U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 10-23-2011, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,604 posts, read 17,770,771 times
Reputation: 9829
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
Actually that is debatable. Think about it, what better way to get support than to proclaim you are doing this for some other reason then you were. He killed Jews and Christians.

Adolf Hitler's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holocaust victims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Until we can ask Hitler himself.... we won't know for sure. But let me ask you, do you think he was acting on his own accord or do you think the religious community made him do it?

He was doing it on his own accord. Not because the pope told him to, not because God told him to. He was doing it for his nation, not his God (if he had one).
You just cannot admit that you are wrong can you? Hitler was NOT an atheist, since even your links confirm that he believed in god...That is the ONLY point I was trying to make.

In a speech made in 1933, Hitler claimed to have "stamped out" the "atheistic movement".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2011, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 933,175 times
Reputation: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
You just cannot admit that you are wrong can you? Hitler was NOT an atheist, since even your links confirm that he believed in god...That is the ONLY point I was trying to make.

In a speech made in 1933, Hitler claimed to have "stamped out" the "atheistic movement".
Like the link I posted said, what his religious beliefs really were are of constant debate.

What his religion is does not matter. What matters is why he did what he did, and that was because he wanted to cleanse the world and make a superior race. It was nationalism that drove him, not religion.

I really wish people would stop putting a religious stamp on everything that doesn't deserve one. If someone kills someone, what does it matter what his religious beliefs are? Unless he was screaming, "In the name of God I smite thee." It probably isn't religiously motivated.

If you really look at the history of war you will see that most wars were not religious in regards to their cause. What some lack to see is that in the muslim world, the sunni and shiites consider themselves different races, as with the Jews. So these wars aren't so much religious as they are race wars. WW2 Was a race war, the civil war was a race war among other causes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2011, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,604 posts, read 17,770,771 times
Reputation: 9829
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
Where is the outcry for deaths caused by conventional medicine?
Where is the outcry over deaths caused or hastened by "alternative medicine"?

Did you know that Steve Jobs did not seek proper medical treatment until 9 months after he had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer?

Jobs attempted to treat it with alternative medicine versus having it surgically removed.
"Why would such a smart man do such a stupid thing?" Kroft then asks Isaacson, to which he says "I think that [Jobs] kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don't want something to exist, you can have magical thinking, it had worked for him in the past. He regretted it." Steve Jobs biographer: Jobs refused surgery | Apple Talk - CNET News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2011, 11:09 PM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 933,175 times
Reputation: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Where is the outcry over deaths caused or hastened by "alternative medicine"?

Did you know that Steve Jobs did not seek proper medical treatment until 9 months after he had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer?

Jobs attempted to treat it with alternative medicine versus having it surgically removed.
"Why would such a smart man do such a stupid thing?" Kroft then asks Isaacson, to which he says "I think that [Jobs] kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don't want something to exist, you can have magical thinking, it had worked for him in the past. He regretted it." Steve Jobs biographer: Jobs refused surgery | Apple Talk - CNET News
That was ignorance on his part, or was it a choice? Traditional medicine kills more people than alternative medicine.

If I knew something was proven to work and would fix the problem, I would do it.

Interesting you neglect to reply to my last post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 12:24 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,604 posts, read 17,770,771 times
Reputation: 9829
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
That was ignorance on his part, or was it a choice? Traditional medicine kills more people than alternative medicine.

If I knew something was proven to work and would fix the problem, I would do it.

Interesting you neglect to reply to my last post.
I saw no need to respond to your last post since it had nothing to do with your wrong statement that Hitler was an atheist...I cleared that up, and as I said before that was the ONLY point I was making.

Of course alternative medicine does not directly kill anyone, because it generally does little or nothing. On the other hand it indirectly kills many who are bamboozled by the snake oil salesmen, and like Steve Jobs use it in lieu of a real treatment. Steve Jobs may well be still alive today had he not waited 9 months messing around with loony toon so called cancer cures.

Traditional medicine cures many, many more than it harms...When it come to serious illness such as cancer alternative medicine cures none, but harms many....Other than a placebo effect it is useless in my opinion.

Alternative therapy is used instead of mainstream treatment. Alternative therapies are either unproven because they have not been scientifically tested, or they have been disproved (that is, they have been tested and found not to work). They may cause the patient to suffer because they are not helpful, because they can delay the use of proven methods, or because they are actually harmful.

The American Cancer Society urges patients who are thinking about using any alternative or complementary therapy to first discuss this with their health care team. Complementary and Alternative Methods for Cancer Management
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 01:50 AM
 
5,128 posts, read 1,832,807 times
Reputation: 1906
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
It's called negligence. It happens and it is sad.
A truely weak comparison I am afraid. One was negligence and negligence is indeed a bad thing. However the story I was quoting was nothing to do with negligence. The parents in question actually believed they were doing the right thing by their child because their religion told them the simple medical intervention required was offensive to their god.

As such there simply is no comparison with the story you linked to at all. Calling what those parents did to their diabetic daughter "negligence" is to miss the point as completely as it is possible to miss it. They gave their child all the love in their hearts, and all the time they had praying over the child. The problem was not negligence. The problem was religion took their love... dedication... and commitment to their daughter and entirely warped it into death.

So no, comparing it to neglect will not work for you. This was not neglect. It was the loving application of a warped lie. I can not repeat often enough, what I am saying has NOTHING to do with neglect AT ALL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
It is only because someone wears the religious flag that you attack them.
Not at all, but the fact is if religion is superfluous to requirements to do good.... and religion also causes harm.... then there is no reason to support religion nor hold off from attacking it where necessary.

In fact by doing good and then handing over credit for that good to religion, when in fact religion had nothing to do with it, a person offer tacit support for the harm that religion causes. Simply claiming a religion does good, especially when it actually does not, is to lend support to the bad that religion does.

For example it is said by some that Hamass provides social services in gaza and that Louis Farrakan gets young black men off drugs. These "good" effects can be attained without religions and cults... and allocating them credit for such actions does not change the fact one bit that the former is a militarised terrorist organisation with a fanatical antisemitic ideology and the latter is a racist crackpot cult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
Did you know that Hitler was an atheist? Yup, he was against Jews and Christians alike. He and his followers killed 50+ million people. Does this act make all atheists bad?
A shame to see people are still perpetuating this lie. As a user said above, you have been grossly misinformed.

You must be operating under a different definition of "atheist" than I am then given that his army had "Gott mit uns" written on all their belts, his actions were cheered on by most christians, in 1938 in vienna for a random example the local Cardinal rang the church bells in celebration when hitler invaded and hitler himself said things like "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." and much more. His birthday was celebrated from the catholic pulpits.

I have met a hell of a lot of atheists in my time as a founding member of atheist ireland an organiser of the recent AAI conference in dublin, even on this forum there are people who call themselves agnostic but talk the talk of religion.... but none of this meets any definition of "atheism" that I work with.

Again maybe this is a problem with me and not you and I am operating under a weird definition of the word "atheist" but I have to say nothing about hitler and the word "atheist" connects for me. Maybe you can define the word as you see it for me, and explain how it fits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 03:05 AM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 933,175 times
Reputation: 431
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
A truely weak comparison I am afraid. One was negligence and negligence is indeed a bad thing. However the story I was quoting was nothing to do with negligence. The parents in question actually believed they were doing the right thing by their child because their religion told them the simple medical intervention required was offensive to their god.

As such there simply is no comparison with the story you linked to at all. Calling what those parents did to their diabetic daughter "negligence" is to miss the point as completely as it is possible to miss it. They gave their child all the love in their hearts, and all the time they had praying over the child. The problem was not negligence. The problem was religion took their love... dedication... and commitment to their daughter and entirely warped it into death.

So no, comparing it to neglect will not work for you. This was not neglect. It was the loving application of a warped lie. I can not repeat often enough, what I am saying has NOTHING to do with neglect AT ALL.
Ok, but answer me this, why is there a law forcing hospitals to respect religious wishes, then when the child dies there is a law that allows the parents to be arrested? Odd... How about change the law that says religious wishes have to be respected unless it has to do with birth or death. If the death can be prevented without life support or permanent damage, then religion should have no factor and the hospital should not worry about it. This is as much on the Government and hospital as it is on the parents, IMO.


Quote:
Not at all, but the fact is if religion is superfluous to requirements to do good.... and religion also causes harm.... then there is no reason to support religion nor hold off from attacking it where necessary.

In fact by doing good and then handing over credit for that good to religion, when in fact religion had nothing to do with it, a person offer tacit support for the harm that religion causes. Simply claiming a religion does good, especially when it actually does not, is to lend support to the bad that religion does.

