Which motto or which war?
In fact, we did. Neither the Bundeswehr nor the NVA adopted that motto. (but obviously not for the fact that the motto didn’t work, but rather to apply religious neutrality (in West Germany) or for not wanting to have fuck to do with religion (Eastern Germany). Also both states wanted nothing to do with a nazi motto.)
Hitler ruins EVERYTHING
I am sure I am late to the party, but I have to get this in:
There are no non-stamp collectors in Post Office Boxes!
I meant which war.
Guess I’ll answer this here.
It was in the US, and no, that wasn’t a concern. My chief concern is that Christians are going to break up my marriage. Second place concern is that some Christian will decide that being gay is sufficient reason to fire me, or throw me out of my house. Concerns about my personal safety aren’t really that high on the list, although I do worry about my wife, who is trans.
Now, that’s just some recent examples of anti-gay bigotry directed at gays by American Christians. I could have thrown in how they’re being treated in Russia, with the full blessings (and occasional participation) of the Russia Orthodox Church, or what Christians in Uganda (with the aid and backing of American Evangelicals) are up to.
And, sure, that’s the extreme. And I don’t really lose a ton of sleep worrying about that stuff. Mostly what I have to deal with is shit-eyed little worms making snide homophobic remarks and grubby hypocrites getting all huffy when people don’t eat their shit with a smile.
Of course, I’m aware that’s not all Christians, or even most Christians. I know that most Christians aren’t like, you, @Paul_was_in_Saudi. Most Christians are decent, compassionate people, and I know that I shouldn’t judge the group by the example you set.
But Lord, it is a struggle.
The US of course only noticed the second reason and decided to adopt a version for the whole country as an anti-communist move.
Obviously the one they lost.
Stop talking about ze war!
What on earth do you mean by “generally-accepted scientific thinking of that time and place”? Genetics is the study of an observable fact of inheritance of biological traits. Eugenics is an application of genetics just like nuclear bombs are applications of nuclear fission and/or fusion. Societies were removing undesirables long before they used science as their excuse. In fact, they used religion as their excuse. Oh and a lot of religious leaders of that time and place were all for eugenics.
So, you really just hate science as much as you do atheists.
Oh well, we lost more than one war. All with the help of God…
You leave the Quetzalcoatlus out of this discussion! Coolest biest that ever existed! And that is proven!
I’m confused. Is Paul’s position that:
Science is a product of atheism?
Science is to blame for the Holocaust?
Atheism is to blame for the Holocaust?
If there were no atheists the Holocaust would not have happened?
If there were no scientists the Holocaust would not have happened?
I can’t quite piece together the logic, but look out Galileo!
Close but I think the position is: one time an atheist said bad mean words he didn’t like therefore all atheists are scientifically proven to be responsible for the Holocaust
That’s a syllogism worthy of Aristotle, it is!
Paul is just doing the religious version of the argument against BLM and critical race theory.
“These people who we have culturally dominated for centuries without anyone raising an eyebrow have now begun to stand up for themselves. Help we are being Oppressed!!”
Seriously, trying to claim that the existence of Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, proves that Christians are an oppressed minority because they publish a few books that say that Christians are deluded when there are vast media empires including radio, movies, television and dozens of publishing houses, devoted to the idea that atheists are inherently evil, is fallacious to the point of risibility.
I’m afraid I have bad news for you. CH has ceased to be. He has shuffled off his mortal coil and joined the choir improbable. He is an ex-polemist. Lovely plumage.
No matter what your opinion is, the definition of atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods. Thus it is not a belief system. The first thing I and most atheists I know do when someone says they believe in a god is to ask for a definition. You can go all the way from a tri-omni god, which is logically inconsistent and thus we can be sure does not exist to a deistic god who is unfalsifiable by definition. I can lack belief in such a god but if someone wants to believe in him I can’t give any good reason not to, except Occam’s Razor.
Atheism has nothing to do with knowledge. There are lots of agnostic atheists and some agnostic theists. I’m agnostic about a deistic god. Other gods can prove they exist if they choose to. That they haven’t chosen to is evidence, but not proof, that they don’t exist.
For all we know the real god is involved with some culture billions of light years away from us. I choose not to believe in any such god, but I sure don’t claim knowledge about whether or not it exists.
If you lack belief in any god, you’re an atheist.
I had a miraculous cure a year and a half ago when a swollen disk got better by itself. No theist asked if prayer was involved, alas - of one did I would have told them I prayed to Hitch and he cured me. Thus proving atheism.
No, the Cossacks did that to my ancestors in the pogroms. Or the Crusaders. Or the inquisition. Atheists all, no doubt.
Thank you very much for your kind words.
Upstream we were remaking on the old motto of the German Army, “God is with us.” Lincoln of course pondered long on how God could allow, or even require so much human suffering. His notes from 1862 include this meditation;
The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party – and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true – that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.
Yes, in the past, the fairly far-off past religious people led the slaughter and persecution of the weak and the unpopular. In the more recent past the killers have been directed by science and the desire to improve the world. Churchill pointed out that the world he knew threatened to "sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
Maybe I ought not to have dredged up Churchill. I fear we may spin off on one of our tangents.