The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 1,304
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 6, 2018 12:59:26 GMT
I guess it's not the religions per se that contributed to science; but in the past, religious places were often the only ones where you could get a higher education. This is true for Christianity and Islam. True. Josef Stalin, despite being an atheist, initially trained to be a priest just so he could get an education.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 13:23:44 GMT
I guess it's not the religions per se that contributed to science; but in the past, religious places were often the only ones where you could get a higher education. This is true for Christianity and Islam. True. Josef Stalin, despite being an atheist, initially trained to be a priest just so he could get an education. Welcome back, lostkiera!
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 6, 2018 13:32:43 GMT
"I don’t see why you would think that seeing as Christianity led to the rise of modern science. Science in general owes much to Christianity."
I'm assuming you're referring to Christian scribes who practiced science. That's only because much of the population was illiterate at the time, so the scribes by default became the scientific community, not because they had some in depth scientific thinking.Today most scientists are atheist/irreligious. And it's not like even back then religion has always been kind to science (Galileo for instance). Besides I'm sure you reject a lot of science founded by religious types (Big Bang Theory, for instance), so I'm not even sure why you bothered bringing that up.
"I’m also one of the most skeptical people there is."
You're "skeptical" in the same way a Flat Earther is skeptical of a round Earth.
"For example I believe nearly all religions are bs."
And the one you happen to believe in I'm guessing you were raised/indoctrined into. I'm sure that plays absolutely no correlation.
"You see I’m even very skeptical about whether professed atheist people like you actually genuinely disbelieve in God."
Just replace "God" with "Allah" and you'll hopefully at least vaguely understand the absurdity of your statement.
www.firstthings.com/article/2011/10/modern-sciences-christian-sourcesblogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages#/That doesn't debunk anything I said. The second article even brings up the Galileo incident I mentioned. Kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 6, 2018 13:50:35 GMT
That doesn't debunk anything I said. The second article even brings up the Galileo incident I mentioned. Kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one. It wasn’t supposed to debunk your garbage. It was intended to verify what I stated. Keep up.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 6, 2018 13:52:56 GMT
That doesn't debunk anything I said. The second article even brings up the Galileo incident I mentioned. Kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one. It wasn’t supposed to debunk your garbage. It was intended to verify what I stated. Keep up. So in other words no actual counterargument. Gotcha. Rather pointless post.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 6, 2018 13:58:38 GMT
I guess it's not the religions per se that contributed to science; but in the past, religious places were often the only ones where you could get a higher education. This is true for Christianity and Islam. True. Josef Stalin, despite being an atheist, initially trained to be a priest just so he could get an education. Just think how many lives(25million to be precise) would have been spared if Stalin hadn’t taken the atheistic route and sincerely pursued God instead?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 6, 2018 14:02:06 GMT
True. Josef Stalin, despite being an atheist, initially trained to be a priest just so he could get an education. Just think how many lives(25million to be precise) would have been spared if Stalin hadn’t taken the atheistic route and sincerely pursued God instead? Oh gee, you mean like the Nazis?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 6, 2018 14:06:41 GMT
Just think how many lives(25million to be precise) would have been spared if Stalin hadn’t taken the atheistic route and sincerely pursued God instead? Oh gee, you mean like the Nazis? The Nazis pursued God? This is news to me.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 6, 2018 14:07:58 GMT
It wasn’t supposed to debunk your garbage. It was intended to verify what I stated. Keep up. So in other words no actual counterargument. Gotcha. Rather pointless post. Making a statement then verifying it with a source is now considered pointless? Okayyy then.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 1,304
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 6, 2018 14:15:24 GMT
Just think how many lives(25million to be precise) would have been spared if Stalin hadn’t taken the atheistic route and sincerely pursued God instead? Doubt it would have made a lot of difference. Stalin represented the interests of the emergent Soviet bureaucracy. If he hadn't been about there likely would have been someone else filling his shoes. That person may have been less brutal than Stalin or possibly more so.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 6, 2018 14:18:13 GMT
So in other words no actual counterargument. Gotcha. Rather pointless post. Making a statement then verifying it with a source is now considered pointless? Okayyy then. Verifying a statemens I've already addressed? Yeah kinda pointless.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 6, 2018 14:20:05 GMT
Oh gee, you mean like the Nazis? The Nazis pursued God? This is news to me. They were overwhelmingly Christian, backed by the Catholic church, and imprisoned atheists. I'm guessing this is the part where you pull out a No True Scottsman.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 6, 2018 14:20:28 GMT
Just think how many lives(25million to be precise) would have been spared if Stalin hadn’t taken the atheistic route and sincerely pursued God instead? Doubt it would have made a lot of difference. Stalin represented the interests of the emergent Soviet bureaucracy. If he hadn't been about there likely would have been someone else filling his shoes. That person may have been less brutal than Stalin or possibly more so. You missed the point. The person “filling his shoes” wouldn’t have been responsible for the slaughter of 25million people neither if he also choose to pursue God instead of atheism.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 6, 2018 14:22:10 GMT
