The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Echoes said:
rhubroma said:Sorry Echoes, the Catholic forerunners of my established mate were fascists. Hitler took inspiration from Mussolini and that is that, finally, if Italy were not to have invaded Ethiopia was it because of Queen Sheba? Though it did, with full Catholic support let me asure you. Capito?
Christian said:.
Then last week I came across this guy Bill Maher on youtube, apparently he must be pretty funny, I had never heard of him though. He talks about the book "Proof of heaven" and its author whom he refers to as a "smart stupid person":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olfFNq8b1_E
He also has a documentary called "Religulous", I started watching it but haven't finished yet. So far it's been pretty good!
horsinabout said:Below is quite a good read, especially the section Nazis and Amalek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek with references to its sources.
A story from the bible, tribal disputes and early genocidal tendencies. It is a depiction of an occurrence, descriptive of conflict without provocation. It is an insight into what human societies and their tribalism have done in historical context. To point it out is not necessarily to condone it., although it is written for dramatic effect, as a “what to do in the event of” and therefore can be construed as insightful and instructive.
Fascism /Nazism was clearly a dysfunctional political system that incorporated nationalism and religion to it's ideology, with narcissistic psychopaths at the helm. From an historical perspective they appear to have gained influence from both religion and atheism, but a misinterpretation of both. Such as Darwinism to justify Eugenics. And religion “the final solution” ethnic cleansing, specific to German Nazism.
Fascism appears to have it's origins from political and philosophical writers from the 19th century, going to show you that they have not always made the world a better place, perhaps not for the want of trying.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/202210/fascism/219391/Intellectual-origins
The WW2 allowed the Nazis to exact out their ideologies, though the main cause of the war was economical not religious or ideological. Not an expert, but this is how I understand things, my general knowledge and reason.
Narcissism, this is a characteristic of personality often found in political leaders.
Case in point.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/6257758/a-charismatic-narcissist/
Blair was a born again Christian convert to Catholic. And I do not point this out to undermine my own argument, rather support it!
Now for some light entertainment. You may want to find your own.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI
rhubroma said:To say that WWII was fought for economic reasons can be said of any war ultimately. The economics behind territorial expansionism was but one reason, in a serious of concomitant causes, that explain how a maniacal despot could have led an entire nation along a crash course with destiny.
It is all too simplistic to suggest that the economic concerns were the only cogent driving forces behind Hitler's Wehrmacht. The others range from the pseudo-mythic, pseudo-philosophical, cultural-tribal, to ideological and even, I'd suggest, semiotic. I realize, however, that in the age of homo economicus, nothing else takes on much critical relevance, though this is a shortsighted fallacy of our historical moment. At any rate to bring this back to the religious sphere. Nazi-Fascism, as it were, replaced Christianity with a new religiosity of the State even if many Christians willingly complied (again read Bernhard on Austria), while it sanctified its party leaders. In Italy, though, the fascist leadership, always needed the approval of the Catholic Church, otherwise Mussolini would have failed as a statesman.
The Hitch said:Anyway, as you have probably gathered, Mayer is VERY atheist (many of his controversies are because of no holds barred assaults on religion, he was not afraid to call pope Benedict a former Nazi and a child abuse facilitator).
His comedy is all political, usually scripted and read off cards and 99.9999% of the time a dig at Republicans.
Personally there are a few things I don't like about Mayer, especially in the last decade, he was better before real time.
Main one being they invite some real extremists on sometimes eg people like michael moore or some of the rappers who openly praise Al Quaeda and Bin Laden. Also curious that the audience always cheers even louder when they make more extreme statements.
Another is that, to me any tv show which invites people who are unqualified, simply because they are "famous" (the hollywood and music stars it constantly has) loses the right to call itself a serious political discussion program. Im ferociously against Hollywood actors or any celebrity being given a bigger voice on political issues than the average person.
Finally Maher's biggest limitation is that because in the US the Republican voters tend to be so far to the right, less intelligent and sometimes hold very backward ideology (like anti gay rights), Maher's political beliefs have never been challenged (the show very rarely invites anyone who disagrees with him) so as a result his arguments have not been moulded by contact with counterarguments, and he has become very very elitist, believing that all his positions are right based purely on the fact that his opponents in America are much dumber than him. You can probably see that with religioulous, Maher sees the religious as intellectually inferior and this is perhaps even the main argument for him on the issue.
