You fool! You forgot to add the z<sup>3</sup> term to the radical denominator! You've just proved that squirrels eat their own body weight of acorns every three days! Fool! Ha!
Evolutionary Theory responsible for Nazism
- Thread starter Lawdog
- Start date
You fool! You forgot to add the z<sup>3</sup> term to the radical denominator! You've just proved that squirrels eat their own body weight of acorns every three days! Fool! Ha!
dalahar,
We all make mistakes. Besides, I think AB JAdon just noticed he has five toes on each of his feet that look an awful lot like atrophied fingers. That's why he's laughing maniacially...
Hapsburg,
Ok. I'll accept the The Christ™ thing as a title.
We all make mistakes. Besides, I think AB JAdon just noticed he has five toes on each of his feet that look an awful lot like atrophied fingers. That's why he's laughing maniacially...
Hapsburg,
Ok. I'll accept the The Christ™ thing as a title.
dalahar,
It probably dosen't have enough resolution to begin with so it turns to crap when you reduce it. Did you try applying a sharpening filter to it?
It probably dosen't have enough resolution to begin with so it turns to crap when you reduce it. Did you try applying a sharpening filter to it?
It seems to me that WWII was more of tribulation for Jews than loyal Christians.Angelic Being said:
But more to the point, how did you go about verifying this prophesy? I've read the Bible many times, not once does it mention Hitler or Germany. The reestablishment of a Jewish state cannot be considered evidence because it was, in part, a direct result of the "prophesy".
~Raithere
It does look very much like my foot, but it's not. I thought about my comment to AB Jadon about him noticing that his feet looked like atrophied hands or something, and I figured it was time to change my av. Hmm... Not sure I like it.
That's it. I'm changin' it.
There we go. Much better.
Far from it. The two houses of Hohenzollern and Habsburg never went close to marrying into each other, and Franz Josef (NOT "Frank". It was "Franz", or Francis in english) was born in 1830. Wilhelm II was born in 1859. Far and much between, lad, far and much between.
No, I haven't.
Anyway, the name "Franz" is often anglicasized as "Francis".
Ludwig = Louis
Luipold = Leopold
Wilhelm = William
Friedrich = Frederick
August = Augustus
Clemens = Clement
Johann/Johannes = John/Jonathan
Josef = Joseph
Wenzel = Wenceclaus
Karl = Charles
Anyway, the name "Franz" is often anglicasized as "Francis".
Ludwig = Louis
Luipold = Leopold
Wilhelm = William
Friedrich = Frederick
August = Augustus
Clemens = Clement
Johann/Johannes = John/Jonathan
Josef = Joseph
Wenzel = Wenceclaus
Karl = Charles
Gotcha.
Cool.dalahar said:
Not often, at least not on the interweb. I play iv3 and RoN mostly, but just single-player. A game I really freakin' want, cause it looks so cool, is a game called "Imperial Glory". It's a Napoleonic wargame, looks just pure excellent.
My apologies, but where did I 'make like' the world was going to turn to roses? I don't even remember getting into such subject - I was more focused on how Hitler didn't even kill a hundredth of what god has so I fail to see the problem.
And what cause is that might I ask?
No they don't.
Of course. With little understanding of the planet, the simplest idea is to conjure up an exterior being that does it all. To then explain this being they generally follow the environment:
South American gods are generally all snakes, Egyptians had crocodile and jackal gods, the Indians have elephant and tiger gods - etc.
They have just looked at what is present, and powerful - slapped a name on it and considered it the doer of all. Everytime there's an earthquake the gods are angry, everytime the plants grow the god is happy.
I will change your last quote to something I think is more appropriate:
"People have a built in ability to create imaginary friends".
Not at all. Now, if perhaps South Americans were conjuring up elephant gods and Romans were conjuring up Amazonian frog gods, then I would certainly be more impressed - but to make a god out of something you see everyday.. Not impressive. Hell, I've just created a badger god and hedgehog god 'cause us Brits lack a god of our own.
Well although it might sound uncaring, other people are really not my concern. I wont let you teach my daughter that shit but everyone else can do as they please.
Sure, and that totem pole and focus of worship would most certainly be given to something that is prevalent on that island. Just like Red Indian totem poles with eagles, buffalo and other such things that lived right in front of their faces.
You're completely wrong. Everyone, (you included), was born with no belief at all. The belief you now have came along when someone plopped the idea of god and jesus and brahma and whoever else you can think of in your head.
*************dalahar said:
M*W: I lived in Wiesbaden from 1976-1981.
That is the same as justifying a parent killing their child because they made them.
No they don't.
That's akin to saying that people have a built in knowledge of unicorns, lake monsters and fairies. All of those I have mentioned abound in world culture, are as old as beliefs in gods and obviously, given your statement, couldn't have been 'flocked to' by others.
