Evidence for God - SPLIT STOPIC

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I did speak about possible prehistoric flight referring to ancient artifacts in the Smithsonian and a video test proving they were airworthy.

These and many other things challenge Darwinian fallacies that that the ancients were all less intelligent than we are, one of the more harmful delusions to historical fact of both Darwinism and many atheists.

The idea that ancients were barbaric savages is far older then Darwin. It is a Victorian idea about how they believed they had achieved the pinnacle of civilization. Thus, all former civilizations were inferior. Sadly, some of these ideas persist with us today.

So where you get this idea that "the ancients were all less intelligent than we" coming from evolutionary theory is beyond me.

--
I don't doubt that the Victorians had some problems there as well (among other errors) since every culture wants to think of itself as the pinnacle of sophistication, but as Dr. Stephen J. Gould put it about racism, etc.
'Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.' Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127-128, 1977.

But, Newton and others like him who you claim considered the ancients barbaric, actually thought this way:
Lord Atterbury, a contemporary of Newton, said, "Modesty teaches us to speak of the ancients with respect, especially when we are not very familiar with their works. Newton, who knew them practically by heart, had the greatest respect for them, & considered them to be men of genius & superior intelligence who had carried their discoveries in every field much further than we today suspect, judging from what remains of their writings. More ancient writings have been lost than have been preserved, & perhaps our new discoveries are of less value than those that we have lost."

And universal common descent intrinsically has in it the concept that things in the past are nearly always inferior to things in the present and that we're on a constant upward journey (with a few disasters and detours thrown in). It would be difficult to find anything more supportive of the ignorant ancient barbarians idea than universal common descent.

Bryan

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Just because Daniel was Jewish doesn't mean that his research was founded upon his beliefs -
birds (many Ravens and Crows), monkeys, and other animals have reasoning processes, though I doubt that they would agree with you that it's based off a Judeo-Christian foundation. Reasoning and Problem-solving are natural traits of many sentient beings.
Hell, bees can perform the Traveling Salesman Problem in seconds, as compared to the millions of hours it takes for supercomputers to pump out a single answer to the shortest distance to travel between 10 points without returning to the same point.

By your logic the Persian gods must be the true gods because they developed the written concept of the number "Zero" and furthered the Mathematics and Sciences to the point that modern technology wouldn't be possible without their contributions. The Norse Gods must yield true, as well, because the Norse were the first to visit America.

And don't get me started on the Greeks, dotree. The Greeks actually developed the method of teaching, reasoning, and critical thinking that still hold true to this very day - does that mean that Zeus is chilling and throwing Lightning?

Just stop while you're ahead.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Your main problem is that you're claiming that there is a magical correlation between these people having a faith, ergo it's Christianity that spawned these ideas.

Oh! I want to play!
Most of the Nobel Prize Winners, explorers, and scientists throughout history were men. Ergo, women are inferior to men in all cases!

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Hytegia,
Your cartoon is funny, but applies mostly to universal common descent which has become accepted almost exclusively due to it's use of propaganda, fallacies and politics to ban it's rivals from the playing field. Same thing happened in history many times with many establishments teaching pseudo science like bleeding patients, steady state, spontaneous generation, etc. which the Bible directly opposed and was proven right time after time after time. At present ALL scientists accept most of the pillars of creation science as 100% indisputable science, ALL. I'll be explaining this soon in the debate.

National Geographic, the Blue Zones, the NIH, the NCI and others all agree that following Bible principles adds 10+ years to life NOW. If you want to be an ostrich, that's your right. But, don't expect anyone to consider you rational when you refuse to read voluminous research on the subject.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html (see from ~11:30+ and note that for 1000s of years, the people who benefited from decades extra life like this most were those who trusted God and the Bible).

My claim about Daniel was that he used the 1st scientific method in history..and from the Biblical inspiration, Christians developed it (and probably others too). Did I claim that because Daniel used the scientific method 1st, that proves conclusively God exists? NO. Why do you and atheists constantly need to straw man people???? But, the Bible most certainly did pioneer principles of teaching, education, rational thinking, etc. LONG, LONG before the Greeks did and far more successfully too. And since most were illiterate slaves and since there knowledge was vastly different from the best knowledge of the time and NO OTHER CULTURE IN HISTORY came anywhere close to their level of accuracy, it's definitely significant evidence that at least some of their knowledge came from supernatural sources. I'll give some more details on this in my next post int he debate.

It is indisputable that in NUMEROUS cases Bible principles and specific concepts directly spawned and inspired the concepts that have basically created most of the best things in modern life. It's no different from how Darwin's book was directly responsible for many jobs, many grants, many research studies, etc. being done on universal common descent. People make these kinds of connections all the time, except when it comes to Christianity and they wish to be dishonest and prejudiced and biased and following emotions instead of facts.

By the way, the NIH has just given a grant of ~$5,000,000 to study more the reasons why Adventists who follow the Bible's health principles unlike many other Christians, live so long. Studying the Bible doesn't give these benefits. It is only people who follow the Bible who get these benefits and both Orthodox Jews, Adventists and others like them have been getting these benefits for 1000s of years while others didn't.

--I cited professor Guenter Lewy, an atheist/humanist and his book that lists MANY research studies that show that religion/Christianity significantly improve moral behavior (and will rebut the ones you cite easily in my next post as misuses of basic and accepted science). I can scan them all and post them if needed since I have the book.

You don't know a damned thing about statistics, do you?
What was the sample group's location? Sample size? Time period the samples were taken in? Circumstances of that time period?
--
It is you who doesn't know anything about statistics, nor about going to read actual research. I cited this in the debate, but it seems you are not willing to put forth any effort to even access that page. So, here it is here and Dr. Lewy's book is in the 1st link available for you to read for free. I've even put the page number to start on to save you time. I can't do any more to help you improve your rationality. Sorry.

CHRISTIANITY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES MORALITY:
Dr. Guenter Lewy professor emeritus of the Univ. of Massachusetts, a relativist & secular humanist decided to write a book refuting the idea that skepticism has contributed to the moral decline of the United States titled "Why America Doesn't Need Religion". He set out to ridicule the claims of Christians that the crisis of the age is a crisis of unbelief & to prove the attack on secular modernity "to be a danger to individual liberty as well as an affront to people of goodwill who happened to be agnostics or atheists." After doing much research & reviewing many statistical studies showing the crucial importance of religion for society, he abandoned his original goal & changed the title of his book to: "Why America Needs Religion".

"The fifth chapter, "Religiousness & Moral Conduct: Are Believing Christians Different?," deals with a huge amount of research, showing how Christian faith transforms the lives of those who take their religion seriously. Professor Lewy looks in detail at juvenile delinquency, adult crime, prejudice & intolerance, single parenting, & divorce, & concludes that the vast majority of social science research confirms that the minority of Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to the nominal Christians of the Christmas-and-Easter variety) have significantly lower rates of moral failure & social ills than any other groups studied.

You can read much of this chapter & book online. Start on about page 95 here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KfxJA_7zG7MC&pg=PA89&dq=Why+America+needs+God&hl=en&ei=tD5LTp2iMo_JmAXXqo3jBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (note that the concept of people burning eternally in hell that is mentioned in this chapter as a Christian belief is one of the most revolting, vile, reprehensible, demonic, malignant, unbiblical & satanic straw man doctrines ever accepted by Christians or invented by people. You can go to http://www.helltruth.com for an overview of why it is not biblical at all. But, the book has many other good points & much solid research that is valuable.)

