standards creates mental stress, poverty, and crime. Atheist nations turn out to be more peaceful by far than religious ones, according to the Global Peace Index:
Wow, is that comment supposed to mean something? It sounds more like a dismissal from someone who can't think of any real counter to the OP.
Pierre, which nations are atheist and what are the crime statistics of each one?
Okay, I saw the video and not a one of the countries listed as atheist is atheist. Each of the European countries actually has a Christian majority and both Vietnam and Japan have Buddhist majorities.
No, not a one of those countries is atheist. It is just that most of the people who make up their populations are not particularly religious.
One more thing. There are not any atheist countries ... not even one.
I found a little bit of info here, but you may have already read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
It supports what you are saying to some degree.
With all due respect, the information in "wiki" fully supports what I am saying.
But let us change the subject here. Two of the most vile and deadly nations in the history of the world were what could have been described as atheist countries: NAZI Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). As everyone knows, the NAZIs exterminated millions of people and so did the Soviets .
Both Germany and Russia were very religious countries, and Hitler was a religionist before anything else.
I thought the wiki thing was a bit lean, and not fully supported by source.
I thought it offered qualified support for your argument, although it does admit there are many variables applied to the data.
Earnest, what did you do during history class? The Soviet Union (Not Russia, for it was only a member of the "Union") was OFFICIALLY an atheist state. In fact, the Soviets considered the whole "God thing" to be akin to a fairy tale.
And in what way was Hitler a religionist? Please explain.
Most countries are secular these days, including the USA. You are right, there is no atheist country because atheism is not a political view. An atheist can be of any political view or non at all. The word atheism has no political connotations, period.
Soviet union was against religion for one reason, it was competition. But even Stalin brought religion back during the war. The Russian Orthodox church was only shut down for a very short period. But it was always under the eye and influence of the state.
Hitler was born Catholic, but didn't like it because of the Pope. He preferred protestantism, but in some of his writing he says he wanted to create something like an Aryan Jesus and Aryan Christianity from it. Here's a quote from a speech of his in 1933.
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.
Sounds like a Republican convention speech.
You are right that a lot of countries which are secular have a low population of religious people, and atheism is growing. But there will never be an atheist government by definition even if every member of it is an atheist.
I hope that clears this up.
No need to be insulting! You may find out I know more history than you give me credit for.
The argument has been well covered before, and again in this thread.
Sorry there Earnest, old buddy. I didn't insult you. The post was for Feenix.
Oh hell. You weren't replying to me, were you? lol..... Why does it look as if you were? Must be Safari. I was just trying it out on Win 7. lol... I think I'll chuck it.
Good grief! These religious people do like to defend their religion with some very poor arguments. And they sure as hell don't like actual facts.
Not sure what Nazi Germany (Hitler was Catholic and "God" was a very, big part of the Nazi movement and the Army) has to do with my opening claim, but it usually gets to "Hitler was an atheist," or some such nonsense to defend their religion. And - then they say they are not religious.
Yup. And the facts are everywhere on the net. You would think they (Christians) would know how to use it by now. But instead they prefer to make shit up or read Christian propaganda instead of history.
Just look at all those bishops giving the salute! Do you feel the love?
That is a good collection, I had not seen all of those before.
It is shocking how willfully ignorant some peopel are. The facts are readily available.
Religiosity is tied to poverty and crime. Hitler used religion as part of his sales pitch and had close ties to both Catholic and Protestant churches. About the only time the 2 opposing cults agreed on anything.
...and yet he was happy to stamp "the Polish race" out of existence, even though they were devout Catholics...
The Nazi movement was pure nationalism/racism; trying to ascribe either religion or atheism as even minor motivations to it seems pretty desperate.
That does not alter the fact that Hitler's regime used the Christian religion to manipulate the masses and was closely associated with both Protestant and Catholic churches - neither of whom actively opposed him.
Why would you even bring it up? Other that to distract from this fact?
The only reason I bought it up was because a religionist defended his faith by saying it is better than atheism because hitler was an atheist. Hitler was clearly religious (and insane) and used religious approval to further his agenda.
No, it doesn't, but that doesn't mean Hitler or Nazism were motivated by religion. He was simply using religion to garner more support among the religious, a form of pandering politicians always do. There was no faith/lack-of-faith test for who would be sent off to the camps. Religious and atheist Nazis lived and worked side by side.
The only reasons you were persecuted under the Third Reich were if you were of "the wrong race" or if you opposed the regime.
In an earlier thread, Hitler's religious feelings were ambiguous enough for you to say that he might have been an atheist. Why the reversal?
I find some religious people's insistence that Hitler was an atheist annoying, too, since it's clear belief in a deity was utterly irrelevant to his views. They see that priests were being killed and assume it was because they were religious men, and not because these priests publicly opposed him. As you say, most priests and ministers were left alone.
I do not know what Hitler was. He was outwardly religious though and used the belief in an Invisible Super Being to do bad things.
What does this have to do with the original point? As I said - and of course you ignored - I only mentioned it because a religionist was defending his beliefs based on the fact that Hitler was an atheist. Which - as you see from the photos - outwardly - he most definitely was not.
Now - we can get into the different types of Jews and underlying reasons for the holocaust - but religiosity was certainly part of the motivation along with economic and other factors.
Either way - both the Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians supported Hitler. It does not matter what Hitler was. He was clever enough to side with the Christian majority who were quite happy with him murdering Jews and cripples until it became apparent they were on the list also - just further down it.
I'm glad you made the point that we don't know what Hitler's feelings on religion were, because we don't.
You oddly don't mention that many atheists supported Hitler, along with their Protestant and Catholic fellow citizens. If religious ideology didn't unite them, I wonder what did?
The Nazis did not think Judaism was a religion; it was a race. You could not "unJew" yourself by converting to Christianity. The Nazis didn't care if an ethnic Jew claimed to be Christian or atheist. They had elaborate ways to determine who was "really a Jew" and it had nothing to do with religious practice.
And, yes, I acknowledged the silliness of the OP's contention that Hitler was an atheist. Did you not read my entire post?
Yes - I missed that - sorry. How many atheists do you think were around in pre-war Germany?
In any case - Hitler also said "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
he was a master manipulator that is for sure. But - and this is a big but - the rank and file were largely "Christian."
There is more than one race of Jew, and a small minority did very well out of the war thank you.
Gee, I don't know. Do you know of any polls? They clearly did exist, and contrary to your point, they weren't persecuted. That's because Nazi ideology wasn't based on religious belief, something you seem oddly resistant to admitting.
The fact that he claimed Christianity blessed the Nazi ideology has everything to do with the fact that the majority was Christian. Had most been atheist, he wouldn't have bothered.
And there's no such thing as Jewish races, unless you're of the Nazi mindset yourself.
What? There was no religion involved? I suggest you read "Mein Kampf"
No - no god here.
Odd that you resist this. Could that be because you are religious yourself?
You just finished telling me that Jews are a race. ANd even I know there are several different types of Jews.
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
I agree - no God there. "Mein Kampf" barely touches on religion.
And as for the belt buckle: were all Nazi officers required to wear it?
I'm certainly able to distinguish between verifiable fact and what I'd like to believe. Are you making up things about the Nazis and religion because you're anti-religious yourself?
And I never said Jews were a race. I said Germans had racial theories about Jews; I didn't say their beliefs were valid.
This is why religions like yours cause so many conflicts.
Mark ,neither of those Religions above have much to do about God.
Forget all the labels people ,judge a man by his actions.
Hitler was evil to the bone, hes heavy and he aint my brother!
Not to mention that the virulent anti-Semitism of the Nazis had its roots in centuries and centuries of Christian anti-Semitism in Europe, going back to the Crusades and beyond.
Feenix, I recently wrote a hub on the topic of religiosity and crime.
I have plenty of sources there.
The fact of the matter is that any Christian majorities in Europe are "Christian" in name only. The beliefs, values and lifestyles of the vast majority of Europeans are not in line with an observant Christian population.
When one compares the importance of religion in people's lives against the amount of crime and homicide in the society, one sees a positive correlation between religiosity and crime.
It is incorrect to call these nations "atheist," but they are certainly not "religious" in any meaningful way.
Japan may or may not have a nominal "Buddhist" majority. Japan is a highly secular society, and is considered by a number of studies to be one of the least religious societies on earth today, if not the least religious.
So far as the Japanese, they do make one of the most, if not the most, secular societies in the world. However, they do become religious on special occasions, such as weddings and funerals.
And so far as the majority of Europeans and their not being (practicing) Christians, that is true. But that does not mean that most of them do not believe in God. It merely means that they are not religious of that they do not like to go church on Sundays.
Exactly. Belief in "God" is not so important because that is a very esoteric concept to most people and can mean many things (i.e. a big man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the clouds vs. an impersonal "force" a la Star Wars, etc).
What's interesting is religious belief and practice versus crime. That's where the relationship is. Just believing "there is a God" and nothing more doesn't make a person religious.
Although of course in the richer countries there is less real belief in God as well. The Eurobarometer poll puts France as having the highest proportion of full-fledged atheists/ agnostics in Europe (33%), which is unsurprising, I suppose, given France's strongly secular government and cultural traditions.
Cagsill, either you are a real fun person or you find it difficult to express yourself with words.
Why? Because both my posts so far in this thread had smiley faces.
I found the OP funny. Then I found was Marisa said funny. I've no loss of words, however, is there something in particular I can help you with?
feenix I loved your comment
I for one would welcome any percentage of Atheists leaving the country.
Im sure absence would make the heart grow fonder ,and Im good at long distance relationships
Really? How very Christian of you to say so.
Yes, and you appear to have embraced such despicable behavior.
Impossible, it can't be an opinion because you admitted to embracing despicable behavior when you said this:
"I for one would welcome any percentage of Atheists leaving the country."
This is the original post Beezle which attracted great mirth.
"If all the atheists left the U.S.A. it would lose 93% of the National Academy of Science but less than 1% of the prison population".
And you jump on my case your a very funny man ,inaccurate but funny all the same.
It's hard to believe you are still trying to defend atrocious behavior. Oh well.
I need no defence if Im not being attacked?
Now whose being silly
You were attacking atheists and then defending yourself when questioned. How soon they forget.
That was an attack
Oh me oh my!
Where I come from (and I suspect you too) falsely accusing someone is called lying
I wouldn't want to see all the atheists leave, but I don't guess it would be so horrible if we voted one or two off of the continent. Would it?
What's interesting is that when believers actually do get together and agree on something, it is usually the removal of those who disbelieve in which they wholeheartedly agree.
It's quite fortunate for those who don't believe that the believer now only has the power to vote in light of our laws and their previous actions towards non-believers.
Lighten up. When an ignostic makes a joke to a Christian about an atheist it's a joke. I saw where you and one of your buddies were making fun of my state on another thread. I didn't come in, eyebrow raised, trying to make you feel bad. I just rolled my eyes and went on.
Besides, you have picked on me over something that I think is unfair for several posts back and forth. I had a right to joke about it.
And think about it. What good would it do to vote any of us off the continent? We'd still have computers, where ever we went. Sheesh.
Lighten up -well said
Gosh I took the joke Beezle as the OP ,then spun a comment from the original 'funny' which you decided to 'showcase'
Now Im almost certain you and Mark are twins,Im just trying to figure out which one is the (dare I say it) evil one
There's NOTHING Funny about posting on a religious forum with 666 tattooed on your forehead.. I mean.. fan head
I guess I'd be the doppelganger. I seem to offend some simply by breathing.
Brilliant and true.
Of course, given that around 40% of Americans don't accept evolution, I think many Americans wouldn't mind at all losing the entire National Academy of Sciences.