True. Josef Stalin, despite being an atheist, initially trained to be a priest just so he could get an education. Just think how many lives(25million to be precise) would have been spared if Stalin hadn’t taken the atheistic route and sincerely pursued God instead? No one has ever killed 'in the name of atheism' (although there have been vile, atheistic regimes). But plenty have justified their wars and persecutions in the name of their respective faith.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 6, 2018 14:32:12 GMT
The Nazis pursued God? This is news to me. They were overwhelmingly Christian, backed by the Catholic church, and imprisoned atheists. I'm guessing this is the part where you pull out a No True Scottsman. There is good evidence to believe that Hitler and many of the other leading Nazi figures were actually anti-Christian. I suspect you already know that and are just being disingenuous as it doesn’t fit your narrative. The NTS is one of the most ridiculous so-called logical fallacies there is btw. Put it this way, a Christian can look at the holocaust and confidently say that the actions of Nazis flies completely at odds with the teachings of Christianity. Can an atheist say the same about Stalin’s murderous regime contradicting atheism? No, didn’t think so.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 6, 2018 14:41:34 GMT
Stalin was great.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 1,304
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 6, 2018 14:42:15 GMT
Doubt it would have made a lot of difference. Stalin represented the interests of the emergent Soviet bureaucracy. If he hadn't been about there likely would have been someone else filling his shoes. That person may have been less brutal than Stalin or possibly more so. You missed the point. The person “filling his shoes” wouldn’t have been responsible for the slaughter of 25million people neither if he also choose to pursue God instead of atheism. I don't think it was Stalin's pursuit of atheism that led to the deaths. Stalin's brutality was spurred by trying to protect the Soviet Union (and his power base within it) from the hostile forces within it and surrounding it. These forces themselves arose as a consequence of his Socialism in One Country policy. He actually tolerated and even endorsed religious institutions where doing so supported his goals (he was fairly soft on the Orthodox Church in the 30s and even encouraged its revival in the 40s).
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 6, 2018 14:46:30 GMT
You missed the point. The person “filling his shoes” wouldn’t have been responsible for the slaughter of 25million people neither if he also choose to pursue God instead of atheism. I don't think it was Stalin's pursuit of atheism that led to the deaths. Stalin's brutality was spurred by trying to protect the Soviet Union (and his power base within it) from the hostile forces within it and surrounding it. These forces themselves arose as a consequence of his Socialism in One Country policy. He actually tolerated and even endorsed religious institutions where doing so supported his goals (he was fairly soft on the Orthodox Church in the 30s and even encouraged its revival in the 40s). If Stalin choose to become a priest instead of going into politics and disbelieving in God. It’s highly unlikely that he would have become a brutal bloodthirsty dictator responsible for the deaths of over 25million people. We both know that, so why do you keep trying to dance around this rather significant point?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 1,304
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 6, 2018 15:04:15 GMT
I don't think it was Stalin's pursuit of atheism that led to the deaths. Stalin's brutality was spurred by trying to protect the Soviet Union (and his power base within it) from the hostile forces within it and surrounding it. These forces themselves arose as a consequence of his Socialism in One Country policy. He actually tolerated and even endorsed religious institutions where doing so supported his goals (he was fairly soft on the Orthodox Church in the 30s and even encouraged its revival in the 40s). If Stalin choose to become a priest instead of going into politics and disbelieving in God. It’s highly unlikely that he would have become a brutal bloodthirsty dictator responsible for the deaths of over 25million people. We both know that, so why do you keep trying to dance around this rather significant point? Is it significant? I mean yeah you're probably right but the world would still move on no matter what Stalin personally did. The corrupt Tsars and World War 1 would have still pushed the people into revolution; the lack of education in the Russian populace would have seen the rise of a bureaucratic elite; and that elite would have had to use brutal methods to hang on to power in the face of capitalists and far leftists trying to bring it down. And perhaps Father Josef would have observed all this from his small church in Georgia, doing no harm to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 6, 2018 18:09:45 GMT
They were overwhelmingly Christian, backed by the Catholic church, and imprisoned atheists. I'm guessing this is the part where you pull out a No True Scottsman. There is good evidence to believe that Hitler and many of the other leading Nazi figures were actually anti-Christian. I suspect you already know that and are just being disingenuous as it doesn’t fit your narrative. The NTS is one of the most ridiculous so-called logical fallacies there is btw. Put it this way, a Christian can look at the holocaust and confidently say that the actions of Nazis flies completely at odds with the teachings of Christianity. Can an atheist say the same about Stalin’s murderous regime contradicting atheism? No, didn’t think so. Hitler? Debatable. The rest of the Nazis? Sorry but no, Germans at the time were overwhelmingly Catholic. As already noted, they were backed by the Catholic Church.
"Put it this way, a Christian can look at the holocaust and confidently say that the actions of Nazis flies completely at odds with the teachings of Christianity.: How so? Your God had no issue with mass killings either (Noah's Flood, first born Egyptian babies, )
"Can an atheist say the same about Stalin’s murderous regime contradicting atheism? No, didn’t think so."
No because atheism doesn't have some defined dogma, so it's a silly asseriton to begin with. Your bascially refuting the "Well atheism is a religion too!" nonsense I'm sure you shoveled out before.
|
|