See also:
a) An Atheist Defends Christianity
http://the-classic-liberal.com/atheist-defense-christianity/

b) As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God | Matthew Parris
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
or here: http://www.sustainlane.com/reviews/as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god-by-matthew-parris/USY41P9LLOW98XCS7MWVJJSVMO3A

c) In one of the largest studies of its kind, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill examined the role of religion in the lives of nearly 2500 adolescents and shows that Christianity brings major improvements.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_as_child_abuse.html

If you choose to be ignorant and irrational that's your business. But, don't go saying now what you said before. If you do, you're either irrational, dishonest or both. Christianity has vastly improved morals in many places.

Bryan

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Dotree,
That TED talk you posted and quote-mined from (very badly, might I add) was regarding psychology and living in "the Blue Zone." Essentially, the entire video is saying that having a healthy lifestyle, good environment, and a positive outlook on life can pioneer you into the hundred year marker.

The whole point of that babbling shpleel you just tossed is irrelevant, simply because (after watching the ENTIRE VIDEO) you can easily see that the 3 factors he's talking about are not religious, but part of a very secular outlook on life in terms of examination. In fact, a few seconds before the snippet you like to hail so much, he's saying that it's different for everyone - and told a story about a woman in her 100s mark what makes her "get up in the morning," to which she says "Seeing my Great Great Great Granddaughter."

Not God. Not JEEEEZUBUSSS. Not the Holy Spirit. Her very mortal great great great granddaughter.

I'm not letting you dance around this one. Have you actually watched the video, or are you intentionally trying to pull a fast one, thinking we won't sit through it all?

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

No, Hytegia, I didn't quote mine from it. There were not 3 factors. There were 8...and that researcher barely mentioned on the more than 20 specific health principles that cause Adventists to live 10+ years longer. I will mention them. Furthermore, almost nobody 1000 years ago and for SURE not 3,000 years ago when Moses wrote these things had any clue about the 8 concepts listed in that video. I've watched that video many times and shown it to my students in university as well. The ONLY reason you know about many diet and psychological factors now is because Christians developed science and researched those areas and also because Christians who followed the Bible's health principles were frequent subjects of scientific research. You are committing the dire, dire fallacy of thinking that everything you know was know by everyone in history. This is the highest level of fiction imaginable. While certain things might be known by some cultures, all the knowledge here put together has absolutely NOTHING to do with a secular outlook on life. NOTHING. PERIOD. Of the 4 Blue Zone cultures, 3 of them are Christian and the 4th, the Okinawans, just went through a scandal with 200,000 of their "centenarians" being found to be dead and the family just collecting pensions on them...which invalidates all their longevity research.

I have vast more evidence on this proving indisputably what I'm stating. NOBODY in history has had anything close to the health knowledge of the Bible that is so positive and contributes so much to longevity and quality of life in many areas. NOBODY. That could not ever have happened with just trial and error by slaves. There is only one logical explanation. The knowledge came from God. More specifics soon in my debate with Inferno.

The Old-Testament Jews stoned homosexuals, raped women, disobedient children, and so on. During the conquest of Canaan, the Bible records them to have ripped the babies out of pregnant women's stomachs, slaughtered women, children, sons, daughters, old men, old women, cattle, live stock, and so on and so forth.
Name me one secular society that has done that, and I'll videotape myself eating my own shoes and post it ITT.

--
Ah, the cherry picking express rides again. But, I'll be looking forward to seeing the videotape of you eating your shoes and posting it.

I thought Inferno would be bringing this up in the debate in his last post, but for some reason he didn't. I think he deserves the first answer on this, but basically, God condemned many of he actions you mention as horrible evils or results of evil. No, they didn't rip babies out of women during the conquest. There was though an enactment of national justice after centuries of warnings had been given to the canaanites who were involved in massive human sacrifices yearly and all sorts of other inhumanities and cruelties. God could let those torturous inhuman cultures continue to exist and millions would die in a fairly short time...or he could end them and stop millions from being tortured and murdered. Atheists and Christian critics don't have even a smidgen of honest in this part. The condemn God if he acts in justice and condemn him if he doesn't. There isn't one iota of integrity.

Quite a few leaders & people in history have had the view that torturing and killing their enemies was a great joy. "The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, & to hold their wives & daughters in his arms." Genghis Khan

Many secular societies were involved in doing that as well with atheist states killing 1-200 million in just ~200 years, 30 times more than ALL religions in all history COMBINED, including the falsest of religions (this is the fact of what atheist systems have done. It doesn't apply to individual atheists, some of whom are very kind).
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM

I have books testifying to horrific things the Chinese did torturing those who believed in Christ directly due to their atheism. Same for Khmer Rouge. Here's just one example of MANY from the secular Khmer Rouge (and I can post many examples like this from many secular countries:
---
I'm in Phnom Penh as the Royal Government of Cambodia and the United Nations are finally preparing to prosecute senior members of the Khmer Rouge nearly 30 years after the genocide of the Killing Fields. Duch is to be the first of them tried. His notoriety is so significant that hundreds of Cambodians have volunteered to work with the chief investigator, Youk Chhang, to assemble evidence against him.

I meet Youk at the Documentation Center of Cambodia, which is located behind a wall on a tree-lined street in the city center. He is a cheery man with salt-and-pepper hair, a joyous smile, but,like the hundreds who have come forward to help him,he is haunted by bloody memories.

Youk tells me he has reviewed all the documents from the Tuol Sleng torture manual. Duch, he says, was very precise. He detailed exactly how he wanted his guards to inflict pain on the prisoners. "He took notes every day, every hour, every minute." Among his favorite tortures was hanging prisoners upside down and plunging their heads into tubs of urine and feces to make them talk. He was particularly brutal to babies. He ordered his soldiers to grab them by their feet and bash their heads against trees until they died.

"He was an angry man, and he wanted to be somebody," Youk says. "I can feel the anger in his handwriting. He would use red to show it. He would use words like 'dogs,' a curse word. For the Khmer people, to be called such names is worse than being killed."

Duch would order interrogations and confessions, each of which he would sign off on. "He was very cold-blooded, and his handwriting is on almost every single confession," Youk says. "The documents are the smoking gun. They will be the first line of evidence against him."
...

Here's some on the St. Bartholomew Massacre (by Catholics) and subsequent French Revolution (by atheists):

---
But blackest in the black catalogue of crime, most horrible among the fiendish deeds of all the dreadful centuries, was the St. Bartholomew Massacre. The world still recalls with shuddering horror the scenes of that most cowardly and cruel onslaught. The king of France, urged on by Romish priests and prelates, lent his sanction to the dreadful work. A bell, tolling at dead of night, was a signal for the slaughter. Protestants by thousands, sleeping quietly in their homes, trusting to the plighted honor of their king, were dragged forth without a warning and murdered in cold blood.

As Christ was the invisible leader of His people from Egyptian bondage, so was Satan the unseen leader of his subjects in this horrible work of multiplying martyrs. For seven days the massacre was continued in Paris, the first three with inconceivable fury. And it was not confined to the city itself, but by special order of the king was extended to all the provinces and towns where Protestants were found. Neither age nor sex was respected. Neither the innocent babe nor the man of gray hairs was spared. Noble and peasant, old and young, mother and child, were cut down together. Throughout France the butchery continued for two months. Seventy thousand of the very flower of the nation perished.

...The same master spirit that urged on the St. Bartholomew Massacre led also in the scenes of the Revolution. Jesus Christ was declared to be an impostor, and the rallying cry of the French infidels was, "Crush the Wretch," meaning Christ. Heaven-daring blasphemy and abominable wickedness went hand in hand, and the basest of men, the most abandoned monsters of cruelty and vice, were most highly exalted. In all this, supreme homage was paid to Satan; while Christ, in His characteristics of truth, purity, and unselfish love, was crucified.

"The beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them." The atheistic power that ruled in France during the Revolution and the Reign of Terror, did wage such a war against God and His holy word as the world had never witnessed. The worship of the Deity was abolished by the National Assembly. Bibles were collected and publicly burned with every possible manifestation of scorn. The law of God was trampled underfoot. The institutions of the Bible were abolished. The weekly rest day was set aside, and in its stead every tenth day was devoted to reveling and blasphemy.

The fear of God was said to be so far from the beginning of wisdom that it was the beginning of folly. All religious worship was prohibited, except that of liberty and the country.

Infidel France had silenced the reproving voice of God's two witnesses. The word of truth lay dead in her streets, and those who hated the restrictions and requirements of God's law were jubilant. Men publicly defied the King of heaven. Like the sinners of old, they cried: "How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the Most High?" Psalm 73:11.

With blasphemous boldness almost beyond belief, one of the priests of the new order said: "God, if You exist, avenge Your injured name. I bid You defiance! You remain silent; You dare not launch Your thunders. Who after this will believe in Your existence?"--Lacretelle, History, vol. 11, p. 309; in Sir Archibald Alison, History of Europe, vol. 1, ch. 10.

..it was only a little time till she descended to degrading idolatry, by the worship of the Goddess of Reason, in the person of a profligate woman. And this in the representative assembly of the nation, and by its highest civil and legislative authorities! Says the historian: "One of the ceremonies of this insane time stands unrivaled for absurdity combined with impiety. The doors of the Convention were thrown open to a band of musicians, preceded by whom, the members of the municipal body entered in solemn procession, singing a hymn in praise of liberty, and escorting, as the object of their future worship, a veiled female, whom they termed the Goddess of Reason. Being brought within the bar, she was unveiled with great form, and placed on the right of the president, when she was generally recognized as a dancing girl of the opera. . . . To this person, as the fittest representative of that reason whom they worshiped, the National Convention of France rendered public homage.

"This impious and ridiculous mummery had a certain fashion; and the installation of the Goddess of Reason was renewed and imitated throughout the nation, in such places where the inhabitants desired to show themselves equal to all the heights of the Revolution."--Scott, vol. 1, ch. 17.

Said the orator who introduced the worship of Reason: "Legislators! Fanaticism has given way to reason. Its bleared eyes could not endure the brilliancy of the light. This day an immense concourse has assembled beneath those gothic vaults, which, for the first time, re-echoed the truth. There the French have celebrated the only true worship,--that of Liberty, that of Reason. There we have formed wishes for the prosperity of the arms of the Republic. There we have abandoned inanimate idols for Reason, for that animated image, the masterpiece of nature."--M. A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution, vol. 2, pp. 370, 371.

When the goddess was brought into the Convention, the orator took her by the hand, and turning to the assembly said: "Mortals, cease to tremble before the powerless thunders of a God whom your fears have created. Henceforth acknowledge no divinity but Reason. I offer you its noblest and purest image; if you must have idols, sacrifice only to such as this. . . . Fall before the august Senate of Freedom, oh! Veil of Reason!"

"The goddess, after being embraced by the president, was mounted on a magnificent car, and conducted, amid an immense crowd, to the cathedral of Notre Dame, to take the place of the Deity. There she was elevated on the high altar, and received the adoration of all present."--Alison, vol. 1, ch. 10.

This was followed, not long afterward, by the public burning of the Bible. On one occasion "the Popular Society of the Museum" entered the hall of the municipality, exclaiming, "Vive la Raison!" and carrying on the top of a pole the half-burned remains of several books, among others breviaries, missals, and the Old and New Testaments, which "expiated in a great fire," said the president, "all the fooleries which they have made the human race commit."--Journal of Paris, 1793, No. 318. Quoted in Buchez-Roux, Collection of Parliamentary History, vol. 30, pp. 200, 201.

It was popery that had begun the work which atheism was completing. The policy of Rome had wrought out those conditions, social, political, and religious, that were hurrying France on to ruin. Writers, in referring to the horrors of the Revolution, say that these excesses are to be charged upon the throne and the church. (See Appendix.) In strict justice they are to be charged upon the church. Popery had poisoned the minds of kings against the Reformation, as an enemy to the crown, an element of discord that would be fatal to the peace and harmony of the nation. It was the genius of Rome that by this means inspired the direst cruelty and the most galling oppression which proceeded from the throne.

The spirit of liberty went with the Bible. Wherever the gospel was received, the minds of the people were awakened. They began to cast off the shackles that had held them bondslaves of ignorance, vice, and superstition. They began to think and act as men. Monarchs saw it and trembled for their despotism.

Rome was not slow to inflame their jealous fears. Said the pope to the regent of France in 1525: "This mania [Protestantism] will not only confound and destroy religion, but all principalities, nobility, laws, orders, and ranks besides."-- G. de Felice, History of the Protestants of France, b. 1, ch. 2, par. 8. A few years later a papal nuncio warned the king: "Sire, be not deceived. The Protestants will upset all civil as well as religious order. . . . The throne is in as much danger as the altar. . . . The introduction of a new religion must necessarily introduce a new government."--D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin, b. 2, ch. 36. And theologians appealed to the prejudices of the people by declaring that the Protestant doctrine "entices men away to novelties and folly; it robs the king of the devoted affection of his subjects, and devastates both church and state." Thus Rome succeeded in arraying France against the Reformation. "It was to uphold the throne, preserve the nobles, and maintain the laws, that the sword of persecution was first unsheathed in France."--Wylie, b. 13, ch. 4.

Little did the rulers of the land foresee the results of that fateful policy. The teaching of the Bible would have implanted in the minds and hearts of the people those principles of justice, temperance, truth, equity, and benevolence which are the very cornerstone of a nation's prosperity. "Righteousness exalteth a nation." Thereby "the throne is established." Proverbs 14:34; 16:12. "The work of righteousness shall be peace;" and the effect, "quietness and assurance forever." Isaiah 32:17. He who obeys the divine law will most truly respect and obey the laws of his country. He who fears God will honor the king in the exercise of all just and legitimate authority. But unhappy France prohibited the Bible and banned its disciples. Century after century, men of principle and integrity, men of intellectual acuteness and moral strength, who had the courage to avow their convictions and the faith to suffer for the truth--for centuries these men toiled as slaves in the galleys, perished at the stake, or rotted in dungeon cells. Thousands upon thousands found safety in flight; and this continued for two hundred and fifty years after the opening of the Reformation.

"Scarcely was there a generation of Frenchmen during the long period that did not witness the disciples of the gospel fleeing before the insane fury of the persecutor, and carrying with them the intelligence, the arts, the industry, the order, in which, as a rule, they pre-eminently excelled, to enrich the lands in which they found an asylum. And in proportion as they replenished other countries with these good gifts, did they empty their own of them. If all that was now driven away had been retained in France; if, during these three hundred years, the industrial skill of the exiles had been cultivating her soil; if, during these three hundred years, their artistic bent had been improving her manufactures; if, during these three hundred years, their creative genius and analytic power had been enriching her literature and cultivating her science; if their wisdom had been guiding her councils, their bravery fighting her battles, their equity framing her laws, and the religion of the Bible strengthening the intellect and governing the conscience of her people, what a glory would at this day have encompassed France! What a great, prosperous, and happy country--a pattern to the nations--would she have been!

"But a blind and inexorable bigotry chased from her soil every teacher of virtue, every champion of order, every honest defender of the throne; it said to the men who would have made their country a 'renown and glory' in the earth, Choose which you will have, a stake or exile. At last the ruin of the state was complete; there remained no more conscience to be proscribed; no more religion to be dragged to the stake; no more patriotism to be chased into banishment."--Wylie, b. 13, ch. 20. And the Revolution, with all its horrors, was the dire result.

"With the flight of the Huguenots a general decline settled upon France. Flourishing manufacturing cities fell into decay; fertile districts returned to their native wildness; intellectual dullness and moral declension succeeded a period of unwonted progress. Paris became one vast almshouse, and it is estimated that, at the breaking out of the Revolution, two hundred thousand paupers claimed charity from the hands of the king. The Jesuits alone flourished in the decaying nation, and ruled with dreadful tyranny over churches and schools, the prisons and the galleys."

The gospel would have brought to France the solution of those political and social problems that baffled the skill of her clergy, her king, and her legislators, and finally plunged the nation into anarchy and ruin. But under the domination of Rome the people had lost the Saviour's blessed lessons of self-sacrifice and unselfish love. They had been led away from the practice of self-denial for the good of others. The rich had found no rebuke for their oppression of the poor, the poor no help for their servitude and degradation. The selfishness of the wealthy and powerful grew more and more apparent and oppressive. For centuries the greed and profligacy of the noble resulted in grinding extortion toward the peasant. The rich wronged the poor, and the poor hated the rich.

In many provinces the estates were held by the nobles, and the laboring classes were only tenants; they were at the mercy of their landlords and were forced to submit to their exorbitant demands. The burden of supporting both the church and the state fell upon the middle and lower classes, who were heavily taxed by the civil authorities and by the clergy. "The pleasure of the nobles was considered the supreme law; the farmers and the peasants might starve, for aught their oppressors cared. . . . The people were compelled at every turn to consult the exclusive interest of the landlord. The lives of the agricultural laborers were lives of incessant work and unrelieved misery; their complaints, if they ever dared to complain, were treated with insolent contempt. The courts of justice would always listen to a noble as against a peasant; bribes were notoriously accepted by the judges; and the merest caprice of the aristocracy had the force of law, by virtue of this system of universal corruption. Of the taxes wrung from the commonalty, by the secular magnates on the one hand, and the clergy on the other, not half ever found its way into the royal or episcopal treasury; the rest was squandered in profligate self-indulgence. And the men who thus impoverished their fellow subjects were themselves exempt from taxation, and entitled by law or custom to all the appointments of the state. The privileged classes numbered a hundred and fifty thousand, and for their gratification millions were condemned to hopeless and degrading lives." (See Appendix.)

The court was given up to luxury and profligacy. There was little confidence existing between the people and the rulers. Suspicion fastened upon all the measures of the government as designing and selfish. For more than half a century before the time of the Revolution the throne was occupied by Louis XV, who, even in those evil times, was distinguished as an indolent, frivolous, and sensual monarch. With a depraved and cruel aristocracy and an impoverished and ignorant lower class, the state financially embarrassed and the people exasperated, it needed no prophet's eye to foresee a terrible impending outbreak. To the warnings of his counselors the king was accustomed to reply: "Try tomake things go on as long as I am likely to live; after my death it may be as it will." It was in vain that the necessity of reform was urged. He saw the evils, but had neither the courage nor the power to meet them. The doom awaiting France was but too truly pictured in his indolent and selfish answer, "After me, the deluge!"

By working upon the jealousy of the kings and the ruling classes, Rome had influenced them to keep the people in bondage, well knowing that the state would thus be weakened, and purposing by this means to fasten both rulers and people in her thrall. With farsighted policy she perceived that in order to enslave men effectually, the shackles must be bound upon their souls; that the surest way to prevent them from escaping their bondage was to render them incapable of freedom. A thousandfold more terrible than the physical suffering which resulted from her policy, was the moral degradation. Deprived of the Bible, and abandoned to the teachings of bigotry and selfishness, the people were shrouded in ignorance and superstition, and sunken in vice, so that they were wholly unfitted for self-government.

But the outworking of all this was widely different from what Rome had purposed. Instead of holding the masses in a blind submission to her dogmas, her work resulted in making them infidels and revolutionists. Romanism they despised as priestcraft. They beheld the clergy as a party to their oppression. The only god they knew was the god of Rome; her teaching was their only religion. They regarded her greed and cruelty as the legitimate fruit of the Bible, and they would have none of it.

Rome had misrepresented the character of God and perverted His requirements, and now men rejected both the Bible and its Author. She had required a blind faith in her dogmas, under the pretended sanction of the Scriptures. In the reaction, Voltaire and his associates cast aside God's word altogether and spread everywhere the poison of infidelity. Rome had ground down the people under her iron heel; and now the masses, degraded and brutalized, in their recoil from her tyranny, cast off all restraint. Enraged at the glittering cheat to which they had so long paid homage, they rejected truth and falsehood together; and mistaking license for liberty, the slaves of vice exulted in their imagined freedom.

At the opening of the Revolution, by a concession of the king, the people were granted a representation exceeding that of the nobles and the clergy combined. Thus the balance of power was in their hands; but they were not prepared to use it with wisdom and moderation. Eager to redress the wrongs they had suffered, they determined to undertake the reconstruction of society. An outraged populace, whose minds were filled with bitter and long-treasured memories of wrong, resolved to revolutionize the state of misery that had grown unbearable and to avenge themselves upon those whom they regarded as the authors of their sufferings. The oppressed wrought out the lesson they had learned under tyranny and became the oppressors of those who had oppressed them.

Unhappy France reaped in blood the harvest she had sown. Terrible were the results of her submission to the controlling power of Rome. Where France, under the influence of Romanism, had set up the first stake at the opening of the Reformation, there the Revolution set up its first guillotine. On the very spot where the first martyrs to the Protestant faith were burned in the sixteenth century, the first victims were guillotined in the eighteenth. In repelling the gospel, which would have brought her healing, France had opened the door to infidelity and ruin. When the restraints of God's law were cast aside, it was found that the laws of man were inadequate to hold in check the powerful tides of human passion; and the nation swept on to revolt and anarchy. The war against the Bible inaugurated an era which stands in the world's history as the Reign of Terror. Peace and happiness were banished from the homes and hearts of men. No one was secure. He who triumphed today was suspected, condemned, tomorrow. Violence and lust held undisputed sway.

King, clergy, and nobles were compelled to submit to the atrocities of an excited and maddened people. Their thirst for vengeance was only stimulated by the execution of the king; and those who had decreed his death soon followed him to the scaffold. A general slaughter of all suspected of hostility to the Revolution was determined. The prisons were crowded, at one time containing more than two hundred thousand captives. The cities of the kingdom were filled with scenes of horror. One party of revolutionists was against another party, and France became a vast field for contending masses, swayed by the fury of their passions. "In Paris one tumult succeeded another, and the citizens were divided into a medley of factions, that seemed intent on nothing but mutual extermination." And to add to the general misery, the nation became involved in a prolonged and devastating war with the great powers of Europe. "The country was nearly bankrupt, the armies were clamoring for arrears of pay, the Parisians were starving, the provinces were laid waste by brigands, and civilization was almost extinguished in anarchy and license."

All too well the people had learned the lessons of cruelty and torture which Rome had so diligently taught. A day of retribution at last had come. It was not now the disciples of Jesus that were thrust into dungeons and dragged to the stake. Long ago these had perished or been driven into exile. Unsparing Rome now felt the deadly power of those whom she had trained to delight in deeds of blood. "The example of persecution which the clergy of France had exhibited for so many ages, was now retorted upon them with signal vigor. The scaffolds ran red with the blood of the priests. The galleys and the prisons, once crowded with Huguenots, were now filled with their persecutors. Chained to the bench and toiling at the oar, the Roman Catholic clergy experienced all those woes which their church had so freely inflicted on the gentle heretics." (See Appendix.)

"Then came those days when the most barbarous of all codes was administered by the most barbarous of all tribunals; when no man could greet his neighbors or say his prayers . . . without danger of committing a capital crime; when spies lurked in every corner; when the guillotine was long and hard at work every morning; when the jails were filled as close as the holds of a slave ship; when the gutters ran foaming with blood into the Seine. . . . While the daily wagonloads of victims were carried to their doom through the streets of Paris, the proconsuls, whom the sovereign committee had sent forth to the departments, reveled in an extravagance of cruelty unknown even in the capital. The knife of the deadly machine rose and fell too slow for their work of slaughter. Long rows of captives were mowed down with grapeshot. Holes were made in the bottom of crowded barges. Lyons was turned into a desert. At Arras even the cruel mercy of a speedy death was denied to the prisoners. All down the Loire, from Saumur to the sea, great flocks of crows and kites feasted on naked corpses, twined together in hideous embraces. No mercy was shown to sex or age. The number of young lads and of girls of seventeen who were murdered by that execrable government, is to be reckoned by hundreds. Babies torn from the breast were tossed from pike to pike along the Jacobin ranks." (See Appendix.) In the short space of ten years, multitudes of human beings perished.

All this was as Satan would have it. This was what for ages he had been working to secure. His policy is deception from first to last, and his steadfast purpose is to bring woe and wretchedness upon men, to deface and defile the workmanship of God, to mar the divine purposes of benevolence and love, and thus cause grief in heaven. Then by his deceptive arts he blinds the minds of men, and leads them to throw back the blame of his work upon God, as if all this misery were the result of the Creator's plan. In like manner, when those who have been degraded and brutalized through his cruel power achieve their freedom, he urges them on to excesses and atrocities. Then this picture of unbridled license is pointed out by tyrants and oppressors as an illustration of the results of liberty.

When error in one garb has been detected, Satan only masks it in a different disguise, and multitudes receive it as eagerly as at the first. When the people found Romanism to be a deception, and he could not through this agency lead them to transgression of God's law, he urged them to regard all religion as a cheat, and the Bible as a fable; and, casting aside the divine statutes, they gave themselves up to unbridled iniquity.

The fatal error which wrought such woe for the inhabitants of France was the ignoring of this one great truth: that true freedom lies within the proscriptions of the law of God. "O that thou hadst hearkened to My commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked." "But whoso hearkeneth unto Me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil." Isaiah 48:18, 22; Proverbs 1:33.

Atheists, infidels, and apostates oppose and denounce God's law; but the results of their influence prove that the well-being of man is bound up with his obedience of the divine statutes. Those who will not read the lesson from the book of God are bidden to read it in the history of nations.

When Satan wrought through the Roman Church to lead men away from obedience, his agency was concealed, and his work was so disguised that the degradation and misery which resulted were not seen to be the fruit of transgression. And his power was so far counteracted by the working of the Spirit of God that his purposes were prevented from reaching their full fruition. The people did not trace the effect to its cause and discover the source of their miseries. But in the Revolution the law of God was openly set aside by the National Council. And in the Reign of Terror which followed, the working of cause and effect could be seen by all.

When France publicly rejected God and set aside the Bible, wicked men and spirits of darkness exulted in their attainment of the object so long desired--a kingdom free from the restraints of the law of God. Because sentence against an evil work was not speedily executed, therefore the heart of the sons of men was "fully set in them to do evil." Ecclesiastes 8:11. But the transgression of a just and righteous law must inevitably result in misery and ruin. Though not visited at once with judgments, the wickedness of men was nevertheless surely working out their doom. Centuries of apostasy and crime had been treasuring up wrath against the day of retribution; and when their iniquity was full, the despisers of God learned too late that it is a fearful thing to have worn out the divine patience. The restraining Spirit of God, which imposes a check upon the cruel power of Satan, was in a great measure removed, and he whose only delight is the wretchedness of men was permitted to work his will. Those who had chosen the service of rebellion were left to reap its fruits until the land was filled with crimes too horrible for pen to trace. From devastated provinces and ruined cities a terrible cry was heard--a cry of bitterest anguish. France was shaken as if by an earthquake. Religion, law, social order, the family, the state, and the church--all were smitten down by the impious hand that had been lifted against the law of God. Truly spoke the wise man: "The wicked shall fall by his own wickedness." "Though a sinner do evil a hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before Him: but it shall not be well with the wicked." Proverbs 11:5; Ecclesiastes 8:12, 13. "They hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord;" "therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices." Proverbs 1:29, 31.

287

God's faithful witnesses, slain by the blasphemous power that "ascendeth out of the bottomless pit," were not long to remain silent. "After three days and a half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them." Revelation 11:11. It was in 1793 that the decrees which abolished the Christian religion and set aside the Bible passed the French Assembly. Three years and a half later a resolution rescinding these decrees, thus granting toleration to the Scriptures, was adopted by the same body. The world stood aghast at the enormity of guilt which had resulted from a rejection of the Sacred Oracles, and men recognized the necessity of faith in God and His word as the foundation of virtue and morality. Saith the Lord: "Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel," Isaiah 37:23. "Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this once will I cause them to know My hand and My might; and they shall know that My name is Jehovah." Jeremiah 16:21, A.R.V.

Concerning the two witnesses the prophet declares further: "And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them." Revelation 11:12. Since France made war upon God's two witnesses, they have been honored as never before. In 1804 the British and Foreign Bible Society was organized. This was followed by similar organizations, with numerous branches, upon the continent of Europe. In 1816 the American Bible Society was founded. When the British Society was formed, the Bible had been printed and circulated in fifty tongues. It has since been translated into many hundreds of languages and dialects. (See Appendix.)

The infidel Voltaire once boastingly said: "I am weary of hearing people repeat that twelve men established the Christian religion. I will prove that one man may suffice to overthrow it." Generations have passed since his death. Millions have joined in the war upon the Bible. But it is so far from being destroyed, that where there were a hundred in Voltaire's time, there are now ten thousand, yes, a hundred thousand copies of the book of God. In the words of an early Reformer concerning the Christian church, "The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers." Saith the Lord: "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn." Isaiah 54:17.

"The word of our God shall stand forever." "All His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness." Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 111:7, 8. Whatever is built upon the authority of man will be overthrown; but that which is founded upon the rock of God's immutable word shall stand forever.

----

There are MANY stories like this in areas controlled by atheists. Richard Wurmbrand wrote another book on this, Tortured for Christ. Communism may have been a factor too. But, communism is an economic system and the main reason atheist states tortured and killed Christians was in order to try to destroy religious faith. Religious faith was an enemy of atheism, not really the communist economic system (there are even some Christian communists now and in Acts 2 some Christians lived together sharing everything).

It is indisputable that atheism was a directly and major factor in causing millions of deaths in the 22 OFFICIALLY atheist states in history. And it didn't just happen under communism. Read up about the French Revolution. There too, atheists were in full control and huge numbers were killed, far more than almost any time in history. Nothing in Christianity compares to that except possibly certain actions of the Catholic church which is a sister to atheism in officially replacing God's commands with man made traditions.

Again, please keep in mind that the above is talking about systems. There are a wide variety of people in EVERY philosophy, from nasty to very kind and helpful. I have a number of atheist friends (who I'm working on converting from this harmful philosophy)...and I admire and respect them in different ways, as I do a number of people here....but we have to be honest about what atheism did when it had power.

Atheist states have been the most intolerant and abusive regimes in ALL history. They have also been extremely intolerant in the west when they got academic power, using methodological naturalism to repress evidence for rivals as much as they possibly can. Basically, atheism as a philosophy has not the least regard for genuine free thought when it has power. The only free thought it cares about is thought that supports atheism and represses evidence for its rivals. It is very difficult to find a rival to atheism in the contest of what philosophy is the most intolerant of free thought.

 

[Frenger]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

"Atheist states have been the most intolerant and abusive regimes in ALL history. They have also been extremely intolerant in the west when they got academic power, using methodological naturalism to repress evidence for rivals as much as they possibly can. Basically, atheism as a philosophy has not the least regard for genuine free thought when it has power. The only free thought it cares about is thought that supports atheism and represses evidence for its rivals. It is very difficult to find a rival to atheism in the contest of what philosophy is the most intolerant of free thought."

Atheism isn't a philosophy, it's not a belief, it's not a way of life. Atheism is simply not believing in a god. The same way you don't believe in the invisible unicorn sitting on my knee. In those ways we are ALL atheists. You cannot say that Stalin and Mao we're motivated by Atheism to carry out their atrocities. Stalin was motivated by a warped version of Marxism and a burning desire to become a World superpower, Mao was actually heavily influenced by Stalin.

These people were awful because they were maniacs, not because they were atheists. You're defining atheist in your terms, as in a belief, but that's not what it is at all. It's simply not beliving something without evidence and there is no way not believing in something can force you to be lunatic.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

No, Hytegia, I didn't quote mine from it. There were not 3 factors. There were 8...and that researcher barely mentioned on the more than 20 specific health principles that cause Adventists to live 10+ years longer.

It can be summarized into 3. The excess was just expounded upon the "live a healthy lifestyle" part and some others attributed to "positive outlook."

Yes, eating Healthy and having natural movement are considered parts of a Healthy Lifestyle.
In fact, nothing in this video is astounding - I learned it in Health Class back in High School.

I will mention them. Furthermore, almost nobody 1000 years ago and for SURE not 3,000 years ago when Moses wrote these things had any clue about the 8 concepts listed in that video. I've watched that video many times and shown it to my students in university as well. The ONLY reason you know about many diet and psychological factors now is because Christians developed science and researched those areas and also because Christians who followed the Bible's health principles were frequent subjects of scientific research.

GREEKS developed critical thinking standards and learning principles. Once again, I can point to any one of the several Greek Philosophers - without Christian influence.

You are committing the dire, dire fallacy of thinking that everything you know was know by everyone in history. This is the highest level of fiction imaginable.

Here's the thing: practice should result in outcomes on their own merits - you don't need to know WHY eating healthy is good for you. If one was to eat the correct fruits and vegetables and live a healthy lifestyle, the result should be the same. It's like Lightning; you don't need to understand it for it to set your house on fire.
You're the one saying that the Bible explicitly states these things - if anyone had a Bible and followed it verbatim, then their life expectancy should be astounding in comparison to those who do not actively do it with near testable and perfect results.

While certain things might be known by some cultures, all the knowledge here put together has absolutely NOTHING to do with a secular outlook on life. NOTHING. PERIOD. Of the 4 Blue Zone cultures, 3 of them are Christian and the 4th, the Okinawans, just went through a scandal with 200,000 of their "centenarians" being found to be dead and the family just collecting pensions on them...which invalidates all their longevity research.

Sources or get to walking.

And you're still lying as to the video's implications. You're trying to make it sound like the video is promoting that Christianity as the wholesale dishing of 10 years of life to the average lifespan - The entire video is based around 3 secular ideals of good Environment, Healthy Lifestyle, and Positive Attitude.

I have vast more evidence on this proving indisputably what I'm stating. NOBODY in history has had anything close to the health knowledge of the Bible that is so positive and contributes so much to longevity and quality of life in many areas. NOBODY. That could not ever have happened with just trial and error by slaves. There is only one logical explanation. The knowledge came from God. More specifics soon in my debate with Inferno.

Too bad.
If a raven can make and use a tool by trial and error, then any human on their own merit can be reasonable upon their own merits.
Your ignorant presupposition of what MUST be true based upon your own belief that only the will of God through his believers can do anything is irrelevant.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

You have to provide something to support your statements regarding the French Revolution.

1.- Prove that the majority of the revolutionists were atheists. And that atheists were in "full control"
2.- In that case, prove that their atheistic beliefs were a DIRECT cause of a huge number of atrocities committed by these people.



You haven't established any connection between atheism and genocide. You've just given examples of "officially" atheist states that happened to commit atrocities.

Also, you STILL, STILL, STILL haven't proved that Christianity was a DIRECT fucking CAUSE of scientific development. Even if Christians were innovators in the scientific field and whatnot, it was because the Church has almost ALWAYS had the biggest amount of resources, most educated people, and the BIGGEST amount of MONEY.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

More men have been sent to the afterlife at the end of a blade in the name of God and Jesus Christ than any other single religious backing in history.

Where's Historian when you need him?

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Oi Dotoree, you neglected to RESPOND (even 1%) to this, particularly the QUESTION who are the people who aren't atheists who are part of "atheism"? I'd prefer you respond to it all, though.