It must have had to do with the fact Hitler put the words "GOTT MIT UNS" (God with us) on the belt-buckle of EVERY S.S. soldier.
Hitler may have been a religionist, but certainly NOT christian.
His target were the Jews, which is the nation Christianity was birthed from.
As if God would declare it a righteous thing to kill His chosen people.
I suppose it would depend on the particular god. Some gods exterminate an entire planet by drowning over 99% of the mammals, including pregnant mothers and tiny babies. Almost the entire population of the planet was destroyed because one of the more evil gods got miffed. Which one do you favor?
I see lot's of venom here.
How many of your family were killed, did you say?
What? You've never heard of this particular myth? I think it's written about in an old novel of some sort. What's your opinion of a deity which would drown little babies and innocent animals?
So, how many pets did YOU loose, in this onslaught?
Innocent people always die because of the wicked.
Take any war for example. the hierarchy declare war and they send off who and while bombing cities kill whom?
God sent his son (an innocent) to take the sins of the world
The slaves of egypt, Gods chosen, the first borns were slaughtered as a population control effort by pharoah. God kills egypts firstborn as the last plague in egypt and God is a bad egg.
It was often a practice in war to slaughter all that was not important, back then they had different weapons of little destruction. Innocents were killed yes. WW1 bombs were dropped on cities.. killing women and babies randomly, innocents.
The flood, as i have said before, only included the area of people that God was working with. The whole middle east is actually below sea level, like a huge bowl and the reports of floods from other nations sort of makes ya think they were not flooded out by a world wide flood.
Innocent people always suffer because of the badness of others.
home robberies, terrorist attacks, government taxes and abortions.
And there is not enough water to cover the planet either! And if there were, where did it go when it receded?
Silly myths! There is no evidence any god sent his child, begotten from impregnating a 13 year old virgin, to save anyone from anything. Besides, Mrs. God might have something to say about that!
Wow, either one is blissfully ignorant of reality and facts or willfully denying reality and facts, or both to have come to that utterly ridiculous conclusion. Unbelievable.
Easy option would have been to climb aboard the boat
It depends what kind of Christian you are.
Many Christians persecuted the Jews because they believed the Jews crucified Jesus.
WE have been through the prison and christian thing before. I am surprised it has come up again and so shall my arguments that this 'more christians in prison' is a ridiculous statement.
First off, there are priests in prisons... hence many are not christian but catholic and we see what that religion got into in the dark ages. So blow that off for representing christendom in any aspect.
Secondly, in prison, prisoners get time off for 'good behavior'. I would say that part of that good behavior might be tolerating church services on sundays... hence not an example of christian either.
thirdly, Many prisoners when asked, in prison, might think it would look good to say they believe in a God or however the question is phrased, if its a multiple choice, they check, christian.
fourth, there is a large of percentage of those who declare, unknown or of no faith, these might just be atheists in which case the percentage goes way up.
I know a fellah when in prison who played the 'christian game' while serving time and yes it helped him get time off his sentence and once out, God was far from the picture of his life. I would have to call him a non believer in God, even an atheist.
We see wolves donning sheeps clothing in many aspects of society, yet the atheists seem to want to purport that this is not happening in this scenario.. just more misinformation from a twisted person on a bent mission.
I hope i have settled this inane bit of inference from yet again another statistic which is unreliable.
Of course there are examples of men who truly did find God in prison, i am sure not a huge amount, but some and this is a good thing.
Catholics are Christians. In fact, you are the heretics.
It is good that people find God in prison. You can scan all of Google Earth and not find any God...lol. And yet God has certain fixed characteristics: a 50-cubit-high pillar of smoke by day, pillar of fire by night. Should be easy to spot on Google Earth...especially since he is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Okay. Now explain the 93% too. Considering atheists are quite a small minority in the U.S that's rather a huge percentage a highly intelligent group who are atheists, isn't it?
One problem with all statistics, this one in particular, is their inability to remain meaningful when they are applied to situations far removed from the core objectives of the study.
Here is another quote based upon the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey in 2007:
“If all the atheists left the U.S.A. in 2007 it would have lost less than 1.7% of its total population.” Now this seems more in line with the prison population quoted in the OP. (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports)
The religious belt-buckle was indeed a part of every Nazi S.S. uniform, ordered by Hitler himself. How, then, can you go on saying Hitler was an Atheist? He was religious, and in the purest religious tradition, decided to kill people not of that religion. There are shenanigans going on even now, like the disgusting Fundamentalist Christians trying to "take over" and "run" the Air Force Academy in Boulder, Colorado.
A very quick search disproves this:
I didn't say Hitler was an atheist.
Religion didn't matter to Hitler, and he didn't kill people of a different religion. He killed people he considered racially inferior to Germans. Jews who had converted to Christianity of any flavor were still killed. Slavs of Catholic and Protestant religion were still killed.
He didn't kill off people who said they were atheist.
I'm not dismissing the sick behavior of some fundamentalist Christians. But, come on - rounding up racial minorities and trying to exterminate them is another matter entirely.
When the truth is damning enough, why do evangelicals (of all persuasions, religious or not) seem so intent in undermining their case by resorting to hyperbole?
As mentioned, you should really read Mein Kampf. In fact, Hitlers words have been quoted here several times before regarding his religious views and why he committed atrocities.
No, I really don't have to. There are others that have pulled out the supposed damning evidence that Hitler was a highly religious freak obsessed with people's religious beliefs (probably the same parts that you've read; have you really read Mein Kampf?).
That damning evidence turns out to be fairly thin. A couple of sentences among thousands obsessing about the "Jewish peril." Nowhere does he lambast atheists.
And why all the discussion about Hitler? Let's talk about Stalin, too...a highly religious man?
The anti-religious continue to feed their personal favorite myth that Hitler was a highly religious man fueled by religious hatred with scant evidence to support it. In that way, they are just the mirror image of the evangelicals who imagine they're a persecuted, martyred minority.