For example it is said by some that Hamass provides social services in gaza and that Louis Farrakan gets young black men off drugs. These "good" effects can be attained without religions and cults... and allocating them credit for such actions does not change the fact one bit that the former is a militarised terrorist organisation with a fanatical antisemitic ideology and the latter is a racist crackpot cult.
I have an idea, lets pull all religious based programs that help feed the poor and hungry, any that help people with drug problems, shelter issues, health care issues, etc, etc... Do you have any idea what would be needed to replace these programs that are religious based? No it does not take religion to do this, but if these programs didn't exist do you have any idea how many people would suffer?

But you are right, religion obviously is an evil entity only pretending to be good to fool everyone...

I Get it, some religious group or person did something to you or made you realize something, yadda, yadda, yadda... I have heard it all. Your religious decision was your choice, why do you insist that I and everyone else make it theirs? How is this any different than when the religious zealots do it?

Live and let live.

Not all religion is bad. How can I make this clear to you. Most and when I say that I would project that about 85% of all religious and spiritual people do no harm to others and don't allow their children to die or suffer. The only reason it seems like such a big deal is that these people either speak loudly or the media covers them because it makes news.

Where I work we have several types of religious preachers... One is notorious for screaming at the top of his lungs and bashing homosexuals, and other types of "sinners". He degrades and is insulting. He abuses the right to free speech. He draws in such attention it isn't even funny. He gets on your nerves within seconds... He is getting what he wants... attention. Eventually people start shouting back and he never gets anyone to approach him to talk about his message, he only gets people who want to confront him.

Another one we have walks up to a certain spot, pulls out a canvas and paints the same picture every week. He is painting a story and at the top is says the greatest love story. He doesn't scream or shout, he paints. When the painting is done, he stands there and waits for people to approach him. Many people do out of curiosity, he usually talks to people for several minutes in a quiet tone. He doesn't draw attention to himself.

Which one do you think people remember most? The one that shouts is always remembered first. Why do you think this is?


Quote:
A shame to see people are still perpetuating this lie. As a user said above, you have been grossly misinformed.

You must be operating under a different definition of "atheist" than I am then given that his army had "Gott mit uns" written on all their belts, his actions were cheered on by most christians, in 1938 in vienna for a random example the local Cardinal rang the church bells in celebration when hitler invaded and hitler himself said things like "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." and much more. His birthday was celebrated from the catholic pulpits.

I have met a hell of a lot of atheists in my time as a founding member of atheist ireland an organiser of the recent AAI conference in dublin, even on this forum there are people who call themselves agnostic but talk the talk of religion.... but none of this meets any definition of "atheism" that I work with.

Again maybe this is a problem with me and not you and I am operating under a weird definition of the word "atheist" but I have to say nothing about hitler and the word "atheist" connects for me. Maybe you can define the word as you see it for me, and explain how it fits.
First, "gott mit uns" was not on ALL their belts. It was on some. I don't know what Hitler was and it IS still up to debate. There is evidence that reflects he was christian and atheist. However, WW2 was not a religious war, it was a race war.

To me an atheist would be one that does not get involved in anything pertaining to god. This means they would not debate the existence or even discuss it. So to be honest anyone who debates about god isn't atheist but agnostic. Since an atheist shouldn't have a belief in a deity then they shouldn't feel the need to discuss it.

Same goes for the anti-religious, spiritual skeptics, and the like. If you don't believe in it, leave it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 03:29 AM
 
5,128 posts, read 1,832,807 times
Reputation: 1906
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
Ok, but answer me this, why is there a law forcing hospitals to respect religious wishes, then when the child dies there is a law that allows the parents to be arrested? Odd
This is something of a change of subject from the points I am actually making... and yes you will get no argument from me on this one at all. I do not think the hospitals should "respect parents religious wishes" at all but should respect their task to keep people alive and healthy.

There is a mistaken notion in the world that parents "own" their children and so have a right to decide everything there is to do with them. While I think a certain level of choice should be theirs of course, there are many areas where I do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
Do you have any idea what would be needed to replace these programs that are religious based?
Yes. Time. Lots of it. The battle against religion and it's hold over areas of our society is not something I am talking about doing over night. Change is hard and slow and a programme such as you suggest would be disasterous to try and pull it all suddenly.