Obviously I believe he is right for the most part, but imo it is dangerous to go through life thinking everyone who disagrees with you is dumber (dawkins does the same), and think whatsmore that the opinion held by the more intelligent person is always the right one.
The Hitch said:it is dangerous to go through life thinking everyone who disagrees with you is dumber (dawkins does the same), and think whatsmore that the opinion held by the more intelligent person is always the right one.
So by Atheists you mean any non-Catholic? That explains most of the stuff you've written!Echoes said:Lutherans are atheists. In disguise, perhaps but still atheists, like most Protestants.
May I remind you that you've been saying that for the last few weeks already? How many "last posts" will you write?Echoes said:I stop discussing because I'm feeling Im wasting my time. I've got a book by Christopher Lasch to read and it's far more interesting than reading some stupid atheist on an Internet forum.
Christian said:I don't know if this is what you mean, but this reminds me of the common stereotype that atheists are "arrogant". I think that is a missconception. Of course there are arrogant people who are also atheists, but being an atheist, and being open and vocal about it, does not make one arrogant. Dawkins talks about it in his book, when he says that we live in a society where discussion is valued above all things and promoted in every field - except religion. Religions are built on dogmas, i.e. the principle that you cannot question it. Questioning someone's religion is often perceived as something very rude, and thus atheists are labeled as rude.
Here is another thing that Dawkins says on arrogance:
"We're strident. You can't use the word atheist without preceding it with strident".
"It seems to me that... say what I've just said, which is that I can't know that there is no god, but I think it's the same as fairies - that's the sort of cautious thing to say. I'm not saying there is definitely no god. But the arrogance of a religious person who knows, not only knows that there is a god but knows that it's this god, it's the christian god, it's the trinity, and the virgin mary was born of a virgin (sic), I mean they've got it all written down pat (sp?) and they've got absolutely not a shred of evidence for any of it - that's arrogance".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC58vglNOOo
Another thing which IMO inevitably leads to the conception of atheists being arrogant is the impossible standard which people hold for their god. God is god and you cannot compare god to anything except god because there is nothing like god. So when atheists use the fairy or the spaghetti monster comparison, it is perceived as a personal attack, when really it is just a rhetorical arguement.
To the bible scholars out there - was Mary born of a virgin as well? In Spain they worship Mary's mother a lot ("Santa Ana"), many statues of her, churches and streets named after her, but I never heard that she also gave "virgin birth".
The Hitch said:imo it is dangerous to go through life thinking everyone who disagrees with you is dumber (dawkins does the same), and think whatsmore that the opinion held by the more intelligent person is always the right one.
BigMac said:Pathetic religious nonsence, or should i say catholic.
As for Bill, he is top notch. I watched Religulous five months ago or so, but didn't find it that good, simply because he is not objective and takes too long to hit the main and interesting arguments. He is a funny and intelligent guy though.
Christian said:... but I must say after now having seen half of "Religulous", I agree with your assessment of Bill Maher
horsinabout said:I can't speak for The Hitch but how I read his post was that Maher's show is contrived for TV and selling out to cheap entertainment, rather than proper debate. Hence the argument of Maher's elitism accusation, which I agree with. And the 'show' has lost it's original purpose. The purpose being free speech and the right to criticise religion, which in a democracy is very important to uphold.
Richard Dawkin and dare I say Christopher Hitching, Hitch, have all played the TV game. In the case of Hitchens he has been accused of plagiarising others ideas such as the Mother Teresa critique "The Missionary Position". Also Hitchens for my money did a lot of unashamed religious bashing, which is not the same as religious criticism. I liked a lot of what Hitchens did, but I found him to be a perplexing and contradictory flawed character and like Dawkins a bit of a sell out
You can probably see that with religioulous, Maher sees the religious as intellectually inferior and this is perhaps even the main argument for him on the issue.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:I would call myself atheist, but gave the joke answer "Hoogerland", since this poll has a major flaw. There is no "money option". The worst religion of them all. With that option, I guess most of the 45% who call themselves atheists would have elected the belief and trust in money... that paper god that is responsible for more deaths, pollution, wars and masacres than any other religion ever was and will.
Christian said:Did god create the dinosaurs?