A good point; the atheists should morally own that Hitler was an Atheist.
As usual, your phoned-in contributions are worthless.
People arguing that Hitler was really an atheist will find just as much evidence supporting their opinion as those arguing that he was really a religious man.
The Islamic propagandist will take every opportunity to support a lie.
Yes, I have read it. You should, too, in order to find out for yourself what Hitler thought, rather than making assertions of what you believe he thought.
You're saying you read the whole thing? Based on your responses so far, I frankly doubt you did.
And, no, I am pretty sure I don't have to read 700 pages of racist conspiracy theories in order to understand what he thought. There are far more pleasant, interesting things to read and there are only so many hours in the day.
What do you base that on, then, from my responses? Do tell.
Essentially, what you're saying is that you don't need to read a book about someones thoughts by the very same person who wrote the book, yet you will adamantly dismiss those thoughts out of hand. And, your excuse is that there are "more pleasant, interesting things to read."
Prove me wrong. Please share some of the religious ideas you culled from the book. No need for exact quotes of course, just the religious ideas Hitler used in his book (in bullet format, if you like).
There are plenty of fervent anti-religionists who will read through Mein Kampf for any religious mention whatsoever (and ignore the other 99.999%). When you google "religion" or "Christianity" and "Mein Kampf" you see the anti-religionists repeatedly quoting the same couple of sentences, over and over and over again.
And, please, while we're at it, feel free to tell us how Stalin, murderer of tens of millions, was a devout Christian man, too.
Why should I do that when you have already convicted me based on what I have already said? Seems you really don't have a leg to stand, yes?
Why should I have to tell you what is abundantly clear from Stalin's biography?
I'm sure you read that from beginning to end, too, right? And it proves he was a religious man, right?
Believe what you like, B. I'm used to the circumlocutory word games by the evangelicals.
Lets not forget that whole Aryan thing while you purport a small portion of the truth. Just the side that endorses what you want to say.
Lets not forget about Hitlers, genetic experiments and medical experiments.
Lets not forget about how attractive the jewish banking system was (that God set up) and how the jews became a financial threat.
But lets focus on your narrow viewpoints only shall we.. so we can all jump into the pool of your deceptions.
So, God's into banking now? If you've got his ear, think you could talk to him about all the fees he's been adding lately?
Yes, and let's not forget that Hitler had more in common with you as a believer and your penchant for putting up strawman fallacies to support your personal religion, just like you did here.
What did Hitler do that has anything in common with a Christian?
Seems a very unfounded unintelligent thing to say
Yes, I can understand that doing homework, finding out and learning things is not something you care to do, which is why you are questioning my post and calling it "unintelligent and unfounded."
Since you have not read "Mein Kampf" you would not know the connection I referred. The words from that book pointing out that connection have been quoted here many times already.
No ,not what did Hitler say,he believed.
But what did He do ,that was anything remotely Christian?
Do you see the difference yet Beezle?
there. read the quotes. if you aren't going to read mein kampf, don't belittle someone else's comments because THEY haven't read it. i haven't read it either. someone who demands proof but offers none is not furthering any intelligent discussion but simply stomping their foot to have their opinion be believed.
the website mentioned above cites its quotes and lists its sources. i believe there are enough quotes from hitler here to prove that he did believe in god, at the very least. however if you don't like what it says then post your own evidence to the contrary, if there is any.
I actually laughed when I read your post.
Clearly you haven’t researched Hitler's complex relationship with religion if you just picked the first result out of a Google search. Here's some more for you to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl … ious_views
Snarky enough for you?
could be snarkier.
what do you call replying with a wikipedia link? why not go to yahoo answers if that's the sort of credibility you're looking for? i found a site that included real sources and quotes. and this is your reply? my previous statements still stand.
My source has realer sourcers and quotier quotes. My previous statements still stand, too.
well then i will point out one of these "quotier quotes" from your wikipedia link, and DO pray tell explain how it backs your stance on the issue:
In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture, and his belief in the "Aryan" Christ. In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
Elsewhere in Mein Kampf Hitler speaks of the "creator of the universe" and "eternal Providence." He also states his belief that the Aryan race was created by God, and that it would be a sin to dilute it through racial intermixing. Hitler writes:
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
frankly i'm hard-pressed to find any information in this wiki page that DOESN'T say hitler believed in god. did you even read it before you posted? i've said it already - without evidence, you're just a little kid throwing a fit because the big kids won't listen to your story.
Oh one more thing. You wrote:
"There are plenty of fervent anti-religionists who will read through Mein Kampf for any religious mention whatsoever (and ignore the other 99.999%)."
how many sentences would he have to write about his views on god before you admitted "ok, fine, he believed in god"? seriously. if hitler had written a page's worth of sentences in mein kampf explaining that he liked art, according to you that would not be enough to PROVE he liked art. i think i understand now why you don't like offering evidence to back up your points.
Yes, I read those and I also read quotes like these:
The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created. Political parties are inclined to compromises; philosophies never. Political parties even reckon with opponents; philosophies proclaim their infallibility.
This is corroborated by Goebbels' diary entry:
"Hitler expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity."
A German historian quoted Hitler as saying:
"We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."
This is consistent with his view that any people he saw as having a devotion to any ideology than pan-Germanism were killed, while those who were able to reconcile either Christian or atheist beliefs/sentiments towards German supremacy were not targeted.
It's also fairly clear that his personal views were faily ambiguous, but he was willing to change his public views time and time again depending on the political winds, as populist politicians are wont to do.
And, again, we really are giving Stalin short shrift here.
in response to your last post, which does not have a reply button:
first quote addresses his views on the present state of christianity, which it is already known he wanted to change, but does not say anything about god specifically.
second quote: pretty much the same thing. look up positive christianity if you don't know what changes i'm referring to.
third quote: sure does sound like he was rejecting god. yet according to your own rules about how many statements of evidence one needs before one may believe a thing to be true, i'll need at least as many sentences like this one as there are quotes from hitler's own book that affirm his believe in god. otherwise i'm just going to have to write it off as an out-of-context blurb, aren't i.
How snarky of you (that's a compliment ), although your previous post really did violate your rule about long replies, didn't it? It is too much to ask for a little consistency?
People's beliefs can change over time, and people's professed, public beliefs can differ from what they privately believe, especially in the case of politicians.
Now...what about Stalin?
I really REALLY hope you are not implying that Stalin did what he did BECAUSE he didn't believe in a god?
I'm not. Not sure how you could gather that from my "let's talk about Stalin" question.
I'm personally of the belief that actions matter, not beliefs, and whatever motivates you to kill or authorize the killing of other people (and other egregiously bad things), no matter what that is, is the problem. Blanket condemnations of religion and atheism are entirely missing the point.
Stalin was an atheist; he did not believe in God; now out of shame the atheists don't own him.
Thats a bit of a paradox really since a god is something that is supernatural and you by definition cannot be supernatural.
Why not just go directly to the source?
livelonger, i never said anything about having a rule against long replies. you must be confused.
i would like to believe that people's beliefs can change over time, too. and it is true that some people will say one thing to the public and another behind closed doors. so it is certainly possible that hitler's public opinions on the state of christianity in his time were lies, and that he actually was a devout christian in private.
Yes, anything is possible...which is why talking about beliefs as a motivation to do bad things is ridiculous.
I was referring to your first "rule of war."
ohhh you're referring to my hub! well it is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, sort of a parody on internet culture... though i do agree it's best to keep things short and to the point. much too easy to find oneself rambling online.
people do not choose between right and wrong. a person will always choose what they think is right. no one sets out to be evil; they can only be perceived that way by other people. therefore our beliefs are the only motivation behind every choice we make.
but i never said that hitler did bad things in the name of god. he had a lot of other beliefs.
Point taken about beliefs being the motivation to action. But beliefs can as malleable as we want them to be, and people routinely ascribe their own beliefs to standard religions and ideologies without any basis, so it's silly to say "religion causes X" and "atheism causes X".
Other people can believe the same things and still not do bad things.
Noooo, it is a reduction of Atheists by sheer proportion. Atheists number 12% of the US population, so where are they in prison? Maybe there is something to their Atheism which causes them to be more law-abiding than the religious people.
Actually, I believe many prisoners are Atheists when they commit their crimes, but after convictions and sent to jail become religious. They think it will help their position for parole or doing time.
Oh Im sure the authorities have it all figured out
Besides God will judge all in the end.
In other words, you believe that convicts provide information on themselves when they are released from prison and not when they go in.
No ,I just think they can afford better lawyers
Well, I have to say; somebody told me atheism is the mentality of a teenage boy. I took up for it. But this OP makes me wonder if it was wasted breath.
No. It's reverse.
If atheists left america, it would be the end of the religious because they seem to exist only in opposition to atheists.
And vice versa.
Anyway, let America keep their religious.
I think you're right. I had never seen insanely religious people until I signed on to hub pages. And I had no idea such agressive atheists existed.
The amazing part is they can't even see it.
No. I'd say they are well aware of that and they're just playing games.
At least, I prefer this point of view.
And sometimes (fewer these days) we can even get a good laugh out of it, which is about the only interest one can find in those jousts.
Me either ,Hubpages ,actually on reflection, Id say its the Internet that seems to make it more noticeable and acessible.
Like a stage if you will ,that ushers in everyone without bias.
And in they come lol
Which is cool, in a lot of ways; but sometimes it simply seems like everyone's talking and no one is listening. Seems such a waste of a perfectly good opportunity.
jc.. It is a waste of time (mine).
I dont mind a bit of ribbing ,kidding around but some of the insults and tit for tat insults just are not very mature.
I find many of the Athiests who frequent the forums on the Internet quite thin-skinned ,love to and call Christians names ,but when Christians dont turn the other cheek ,oh my gosh they act like spoilt little children who whine and spit every chance they get.
Yea I sometimes think ,ok we are all grown up ,and for goodness sake should be able to discuss different /new ideas.
I also think its easy for some minds to labels other minds as indoctrinated ,somehow that means we left the human race ,somewhere ,therefore its impossible to discuss anything with them.
What a cop-out!
P.S For the record JC, you are communicative!
Well, don't fall for the indoctrination argument. It's bogus. Everyone is indoctrinated. And, whatever you do, don't google it. It'll only make you wish there was a function on the computer so the next time that atheist posted to you you could reach through the screen and throttle them.
I would like to see one thread where everyone talked, not argued, about something of substance. Really tried to understand the other view. This place is maddening at times. I see a lot of good thoughts shot down simply because the person who posted was the wrong label. One of yours once, actually. And then when the person with the right label said the exact same thing it was oh so profound. I had to laugh.
You should really take the time to understand the definition of indoctrination before making such remarks.
Is that because what you googled turned out to be true?
You appear to be contributing to that which you complain about by fallaciously claiming the indoctrination argument is bogus.
Unfortunately, many of us tend to understand all of the definitions of a word, not just the one that suits our fancy at the time. I know full well which one you have in mind when you make these jaunts into the religious forum. Unfortunately, it is not the only one to use. Others are:
To teach or inculcate
To imbue with learning
To teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically
Not all definitions of indoctrinate include - with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions-
Just the one you choose to use.
Absolutely not, ergo the disappointment in the missing function on the computer. The sights advocating your 'religious indoctrination' theory are offensive, as I'm sure you are aware. I was not amused by what is obviously your idea of a prank.
I admit that my statement might have appeared hyprocritical, but definitely not on this count. I fear it is your argument that is quite bogus. .
Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
Religious indoctrination, the original sense of indoctrination, refers to a process of imparting doctrine in a non-critical way, as in catechism.