No the change has to be slow and I do not pretend to expect to see anything significant in my life time. Nor even in the lifetime of my great grand children. But the change is there and is going in what I feel is the right direction and I am glad of the part I have played in it and continue to play in it, however small that part may be.

What we see is that charity and social support such as you describe is not only higher but often better in secular countries such as many of those in Europe. Religion simply is not needed to offer such systems and the slow release of their stranglehold over such systems is a good thing.

The fact is these programmes would exist anyway. Many people genuinely want to engage in charity, support and helping those in need. It is not religion doing these things, but people. However religion is the "go to game in town" for such things. If religion dies off, people will still find ways to engage in such actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
But you are right, religion obviously is an evil entity only pretending to be good to fool everyone...
"Religion" is an adaptable and evolving entity. It benefits from associating itself with things people already do/want. If people want to dance, you will find in the history of religions that dance featured heavily in them. If people want to be charitable you will find religion adapting and associating itself with charity.

The mistake is to think that religion gives or brings any of the things in question. It merely associates itself with such things and benefits by proxy. Once again we can point out the difficulty of naming any good action performed, or moral statement made, directly because of religion that could not have been performed in it's absence or indeed HAS not been performed by those devoid of religion at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
I Get it, some religious group or person did something to you or made you realize something, yadda, yadda, yadda... I have heard it all. Your religious decision was your choice
False. It has nothing to do with my choices. It has everything to do with me following the facts as I see them wherever they go. I do not "choose" to think there is no god. I simply can not think there is one in the total absence of any substantiation for the claim at all. I do not "choose" to think religion harmful. I simply can not think otherwise given all the evidence of it's harm held up against the lack of evidence for any direct benefit to justify that harm.

We can all go on a rant about biases, choices, anger and crusades to avoid each others points. I choose not to however, and would thank you to do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
First, "gott mit uns" was not on ALL their belts. It was on some. I don't know what Hitler was and it IS still up to debate.
Quantity is irrelevant, the fact is it was there. The main point however is not to count the belts but my point is that ALL the things I listed TOGETHER are not painting a picture of the actions or position of an atheist. Even remotely. Maybe what he "was" is still up for debate. What he was "not" certainly is not however and one thing he clearly was not was "atheist" by any definition of the word I have ever used or come across. His actions, his speeches and his own words in his own book are what I draw on here. I am fully aware of and have also read the books of people who desperately want to portray otherwise such as "Hitlers Table Talk" but really when I want to know what a person thinks I look at their own actions and their own words, not the edited third party words of an author drawing on private discussions which are unverifiable and possibly false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
If you don't believe in it, leave it.
I would love to. I simply am not let. Ever. I would love to wake up tomorrow and not go near religion ever again. I would love to focus on the things I AM interested in. Science, biology, ethics, morality, politics, sexuality, psychology, law, society, education, medicine, children.... subjects all very dear to my heart.... which I would love to dedicate my time to.

However in every one of those subjects, without fail, I am constantly met with a barrage of religious claims and policies and agendas and lies and attacks.

So do not presume to paint the picture of me on a crusade against religion. Such a picture would be a strawman. The fight against religion is one that is brought to ME on a daily basis and one which I fight for no other reason than I feel it is the right thing to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 06:39 AM
 
4,731 posts, read 3,496,620 times
Reputation: 1644
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
I was using it as an example of the biased opinions. Medicine is generally good and the minority of it is harmful. This is allowed. But not when it comes to religion? Umm... kinda odd.
As soon as you show me the peer reveiewed double-blind studies showing that religion is as effective as modern medicine, you may have a point here.

Quote:
It's ok for science to hurt and kill people as long as the benefits outweigh the cost...right?
No, I don't think it's OK. I think it's pretty awful - but at least science is working to improve things. You're the one arguing that we can't question something if it's net positive, regardless of how bad the side-effects are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2011, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,506 posts, read 933,175 times
Reputation: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
As soon as you show me the peer reveiewed double-blind studies showing that religion is as effective as modern medicine, you may have a point here.



No, I don't think it's OK. I think it's pretty awful - but at least science is working to improve things. You're the one arguing that we can't question something if it's net positive, regardless of how bad the side-effects are.
I have provided these several times... here you go... one more time: Scientific Studies that Show a Positive Effect of Religion on Health

You claim that science is working to improve things, so is religion. There are indeed several paths to take to make things better, science and religion are only two. Could things get better without science and religion? Yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top