I'll PRETEND it was an oversight and not a DELIBERATE attempt by you to ignore being faced with your HYPOCRISY. Boy it sure feels GOOD to capitalise randomly; is that one of the ways Christianity helps you live longer?

Edit: Oh, PERIOD!

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Oi Dotoree, you neglected to RESPOND (even 1%) to this, particularly the QUESTION who are the people who aren't atheists who are part of "atheism"? I'd prefer you respond to it all, though.

I'll PRETEND it was an oversight and not a DELIBERATE attempt by you to ignore being faced with your HYPOCRISY. Boy it sure feels GOOD to capitalise randomly; is that one of the ways Christianity helps you live longer?

Edit: Oh, PERIOD!

Sigh, I don't ignore questions. PERIOD. I DO have limits on my time and so choose the ones that look most important to answer.

Do you not understand the difference between a philosophy and individuals in that philosophy? There are philosophies that are very harmful, but decent people in them that were deceived and harmed by that philosophy. The Nazi philosophy for example was very harmful. But, there were some very smart, kind and well intentioned people in that philosophy. Many of those people's lives were damaged or ruined because they followed that harmful philosophy. Jesus made a big difference between the corrupt religious leaders of his time and those who were victims of these leader's falsehoods. He was very blunt in condemning the leaders (see Matthew 23), but far more understanding of those who had been taught falsehoods. This is a policy I follow in many areas. People like Dawkins are involved in intentional deceit and they very well know it and it's easy to prove. They also have the responsibility to be accurate and they have intentionally shirked that responsibility and are willfully promoting known falsehoods. Most people here at the leagueofreason and similar sites however are not paid to do research like Dawkins is and many are probably not intentionally involved in deceit like he is. It's the same with republicans in America. Many of the leaders (esp. the bankers funding them) are almost certainly involved in intentional deception and exploitation of the poor and middle class and they have the responsibility to know facts. But, they are spouting propaganda of the worst order that is harming people. I have friends and relatives that I know are sincere, but have been lied to and are victims of Republican propaganda. I personally agree more with democrat policies a lot more, esp. in economics, but they also use fiction at times for political purposes and it's reprehensible when they use it as well.

It's the same with communism. Same with fascism. And same with atheism. While philosophies may be harmful, there can be honest, decent and kind and sincere people in them. People need to learn to make this distinction much more than they do.

The philosophy of atheism teaches the most blatant falsehoods imaginable. You could blame the leaders of atheism for this probably. Then many others who have not been trained to think critically or on how to identify fallacies are easily deceived by these astronomically irrational lies, straw men, double standards and fallacies of all sorts, that if used against other institutions in our society, like science, education, government, etc. would cause our entire civilization to collapse, destroying most of our current knowledge.

There are some atheists who are sincerely following the evidence that they do have and are just victims of others who are involved in intentional deceit. Those who follow atheism will certainly lose out in this life in very significant ways and the science is very conclusive on this. My last post in the debate showed some of this and my next post will show some more (but I do want to get to the history and science sections, so will only do one more post on the pragmatic evidence of the benefits of Christianity to humanity I think, even though I could probably do dozens).

 

[Laurens]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

--
I don't doubt that the Victorians had some problems there as well (among other errors) since every culture wants to think of itself as the pinnacle of sophistication, but as Dr. Stephen J. Gould put it about racism, etc.
'Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.' Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127-128, 1977.

Those biological arguments for racism might have increased since acceptance of evolutionary theory, however they are based upon fundamental misunderstandings of it, and modern research has served to completely disprove biological arguments for racism.

And universal common descent intrinsically has in it the concept that things in the past are nearly always inferior to things in the present and that we're on a constant upward journey (with a few disasters and detours thrown in). It would be difficult to find anything more supportive of the ignorant ancient barbarians idea than universal common descent.

Bryan

Not true at all, evolution is not about progression towards being 'better'. A trait which we might consider 'worse' could be selected for under some circumstances.

We, for example might think intelligence is better, however if people of lower intelligence have more children than people with higher intelligence then there would be a trend towards lower intelligence - something which would be counter to our notion of improvement.

You might think that being able to see well is better, however plenty of organisms, moles for example have bad eyesight because they don't need it any more. Or another example would be flightless birds, losing the ability to fly could well be considered a step backwards, but it has happened plenty of times...

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Frenger,
You don't seem to realize that there are ~17 different versions of atheism (and I never define the beliefs of others. That's their right). Lack belief is only a VERY recent version and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the version Marx, Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot advocated. Atheism of all types though ridicules religion with the most outrageous falsehoods known to man and the world mass killers of humanity in history all used ideas that are exactly the same as you see spouted on this website and other atheist websites. The main difference is that they had power to try to eliminate what they thought was most dangerous and the biggest enemy to atheism and they used it precisely as any rational person who thinks they will not be held accountable for their actions would. Not all atheists would misuse power as Stalin, Mao, etc. did. But, I personally saw an atheist tell his experience of murdering three Christians because he was convinced that they were a danger to progress. This is precisely how Stalin, Mao, etc. reasoned and it has everything to do with their atheism. This is indisputable psychologically (which I studied as a minor in university).

Hytegia,
Sigh, the reason you learned about those things in health class is only because certain Christians followed the Bible and scientists studied why they lived longer and finally figured out that these habits, derived largely from the Bible, were worth teaching others. Furthermore, you wouldn't even have GONE to public school if not for Christianity pioneering public education based on creationist philosophy that since all were created by God, all should be given a right to study and learn, not just the wealthy and powerful classes. You owe most of what you know to Christianity building the foundations of modern civilization whether you have the integrity to admit it or not.

No Hytegia, the Hebrews were pioneering all sorts of critical thinking and learning principles LONG before the Greeks. And the fact is that while the Greeks got some things right, quite a few of their ideas were very harmful to human life (bleeding patients), and to science (Aristotle's concepts of motion).

if anyone had a Bible and followed it verbatim, then their life expectancy should be astounding in comparison to those who do not actively do it with near testable and perfect results.

That's precisely what the ted.com video demonstrated. 10+ years longer life on AVERAGE for the Christians who actually follow the Bible's health principles which I will list in some detail in my next post in the debate (Buettner hardly touches on them at all..he's only the secular confirmation that they work and there are some that nobody could have known without supernatural knowledge). My grandpa is at present 103+ and still going strong directly because of these Bible principles.

"Sources or get to walking."

You want evidence on the Okinawan scandal? Here it is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/10/japenese-centenarians-records

At some point you should learn that I have references for most of what I say. The only difficulty is finding time to write responses to the 100s of people who are valuable and smart human beings, but who atheism has duped and is harming their lives.

The video confirms that those who actually follow the Bible's health principles live 10+ years on average. And the Bible has several different levels, ideal health standards, acceptable health standards and banned health practices..less than 50% of Adventists follow the ideal Bible health standards and STILL they have this 10+ year extra life ON AVERAGE and that's in comparison to people who have learned astounding amounts about health from Christianity. In the past, people who followed the Bible lived several decades longer than those who didn't.

The video has absolutely NOTHING to do with any secular ideal of any sort. PERIOD. PERIOD. That is indisputable. You would not have any clue about the importance of any of these without the Bible pioneering education, modern science and numerous principles in health and psychology that enabled scientists to study it. Atheism is a facade built on a Christian foundation. Without Christianity, most everything you know now would be completely unknown.