No, because that is the definition related to religious indoctrination. I did not choose it. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Yes, I understand believers are "offended" when they are told they are indoctrinated. From the same link above:
Most religious groups among the revealed religions instruct new members in the principles of the religion; this is now not usually referred to as indoctrination by the religions themselves, in part because of the negative connotations the word has acquired. Mystery religions require a period of indoctrination before granting access to esoteric knowledge.
You would possibly have an iota of validity with that statement had it been me who came up with the argument in the first place, but I didn't.
It doesn't matter that you are refering to religious indoctrination. If that is not what you post, you have no reason to wonder why confusion might ensue.
I know of several things I learned in the basic grades through indoctrination. It did not inhibit critical thinking. To insinuate that the indoctrination of some religious creed causes the brain to cease functioning is a tired, and worthless argument; only perpetuated, in my opinion, to raise the ire of an opponent. Oddly, if you step back and observe the conversations, you might surmise, as I have, that many of those that argue in defense of atheism display a remarkable tendency to appear to be suffering from indoctrination themselves.
You can dance around this thing all day long, which you are good at. I post a definition, you post a site. I could run and find one whose wording suits my fancy and respond in kind. But the fact remains that by pushing this argument when you have no idea of who you are talking to leaves you in the precarious position of probably being wrong.
And I honestly don't give a hoot whether you post that my argument lacks validity. I ceased being a doe in headlights here quite a while back. You must prove your point, to be deemed right. I'm afraid you haven't.
Unfortunately, your opinion and assessment are not valid in regards to the argument of indoctrination.
Yes, I understand that believers believe others who do not share their beliefs are indoctrinated. This shows a very poor understanding of the term and the process.
Uh, actually, you're the one doing the dancing.
Possibly, but you would have to mount a defense in the argument itself, an argument that I did not formulate if you recall.
Yes, I know. Believers do not care about such things.
And, you have?
Aw gee. My opinion and assessment are not valid. That hurts.
Indoctrination, the original sense of indoctrination, refers to a process of imparting doctrine in a non-critical way, as in catechism.
I cut and pasted that from Wiki. I removed the word religious, so let’s think about it.
The religious right says ‘God dun it.’ Without blinking. To everything.
The non religious left says ‘The Christians dun it’ Without blinking. To everything.
Where is the critical thinking on either side of this issue? It’s like talking to clones. You can’t have a rational conversation because both sides seem to become horribly offended when you point out that, possibly, there is a third (and more probable) solution. Now, I like to think that people want to think, but something appears to be blocking the thought processes on both sides of the fence. Since you don’t believe it is indoctrination on the one side, please enlighten me. I’m curious.
I guess I have a poor understanding of the word believer too. What is that exactly? I’m not sure I fit.
Whether you formulated the argument or not, you brought it to the forums. It is an invalid argument unless proven otherwise. Simply because you say it exists in anyone does not make it so. I don’t disagree that those who believe many things about spirituality are ignoring facts; but to say that all religious people are ‘religiously indoctrinated’ is a broad unprovable stroke. You cannot just bandy the term about as if it is a fact that applies to all. Not and retain any semblance of integrity in your argument in the process.
No, I haven’t. As I said, I don’t need to prove anything. The burden of proof lies in your court. You made the accusation.
You have presented another strawman fallacy that has lead to another false conclusion. Here is the fallacy:
"The non religious left says ‘The Christians dun it’ Without blinking. To everything."
Do you believe in a god or some other supernatural entity that's never been shown to exist?
Yes, and I understand how often you have ignored or denied what I've written to support my argument all along without a shred of explanation.
And, I have been making my case all along as I point out in each and every post the evidence of religious indoctrination.
OK. Now you’re scaring me. Unless you’re joking. Which, if so, that’s not funny. I’m not talking about all of the non religious; just the ones that appear to throw the words out at every turn. It’s simplistic and you know it. If it’s so profoundly thoughtful, why are you not doing it too? You’re a smart guy.
I don’t know Beelzedad. I’m clueless. I can’t honestly say yes, or no.
You have presented no provable facts that support the argument that anyone, in particular, is indoctrinated. You quote information from the internet and then pat the poster on the head and say ‘There, see? You’re religious, so therefore it fits you.’ I don’t think you quite grasp the meaning and intent of the term.
Please, see my response above.
Hilarious. YOU have provided all the facts that support your own indoctrination, just like every other indoctrinated believer.
Hilarious? You would only be right in the land of Oz. Fortunately, we're not. But, nice try to throw the focus off of the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on with this silly contention.
Yes, and just like before and all along, I'll continue to point out the evidence you continue to present for your indoctrination. I do completely understand why you would deny it. Yeah, I get that.
You don't understand anything. And don't presume that fact is not lost on me. State the reasons used for your post, in detail, to prove that you honestly believe that I am religiously indoctrinated and you aren't simply expecting anyone to believe you are right because you have the better avatar.
Then, and only then (if I can't prove you wrong), will I say you are right and aren't just poking at me for the fun of it. Unlike many people on this site, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.
So, I guess that answers that doesn't it? You were wrong and won't admit it.
No, I'd rather just leave it with your fallacious conclusion considering it reveals nothing in the nature for further discussion. The rest of your post reveals that you have not been reading or comprehending mine.
Beelzedad. No one is saying that there is not indoctrination involved in learning the tenets of faith. Where the problem lies is that you appear to be arguing that it causes some type of serious damage in a person's ability to reason across the gamut of all decisions in their life. If you would care to share how I have been unreasonable at every juncture, then we can say it applies to me. But me alone.
You would have to show the unreasonable nature of each and every person's permanent ability to think before you could make a blanket accusation.
I have no doubt that you want to stop the discussion. I would too. It's a ridiculous assertion that didn't deserve the amount of time involved in addressing it. Whatever possessed you to bring it up in the first place is a mystery.
And who cares about this if those scientists are busy smashing 0 dimensional non entities in accelerators, weaving strings and branes, attempting time travell fantacies, big bang'ing fantacies, wormhole fantacies dark matter fantacies. It will be a great thing to lose 93% of such a gang of idiots
***eating popcorns and smilling***
By the way Beezle Im sure youre not as cold and humorless as this statue look a like here either.
My goodness, you really do go out of your way to insult me personally. No wonder believers never form morals or ethics. Unbelievably atrocious behavior.
I'm sure you have friends in real life...just not so much here.
These are the smartest people in the world you're lambasting, for no reason. I see them as Whole People: all their time is theirs. They don't sacrifice their Sundays or pray 5 times a day to illusory invisible things. A Muslim for example only has 83% of the waking time of a real person available to him, so he can't study as hard, can't work as hard, as an Atheist.
Good point. Believers definitely do seem to be a happier group of people.
Well, you are a bit of an anomaly ernest, but you don't call yourself an atheist. That might be why. A lot of atheists seem to take the whole thing so seriously. All of the time. You can't ever have fun with them. What's this place if you can't laugh at it? It's not like we're going to change the world with all the bickering.
The bickering will go on as long as loonies keep telling people they have to believe in myths as truth.
Tell me my 4 cylinder car is a V8 and I will argue with you till the cows come home.
The myth is dead.
In recent times, the followers of the psychotic god who is supposed to be omni-everything are no longer permitted by law to follow his "instructions" and openly murder non believers.
This allowed some of mankind to advance the sciences.
we know quite a lot about ourselves and a lot more about where our primary beliefs come from and how they are formed.
Our personal archetypes and many other factors determine what thoughts our brain are likely have, not some myth.
As we now have a scientific understanding of religiosity and know why we are a neurotic species, the bronze aged myth is not required for an understanding of anything more than man's inhumanity to man, and how the gullible and needy will believe absolutely anything they are told about a "god."
The word god can be exchanged for "fear" in reality aqt that time.
Primitives thought all they did not control was the work of one god or another since before ra
It is also known that we are a species who's DNA survives by wiping us out, and science is only a poofteenth from re-working DNA and repairing some of the obvious screw-ups the "god" was supposed to have got right the first time, eliminating diseases.
It is becoming increasingly silly to flog myths without keeping up with developments in medicine, biology, technology, space telescopes and the rapid changes that show them to be wrong.
Anyone who would like to know could start learning on this huge site.
Here is one page of many many thousand.
David Pearce who runs this site is a friend of mine. David is the type of friend we all need. He deals in truth of a different type. He understands the need for peer reviews and double blinds from the worlds best universities to support his views on many of the subjects he has taken on in his massive move to educate people on animal and human cruelty, drugs, the human condition and anything vaguely related to acheiving well-being for all sentient life.
This site is supported by a large group of people who are specialist thinkers in their own fields. There are also a mass of links to other views from such as Stephen Hawking and other such luminaries regardless of any opposition expressed.
I spent 2 years reading hedweb, and now just try to keep up with new developments here, as many hands are now on deck.
the drug guide is the best I have ever seen, with links to test results from major universities. A must for parents who want to know as much about drugs as their kids do!
I stand corrected. On at least one count in my previous post to you. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
About taking it seriously? Yep! I try to do anything I can to stop the backsliding into myths, I have a lot of gkids!
Your statement about the bickering changing nothing is spot on.
I would rather have a discussion that is supported by at least some empirical evidence or at least educated opinion than much of the bickering on here.
Well I reckon Earnest and I have the best smiles for opposing views
I was tortured by my wife and children to force me to smile for that photo.
I'm such a miserable sod, wot with not havin me own god an all. .
Awww c'mon dont take it personally, I think you radiate happiness and silliness( in a fun way) and I also believe God made you.
But hey even if you dont believe that is great to see anybody be happy and just be...
Yes, life is about as good as we make it if we are fortunate enough to be born in a rich country with free health care and decent government it is easy to smile.
Even the worst of our leaders aren't too bad either, we hardly ever see people being bashed by them, and they even made a few bob in the last few years. Life is good in the lucky country and it's close neighbor NZ.
I'm glad you can see the silliness, the happiness is just a cover. Despite having all the advantages to live a happy life, I am in truth yet another abused grandfather.
..I cheekily titled one of my Hubs 'Move to New Zealand, Get Your Life Back' and you just reminded me of the uniqeness of my home country.
I know ,I know ,ya just cant pick your neighbours
What many people don't relise either is that even though New Zealand and Australia are only a few hours apart (by plane) they are both so vastly differnt in geography,animal and fauna!!
You will laugh at the lastest question I had asked of me recently though ,went like this "So how long do the little kiwi's need to stay on the kangaroo's pouch beforw they start jumping?
I hear you re leaders, one of my sons said , Mum Keys ( John Keys) is such a dork, but least we dont wanna put a cap in his ass..
I almost wet my pants laughing-too funny.
Kanga can jump real well ,but across the ditch..yea right mate.
Dont ya just love it!!
I have had holidays in NZ and employed quite a few NZ men and women, and feel very comfortable in NZ. I went to a wedding there once as well in Wellington.
I also traveled a long way to see a Kiwi but it was worth it. We protect possums, yet they are vermin in NZ aren't they? I was told they do a massive amount of damage to the natives.
Like most of us I take people how I find them, and all the NZ people I know are very nice.
I had a Maori guy working for me for a few months who was one of the biggest strongest people I have seen. He was a gentle guy who's tiny wife and child ruled him. He liked it that way.
I am feeling I need another visit.
I see your kids have got that healthy NZ irreverence for pollies.
Thats the great thing about two great countries so close together-ease of travel,and different enough to make the effort worth it all,lol.
I have sister south of Loxton, Adelaide who I miss heaps!! and a brother in Melbourne,actually we all decided to surprise him for his 50th (2001) and it was my first trip to Oz!
I really liked Victoria Sq-Melbourne, my sis and I had a ball!! just hung out eating pizza ,sipping wine and enjoyed this South American live band. Was the perfect friendly atmosphere for a bunch of slight hungover Kiwis
What kind of work were you doing Earnest?