Back in the early days man worshipped things like the sun. People didn't really need to "flock to one man's idea" because everyone could feel and see it's power in action. They couldn't look directly at it's 'face', but their god was ever present, (for half a day).
These beliefs would have been handed down, handed down and handed down. Taught from generation to generation. The stories of course, (like everything else), evolved. Ideas are not static, and given time the images associated with the gods would have changed to different things, (snakes/crocodiles etc). Different people, with as much imagination as we have, would have made stories, poems and songs to describe how they thought the world began, their purpose on it and so on.
The ideas have been spoon fed to humanity for thousands of years and that is why it is hard to get rid of.
None of that substantiates a belief that in man exists a "built in knowledge". gods have only survived, and only continue to survive because of a lack of knowledge. Until every question has been answered, gods will survive. So yes, I agree with you that we cannot remove gods and religion, but their lights are already starting to flicker. Several thousand years ago man said god caused plagues and the like, now we blame germs and disease and go about eradicating them. Thousands of years ago god said it was ok to keep slaves, now we disagree with him and say it isn't. Thousands of years ago god ordered us to stone prostitutes and naughty children to death, now we disagree with him and have found more appropriate and less harmful methods. Etc etc.
god is fading into the sunset slowly but surely.
So, you disagree with me when I state we're all born without god belief?
I could use the rather pathetic response that I was given: "you just deny it", but I wont, because that's naive.
We are who we are because of a billion different things. Our associations, upbringing, experiences and so on. You are a religious man because something/s in your life have made you that way - be it upbringing, circumstance, or experience. I cannot fault you for that, and I would simply ask that you understand that instead of just putting it down to "just deny it".
I am an honest man and will hereby tell you that I will believe anything you want - gods, sea serpents or goblins. All you need to do is provide adequate evidence. Am I asking too much?
Those people who debate passionately... Have they been spoonfed belief? As a result "inate idea" has no place. What you would need is a child that has never even heard the word.
To begin with? As in: when humans didn't really know anything? How else would they explain the world and it's events? Think the first idea would have been evolution and gravity? No no, that comes later when man understands more, the simple answer comes first.
These early men would have wondered just as much as you do, but with no ability to explain it. No equipment, no ability to study - across a multitude of people with a different expertise, no technology, no anything. All they had was a beaming hot ball of fire in space that killed them on occasion, made plants grow, and couldn't be looked at. The world was flat as a pancake, surrounded by a sky dome and supported by an orang utan's bottom. Would that imply inate knowledge of orang utan anus and sky domes?
Most certainly not. All of which were created by people who didn't know anything. They could not explain an earthquake, a bolt of lightning, or the difference between life and death, (other than dead people didn't breathe).
No, not in the slightest. An idea gets taught from generation to generation and it sticks. We all generally try and avoid fire. We know it burns. This doesn't imply that we have an inate knowledge of what fire does, but that it has been taught from generation to generation for thousands of years. It only takes one man to burn his hand to ensure it will become 'known' by everyone to follow.
That's where we obviously differ. It is not my place to tell my daughter what does or does not exist. She can believe in Lenny the leprechaun if she chooses to. A parent has no right to tell their child what they should or should not believe in. When she's old enough she can examine all the data, (or not, it's her choice), and come to her own conclusions. Given that I have stated a parent does not have the right, nobody else bloody well does either.
If no-one told you about god, you wouldn't even be making that statement. The very term 'god' would be completely unknown to you.
Last edited:
Why would you willingly submit to tyranny, even from God?dalahar said:
There is no knowledge of god. There are no facts that you can point to, no evidence you can site beyond a claim of ignorance. And there is no innate universal understanding or there would be no debate and there certainly wouldn't be any atheists. There is only the human tendency to anthropomorphize. It's natural enough to perceive the universe through a personalized perspective; we have no other POV from which to experience the world. The problem is that this doesn't hold up to analysis. The clouds may seem angry when they turn dark and violent but they are not. The brook may seem happy. It's not.
The image of God that so many people see is simply a projection of their selves, displayed against the backdrop of the world.
~Raithere
I didn't ask whether you would or if you had a choice. I asked, why would you willingly submit to tyranny?dalahar said:
Let me rephrase the question: Presuming there is a god and presuming he created us, does this give him the moral authority to do whatever he wants to us?
This is neither evidence nor knowledge. You have experience and your interpretation of that experience. The question is, how do you validate your interpretation?
When you assign actions and attributes to God you have.
~Raithere
Going by Christian doctrine I cannot agree. Believe in me and do what I say or you will suffer eternal torment isn't a choice. It's tyranny.dalahar said:
If god were the constant in the equation then all perceptions of god should be the same... or at least compatible with one another. That they are so disparate and conflicting (even within the same religion) leads me to conclude that the constant is not god. This is one of the core principles in my disbelief of a Christian god; I am unable to reconcile the concept even within its own paradigm.
~Raithere