CosmicJoghurt,
It is well know by pretty much everyone that the leaders of the French Revolution were hardcore atheists and that they were in full control. They could not have exalted the "goddess of reason" if they hadn't been. The article I excerpted above has already cited several historical sources. Do I have to do all your research for you? Yes, I have proven the connection between atheism and genocide and yes I have already proven that Christianity was a direct cause that built the foundation of moderns science and so have numerous historians of science. You can persist in ignorance if you wish, but there are presentations and books you can buy and websites you can check out that list the details at length. Your choice to be ignorant will do nothing to change facts of history.

It is precisely because Christianity has always been founded on rationality and hardcore evidence better than any rival philosophy that it BECAME large and had the most educated people, and built the most schools and hospitals and at certain points has had the most money. Do you not realize that Christianity was born under the Romans and for centuries was persecuted and countless Christians martyred? If it had not been built on hardcore evidence of many types, it could not have survived that persecution.

It is utter fiction that Christianity has killed more than any other philosophy. The philosophy that has killed the most is atheism, sometimes in combination with communism, but sometimes on it's own as in the French Revolution.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Laurens,
No, the racist aspects of evolution aren't based on misunderstandings of it. I have even heard Dawkins say that we need to understand evolution so that we do NOT use it on humans. But, that is only a human "moral" opinion. Not one that comes from the theory itself in any way.

Did you not see my mention of disasters, detours, etc. I could have more explicitly referred to regression, etc. which I well know about. But, you are cherry picking. If you were right that universal common descent is not about progress, then no human should exist at all since it isn't about progress. But, in fact that's what universal common descent has always precisely been about and it's intrinsic in the very name. But, of course, yes, it has some some detours, ups and downs, etc. But, countless Darwinian scientists say that's what it is and it's trumpeted constantly to the public by leading scientists. Please have some integrity.
Bryan

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

It's funny how you call me ignorant.

Anyways, who exactly are the "atheist leaders" you keep talking about? The ones deceiving us...

The French Revolution wasn't caused by atheism. It was an answer to the absolutist regime, the economical problems at the time, you know... Oh, wait. You don't. You think it was atheism. And you call ME ignorant?

To say that all the leaders of the revolution were "hardcore atheists" requires big testicles. Even bigger testicles are required when you claim that they did what they did because they were atheists. You haven't established that, at all.

Also, Christianity survived... because it got lucky. That's basically it. There HAD to be a religion that stood out from the others, in the imprisoned arms of the Roman Empire. I could've been any other religion, for that matter. I won't go into more detail on why such a religion got accepted so easily.
And once Christianity started getting accepted it's like a snowball. Deceitful bullshittery taught from early ages, the Church getting real important and getting shitloads of money, not paying taxes, having a monopoly on education and a close relationship to the state... all of that made Christianity what it is today.

I'd like to see the "rationality" and "hardcore evidence" in the translated, modified, adapted, cherry-picked, stuff-that-the-church-didn't-like-removed, translated again, clusterfuck of contradictions that is the Bible.

 

[Laurens]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Laurens,
No, the racist aspects of evolution aren't based on misunderstandings of it. I have even heard Dawkins say that we need to understand evolution so that we do NOT use it on humans. But, that is only a human "moral" opinion. Not one that comes from the theory itself in any way.

Dawkins said that we need to understand evolution so that we don't use it on humans?? I don't think he'd say something as blitheringly ridiculous as that...

How is it then that my understanding of evolution has led me to the conclusion that racism is completely unfounded nonsense? We all originated in Africa, we are all descended from black ancestors, the reason we are white is because we needed to get more vitamin D, and the differences between the 'races' are superficial. There is no evolutionary, or biological reason to suppose that white people are more advanced than others. None whatsoever. You are merely trying to portray evolution as racist in order to try and gain the moral high ground, well it's not going to fucking wash with me.

Did you not see my mention of disasters, detours, etc. I could have more explicitly referred to regression, etc. which I well know about. But, you are cherry picking. If you were right that universal common descent is not about progress, then no human should exist at all since it isn't about progress. But, in fact that's what universal common descent has always precisely been about and it's intrinsic in the very name. But, of course, yes, it has some some detours, ups and downs, etc. But, countless Darwinian scientists say that's what it is and it's trumpeted constantly to the public by leading scientists. Please have some integrity.
Bryan

Define progression.

Things progress in evolution inasmuch as they get better and better adapted to survive, but there is no goal, no end towards which it progresses.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

dude will you EVER realize that nobody is teaching us atheism? Our brains weren't damaged enough to submit to your mumbo jumbo, that's all.
[edit] or we managed to break out of the delusion[/edit]
to be fair some parents don't pressure their children too much to swallow the baseless illogical bullshit others are being spoonfed.. you know very well that atheism is not a world view like a religious one but you still come with the same stupid arguments over and over again.
The atheist "leaders" as you call them are simply people who try to open the eyes of the brain washed masses to make them realize that the crap that people like you spew around is nothing more than bullshit, but none of them ever resorted to threats and violence, unlike your kind.
And they (generally) have no reason to lie either, unlike your kind. The way you describe Dawkins would be a perfect way to describe what Ray Comfort (better known as Bananaman) is doing.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Dawkins said that we need to understand evolution so that we don't use it on humans?? I don't think he'd say something as blitheringly ridiculous as that...

Someday you may eventually learn that I can usually back up almost anything I say given time. I'm not infallible and I don't have a great memory due to much lost sleep..but I seldom say anything that isn't based on facts. Here's the word for word quote:
"I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining how things are, but I am an even more passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics," said Dawkins, who comes close to describing himself as a pacifist. "Let us understand Darwinism so we can walk in the opposite direction when it comes to setting up society."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822.html

Dawkins realizes that following Darwinism in society is harmful and this has been indisputably the case since it is naturally a racist philosophy claiming that the fittest survive, that death is a process of advancing the most fit, and since it directly leads many to think there is no God and no higher moral responsibility than survival and getting everything we can out of life regardless of who we trample on. We need to face up to the facts of history.

Christians have done wrong things too of course and I don't ignore those at all. However, most of the time they were done in direct opposition to the Christian moral code, due to many factors in society (politics, greed, power, media, etc. and in certain cases dire misunderstandings and misapplications of Biblical concepts) while in atheism there is no moral code. Whatever the current society or their peers think is moral is usually about the highest level of morals an atheist will have and very few if any higher....thus atheism puts people under the bondage of whatever the current moral ignorance is.

Define progression.

Is not advancing from a few cells to human beings progression? I didn't talk about an end goal.
Bryan

 

[Laurens]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

TruthisLife7,

Dawkins doesn't say that Darwinism is racist. I believe he is referring to the 'red in tooth and claw' nature of evolution - that if a similar 'adapt or die out' notion was applied to politics it would be horrendous. It's not intrinsically racist whatsoever you're using a typical creationist canard that is not going to wash with me or anyone else here. Unless you can show how exactly evolution is racist, I'd suggest you STFU.

Also evolution tells us the way things are, it does not dictate to us how society ought to be run, or how we ought to live our lives.

What is your point about progression anyway?