I bet those Maoris were the best! -hehe.
Yea I need a visit home ,big time!
Glad you enjoyed our little town when you were here. New Zealand is awesome. The volcanic nature of the place makes it very exotic to we flat land dwellers. We don't have mountains, only hills by comparison.
I owned a few motorcycle shops in those years, and ran a business consultancy from 1977 onward as well as designing restaurants from the ground up in old historic buildings, bringing up a young family, enjoying my work/hobby, restoring vintage cars, doing psychology at uni, you know, just a normal lifestyle.
oh so nothing much then
That reminds me though ,the work ethic tends to be different here maybe Downunders are just more reticent ,if ya know what I mean, lol. Outspoken and friendly ,but modest in personal achievements,etc.
Oh was going to say more ,but might upset the Poms so I wont
I just know they wont be winning the Rugby.
Designing restaurants ,wow ,I like that. Intrigueing.
No, nothing much. I loved the consultancy, which took me to other countries to work for the first time in my life, and the extra money got me started on designing restaurants, mainly because I thought I could do better than the places I was eating at compared to some of the restaurants I saw overseas. I even designed the furniture!
My psychological studies were partly to find out what the hell was driving me.
Well a healthy mind is happiest learning ,thats what I think anyway.
Partly why I joined HP,to stretch my mind lol,it was also a source of income til I ironed out all the red tape.
My son is in his 3rd year doing psychology,a serious but warm individual who has challenged me ever since he could talk (in a good way) lol but questions ,then he joined the debate team and mealtimes were never the same .
Sometimes I think though that gifted individuals can be quite lonely too,never being able to stop learning or the mind constantly rethinking theories etc.
I dont know ,on one hand I think its amazing ,on the other ,my maternal side I guess ,it concerns me a little.
Genetics probably play a big part too.
My dad used to kid us ,if he was paid a $ for every problem he solved he would have been a millionare he had 9 kids!
I find most people have done a lot in their lives, or at least the one's I know have. Psychology is a very boring subject for a while, then when it gets to the juicy bits it gets pretty interesting in my view.
I wish your son well with his studies. If he is going in to active therapy just be sure he reads about narcissistic carthection. The shrinks bane!
In other words, because this discussion forum is not a kindergarten playground in which to frolic and tease, that is reason for coming to the conclusion that atheists are not a happy bunch and believers are.
Why not try a kiddie forum, then?
See that's whats missing -Humour and happiness!
Take this gang ,I bet ya last kitkat they bicker occassionally ,but at the end of the day they are all still cats.
Like us , we are all still Humans no matter what we think.
Well the tabby on the left doesn't believe his owner exists, and that his tin of catfood self evolved from a primordial fish.
The tortoiseshell on the right reckons that if you don't follow his owner he will pull your whiskers out and set fire to your fur when you are dead.
The ginger in the middle says "chill out lads" you are both talking boll*cks.
Ok. That did it. Sure I'll tell you why I said it. Because there is absolutely no logical reason to attempt to be insufferable at every turn. When someone does that I tend to think, perhaps, they came here while they are in time out on the kiddie forum.
And I made the comment about people appearing to be happier because they, apparently, know how to laugh at themselves sometimes, and others at times. They aren't always poised for battle.
Perhaps, there is another alternative. Perhaps, there are those who do offer and understand humor on other intellectual levels other than that of potty level humor.
Perhaps. But I understand both. So, I don't see that applying to all. Anyway. It doesn't matter. It appears you have taken this personally and it was not my intent to offend.
Really? What would lead you to say that? Other than the fact that you must enjoy debating.
When does a debate just become nitpicking ?
You know, what I consider to be a fairly intelligent guy told me something once, that sometimes I feel applies when dealing with a firmly entrenched atheist bias toward anyone that doesn't agree. He quoted a line from the Terminator, and it does seem to apply sometimes when I think I'm getting dogged unfairly and feel as of I'm under the gun. You might disagree, but here's the line.
"Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."
When irrational beliefs in supernatural beings replaces reality.
I could answer, but I'm not sure why you would ask. Apparently, I'm 'mentally challenged' in your mind. I doubt my opinion on the matter warrants discussion.
I ask because the claim appears to be completely unfounded and fallacious.
Well sure. That's what I do. I'm mentally challenged.
So, that's why you made the claim in the first place?
For me personally I love a good laugh ,but not at the expense of hurting anyone.
Of course its difficult to always gage what is humour using an impersonal vehicle ,such as the internet,but after a time we can maybe glean a little of a persons personality.
For me its about respect too, I don't care if you believe in pink elephants or 3 headed aliens,so long as you dont insult my intelligence -I wont insult yours.
As for providing evidence, gosh Earnest ,creation attests to several examples ,but the bottom line for both sides is 'proof of evidence'
I see Science defining what God has already created,so I applaud and need both to grow
Just curious , Yes generally speaking believers they speak,act and do seem happier,of course there are grumpy old farts on both sides of the fence I spose,human nature being what it is
by Miss Donna7 years ago
I've written a small handful of hubs on Mexico but I'm now the new-kid-on-the-block pet care columnist. I look forward to getting to know everyone, and learning from the other pet care folks.We have pygmy goats...
by il Scettico3 years ago
A common religion debate is that religious people try to shove their beliefs down every ones' throats, which is unwanted, closed-minded, and hypocritical. Yet the most common closed-minded belief shoving type of...
by janesix5 years ago
I've come to notice that there are certain traits that religious fanatic share, especially Christians.IrrationallityStubbornnessNot being able to answer a question directlyObnoxious quoting and misquoting the Bible...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 years ago
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think...
by Mark Knowles6 years ago
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence....
by cjhunsinger2 years ago
"Are atheists really so different from everyone else? Well, yes – but not in a bad way. Catherine Caldwell-Harris of Boston University has studied atheists and found that they share certain personality types,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.