jump to navigation

Fascism?: New American Theology of Civil Submission April 21, 2008

Posted by aegisofreason in religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The main preacher in that video is really scary, I dont care if you are Christian or Atheist alike, these are the roots of Fascism.

 

Religion Online: The ‘Are You A Good Person’ Test from Living Waters Evangelism April 21, 2008

Posted by aegisofreason in religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

Yesterday one of the responces to my post “TRUST IN JESUS” was that of a Gentleman of whose name  (I think) is Justin.
He asked me if I considered myself a good person and provided me with a link of a website. (http://www.livingwaters.com/good)

I was really exited and wondered how this test was going to be. Certainly If it was a responce to my post it simply had to have some good arguments for believing in God.

So with an open mind (but not so open that my brain falls off), I went to the website and took the test. It is well made, you have the option of a flash or regular version. I took the Flash version.

Well my exitement certainly went down to zero at the first slide. Apparently this isnt some well written ethics questionaire, and it tells you right away.

“Do you consider yourself to be a good person?, Almost everyone thinks they are a good person… But the questions is, ‘Am  I good ENOUGH to go to heven?’”

Ok, so this is not a ‘are you a good person’ test but a ‘are you going to heaven’ test. It takes you through all 10 commandments and asks you if you have ever broken any.

The first one is “You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me”.
That is a very interesting question because as an atheist I dont have any Gods before me, and that Includes the Christian god. But since it says that I must love god with all of my heart, mind, soul and strenght, I am certainly ‘guilty’ on this one.

the Second one is “You Shall Not Make For Yourself Any Idol”.
This one is even more interesting because it starts asking you if “god is only a god of love and mercy who would never judge anyone and never cast anyone into hell. If thats your god, then you are right, your god couldnt cast anyone into hell because he doesnt exist”. I was like ‘holy crap’ they got the bulls eye for me!. you arent going to hell because there is no hell and certainly not a god. no wait.. lets keep reading “you’ve created a god in your own mind that you are more confortable with… god calls it idolatry”. So am I guilty? mmmh… I guess so because I am satisfied with my ethical and moral philosophy and my secular humanism.  Plus I do worship Richard Dawkins as god (that was a joke ok…)

The third one: “You Shall Not Take The Name of God in Vain”.
Guilty!, I am a blasphemer not only for the christian god but of Athena, thor and others too.

The fourth one: “Remember the Sabbath day and Keep it Holy”.
I am not sure what you mean by keeping it holy. Is Just as holy as saturday i guess in that Is part of the weekend and I am more likely to do fun stuff rather than homework and work. But certainly I have worked or done stuff on sunday. So Guilty.

The Fifth one: “Honor your Father and Mother.”
Have I always honored my parents? certainly not, we had our fights. So I am guilty too. But why do i have to ask my imaginary friend to forgive me? I can just as well go talk to my parents and apologize. I think that is what really matters. Guilty.

The Sixth one: You shall not murder.
I have not killed anyone, so I am Innocent here. BUT WAIT. it goes to say that ‘we can violate this law by attitude and intent’. Well I havent had the intent of actually planning of carrying out murder but certainly i have wished some people died. But I never really meant it, more of a figure of speech.

The Seventh One: “You Shall not Commit Adultery”
ultimately it say that if i have ever looked at another person with lust I am guilty. Yes, I am guilty because i have looked at many many many persons with lust. Can i be blamed? is in my freaking genes!, we are hardcoded to be attracted to others for the sake of reproduction. You might fight it as much as you want, but it is innevitable. Guilty.

The Eight One: “You shall not steal”
Guilty. I have done so, specially when i was younger (and religious!). Back then I did not steal for fear of hell fire, but since i became an atheist, I dont steal because i know that is wrong. And that is by far a much better reason than threats.

The Ninth one: “You Shall not Lie”
have i ever told a lie? yes i have. Guilty.

The Tenth one: “You Shall not covet”
Have i ever desired something that belongs to someone else? ofcourse i have, i wish i had that guys lunch right now. Guilty.

After this it goes to tell you that you should be scared because you have sinned against god and gives you the usual bible qoutes. It compares me to a rapist, murderer and thief for not believing in his very existnace. And the usuall “Eternal Punishment is Hell!”

oh and god loves you, dont forget that.

After it tells you about jesus, it goes to say that If i still do not convert that there is no purgatory and that god will have me spend eternity in hell. they give us a great description of hell too.

~~

What the hell was that ?!, It tells you that you that you are guilty (nobody is perfect) and therefore i am going to hell. But why are these comandments so special? 1-4 are WORTHLESS, they are not needed to live fullfilling moral lives. 5, 6 & 8 are the only ones that are very usefull, but there is nothing oringinal about them, any culture through history had the same. Anyone with a brain can come with the same conclutions.

This is just using threats to make you submit to unreason because of hellfire. Read Chapter 6 of the God Delusion by richard Dawkins ’The Roots of Morality: why are we good?’. I am really tired of writing up responses over and over again.

Richard Dawkins is GOD!, Join the Church of Dawkins (Profanity Warning) April 21, 2008

Posted by aegisofreason in richard dawkins.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

I laughed ^_^, however christians might be a little bit offended by this video. So if you are an easily offended Christian, dont watch it. you were warned.

Clearing up ‘Expelled’: Richard Dawkins on Aliens, Intelligent Design and God April 21, 2008

Posted by aegisofreason in atheism, richard dawkins.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

Explanation for the miss understanding made in the creationism movie ‘Expelled’ on regards to Aliens.

Current Events: Creationists link Evolution to Holocaust- An Open Letter By Richard Dawkins April 21, 2008

Posted by aegisofreason in evolution.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The Following is an Open letter by Richard Dawkins as a responce to the allegations made in Expelled of linking Darwinism Evolution to the Holocaust.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

On 18th April, the day Ben Stein’s infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew, whose identity I shall conceal as “David J”.

Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!

Shermer wrote to Mr J to check whether his letter was indeed prompted by the Ben Stein film, and he received this reply:

Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit.

It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn’t expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.

Richard


Dear Mr J

Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein’s mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.

1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don’t think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.

Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!

Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I’ll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.

2. Hitler’s horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe’s leading nations, which was also one of the world’s most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church’s support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Hitler’s obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.

3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can’t seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as “Christ-killers”. While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that “All Jews should be driven from Germany.” By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, “We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States.” Don’t you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don’t you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?

4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil’s Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is “Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life” but Darwin was using the word “race” in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a “favoured race” meant something like ‘that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation” (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).

6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don’t you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin’s ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin’s ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.

7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin’s great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: “natural selection”, the “survival of the fittest”. Hitler didn’t apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler’s eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film’s falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail — something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.

With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins