TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

That's not to say the Nazi regime didn't try to influence or manipulate religion.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

It's also more than obvious that the Nazis had some very special uses for Science.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion/s magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisterial is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

---

You could just as easily say that religion determines the boundaries and science is left to the gaps. It's not necessarily a matter of giving equal weight (people have many opinions on that) but of understanding the nature and limitations of the different modes of inquiry.

You can believe in science, as do I. But to insist that science is the only valid source of truth is not in itself a scientific position. It is a matter of faith just as much as any religious dogma.

---

Ok, give me an example of where an area previously defined by science has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

The proper question is whether an area defined by science has been assigned to religion, not God. The NOMA principle is agnostic as to the existence of God.

Gould's book on NOMA has an example of science trespassing the boundaries of religion in the story of William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. Bryan's crusade against evolution was inspired by German military officers in World War I, many of whom were biologists and former university professors. These scientists used Darwinism as a moral justification for cruelty and violence. The German philosophy was that "struggle not only must go on...but it should go on so that this natural law may work out in its cruel, inevitable way the salvation of the human species." Similar ideas are found in the writings of American racists of the same era, including the textbook at issue in the Scopes trial. Regarding certain New York "hill families" allegedly predisposed to poverty and crime, the book states that "if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading."

As Gould points out, many people believe that evolution justifies certain behaviors. In some cases this belief may be harmless. In other cases it's far from it. This would not happen if scientists respected the boundaries of their magisterium and understood that science can't answer moral questions or dictate social policy.

---

The same could be said about relgion and the Inquisition.

I wasn't really asking the question you answered. What I asked is give me an example of an area previously defined by science that has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

I don't know what you mean by "refuting an area." I can tell you that morality is historically an area that has been defined by religion; attempts to define it scientifically have been unsuccessful and often catastrophically fatal, especially with advances in technology. The 20th century is a lesson on this point, to which the Inquisition can hardly hold a candle in terms of human suffering.

---

I would hate to see what the Inquisition could do with 20th or 21st century technology, wouldn't you? Over the centuries, in terms of human suffering there has been every bit as much catastrophically fatal applications in the name of religion and religious morals.

---

Giving modern technology to the Inquisition would make little difference because the Inquisition never had mass extermination as a goal. That's the crucial difference between it and some of the major humanistic philosophies.

---

What humanistic philosophy had mass extermination as a goal? Those were corrupt political ideologies that led to mass exterminations. Those corrupt political ideologies are contrary to the tenets of humanism. I don't think you understand humanism. Humanism embraces the dignity of the human being and seeks to diminish human suffering. Gott Mit Uns was stamped above the Swastika.

---

The Nazis sought to diminish human suffering, too. They just defined humanity a bit differently than you do. They defined it, as you say, according to their own cultural interpretation and justification. By what standard do you judge their ideology "corrupt?"

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion/s magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisterial is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

---

You could just as easily say that religion determines the boundaries and science is left to the gaps. It's not necessarily a matter of giving equal weight (people have many opinions on that) but of understanding the nature and limitations of the different modes of inquiry.

You can believe in science, as do I. But to insist that science is the only valid source of truth is not in itself a scientific position. It is a matter of faith just as much as any religious dogma.

---

Ok, give me an example of where an area previously defined by science has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

The proper question is whether an area defined by science has been assigned to religion, not God. The NOMA principle is agnostic as to the existence of God.

Gould's book on NOMA has an example of science trespassing the boundaries of religion in the story of William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. Bryan's crusade against evolution was inspired by German military officers in World War I, many of whom were biologists and former university professors. These scientists used Darwinism as a moral justification for cruelty and violence. The German philosophy was that "struggle not only must go on...but it should go on so that this natural law may work out in its cruel, inevitable way the salvation of the human species." Similar ideas are found in the writings of American racists of the same era, including the textbook at issue in the Scopes trial. Regarding certain New York "hill families" allegedly predisposed to poverty and crime, the book states that "if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading."

As Gould points out, many people believe that evolution justifies certain behaviors. In some cases this belief may be harmless. In other cases it's far from it. This would not happen if scientists respected the boundaries of their magisterium and understood that science can't answer moral questions or dictate social policy.

---

Unlike Gould I think there is room in both directions for overlap. One example is the letter from the Los Alamos scientists to Truman. http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-17.html
Anither is the claim of believers of a worldwide flood and an ark to ride it out. My OT prof didn't buy it but for those who do science can provide evidence to the contrary, and allow believers to move from a literal to an allegorical interpretation.

---

That's not the question I asked, which was what area formerly defined as science was refuted and attributed to god, or even religion as you say. NOMA really doesn't adequately address the issue. However, the real issue is humanism or humanistic determination as to what is moral. Either science can influence that determination or religion can influence that determination. I'd much rather humans use science to make that determination, as opposed to humans using someone's interpretation of a religious edict attributed to an imaginary god.

---

The problem is that what is moral is not an empirical question. Even if you think you're basing morality on science, in fact you're always interpreting the science based on pre-existing moral assumptions. When those assumptions are wrong, as they were in the German example, the results are as bad or worse than when you base your morality on religious edicts alone.

---

Science is continually testing, probing and revising assumptions based upon evidence and facts. Science asks questions and finds answers based upon the evidence of reality. Religion presupposes the answer before the question is even asked. Science can correct wrong assumptions. However, as you say, when assumptions are wrong (i.e. religious assumptions) the results are bad when you base morality on religious edicts alone. Religion is unyielding in its beliefs and there is no room for change or correction of error. In the end it is people, society and culture, that makes moral judgements based upon their frame of reference. I would much rather those judgements be based upon the facts and evidence of reality, as opposed to judgements based upon religious edicts from primitive people with primitive understandings. I think you would also. Look how LGBT rights has struggled against religious dogma.

---

Do you think it's a good idea for moral values to be subject to constant revision without limitation, or are there some values that should remain unchanged?

---

Everything should be subject to review in light of better information. In fact religious moral dogma has had to yield in the face of cultural enlightenment of societies.

---

Enlightenment as defined by whom or what? If science appears to justify genocide, as the Germans once believed it did, should dogma yield to science?

---

Knowledge, as revealed by science, and religion are each subject to cultural interpretation and justification. There were many Germans who believed extermination of the Jews,along with others, was justified upon religious grounds. I would much rather cultures and societies take a humanistic approach, in light of scientific knowledge, in determining what causes harm to others and equitable laws, as opposed to making those determinations from religious edicts. Do you not agree?

---

The construction of a morality based on humanism is the major philosophical problem since the Enlightenment, and especially since the Second World War. To a great extent it was the failure of this project that led to postmodernism. As the secular critic Tony Davies observed, "It should no longer be possible to formulate phrases like 'the destiny of man' or the 'triumph of human reason' without an instant consciousness of the folly and brutality they drag behind them...it is almost impossible to think of a crime that has not been committed in the name of human reason." In practice, humanism has served the interests of particular races, classes, and other interest groups at least as much as religion did. I would choose religion over humanism if only because religion has done less harm to humanity than such humanistic and scientistic philosophies as Marxism and Nazism.

That being said, let's assume for the sake of argument that there is an ideal form of humanism which, if correctly understood and applied, would allow human beings to thrive more fully than religion. This brings us to the other big problem with humanism: why is human thriving a good thing, and how do you know? Some people actually believe the universe would be a better place if humanity were extinct. How do you prove them wrong? And when I say prove, I mean it exactly the way you mean it. I mean prove it empirically, without reference to any value judgments borrowed from religion or metaphysics.

That's the challenge I put to you. If you can meet it, you'll be widely regarded as the greatest philosophical genius of modern times.

---

By the same token, you can say the same of religion. You cannot think of a crime that has not been committed in the name of human reason. Marxism and Nazism are no more a scientific philosophy than they are religions.

Whether human thriving is a good thing, in terms of other species and humanity itself, is something that can be determined and proven empirically, which is something religion cannot do. It can give you a perspective from which to make decisions to mitigate harm, which again is something religion cannot do. It may give a basis for determining, as you suggest, that the universe (or our planet) would be a better place in terms of other life if humans were extinct. And why would you want to prove something wrong where evidence says otherwise? Armed with that knowledge, the human species can take steps to ameliorate and enhance the situation. Again, this is not something that religion would do. Religion has no monopoly over morality.

---

You're not answering the question. You say the value of human thriving can be proven empirically, but you don't show the proof.

Marxism and Nazism are indeed functional religions, as are all varieties of humanism and scientism. That's very much my point.

---

Certainly the value of human thriving and the impact of humans on other species as a hypothesis can be observed, tested, analyzed, and evaluated empirically. No proof is needed.

Your point doesn't make sense. Marxism and Nazism are political ideologies. To conflate them with religion or humanism requires a very loose definition the two. I wouldn't consider Nazism a Christian endeavor even though 67% were protestants and 33% were Catholics in Germany in 1933. That's not to say the Nazi regime didn't try to influence or manipulate religion.

---

Now you're confusing me. First you said the value of human thriving could be proven empirically. Now you say it doesn't need proving. Which is it?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion/s magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisterial is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

---

You could just as easily say that religion determines the boundaries and science is left to the gaps. It's not necessarily a matter of giving equal weight (people have many opinions on that) but of understanding the nature and limitations of the different modes of inquiry.

You can believe in science, as do I. But to insist that science is the only valid source of truth is not in itself a scientific position. It is a matter of faith just as much as any religious dogma.

---

Ok, give me an example of where an area previously defined by science has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

The proper question is whether an area defined by science has been assigned to religion, not God. The NOMA principle is agnostic as to the existence of God.

Gould's book on NOMA has an example of science trespassing the boundaries of religion in the story of William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. Bryan's crusade against evolution was inspired by German military officers in World War I, many of whom were biologists and former university professors. These scientists used Darwinism as a moral justification for cruelty and violence. The German philosophy was that "struggle not only must go on...but it should go on so that this natural law may work out in its cruel, inevitable way the salvation of the human species." Similar ideas are found in the writings of American racists of the same era, including the textbook at issue in the Scopes trial. Regarding certain New York "hill families" allegedly predisposed to poverty and crime, the book states that "if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading."

As Gould points out, many people believe that evolution justifies certain behaviors. In some cases this belief may be harmless. In other cases it's far from it. This would not happen if scientists respected the boundaries of their magisterium and understood that science can't answer moral questions or dictate social policy.

---

The same could be said about relgion and the Inquisition.

I wasn't really asking the question you answered. What I asked is give me an example of an area previously defined by science that has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

I don't know what you mean by "refuting an area." I can tell you that morality is historically an area that has been defined by religion; attempts to define it scientifically have been unsuccessful and often catastrophically fatal, especially with advances in technology. The 20th century is a lesson on this point, to which the Inquisition can hardly hold a candle in terms of human suffering.

---

I would hate to see what the Inquisition could do with 20th or 21st century technology, wouldn't you? Over the centuries, in terms of human suffering there has been every bit as much catastrophically fatal applications in the name of religion and religious morals.

---

Giving modern technology to the Inquisition would make little difference because the Inquisition never had mass extermination as a goal. That's the crucial difference between it and some of the major humanistic philosophies.

---

What humanistic philosophy had mass extermination as a goal? Those were corrupt political ideologies that led to mass exterminations. Those corrupt political ideologies are contrary to the tenets of humanism. I don't think you understand humanism. Humanism embraces the dignity of the human being and seeks to diminish human suffering. Gott Mit Uns was stamped above the Swastika.

---

The Nazis sought to diminish human suffering, too. They just defined humanity a bit differently than you do. They defined it, as you say, according to their own cultural interpretation and justification. By what standard do you judge their ideology "corrupt?"

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion/s magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisterial is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

---

You could just as easily say that religion determines the boundaries and science is left to the gaps. It's not necessarily a matter of giving equal weight (people have many opinions on that) but of understanding the nature and limitations of the different modes of inquiry.

You can believe in science, as do I. But to insist that science is the only valid source of truth is not in itself a scientific position. It is a matter of faith just as much as any religious dogma.

---

Ok, give me an example of where an area previously defined by science has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

The proper question is whether an area defined by science has been assigned to religion, not God. The NOMA principle is agnostic as to the existence of God.

Gould's book on NOMA has an example of science trespassing the boundaries of religion in the story of William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. Bryan's crusade against evolution was inspired by German military officers in World War I, many of whom were biologists and former university professors. These scientists used Darwinism as a moral justification for cruelty and violence. The German philosophy was that "struggle not only must go on...but it should go on so that this natural law may work out in its cruel, inevitable way the salvation of the human species." Similar ideas are found in the writings of American racists of the same era, including the textbook at issue in the Scopes trial. Regarding certain New York "hill families" allegedly predisposed to poverty and crime, the book states that "if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading."

As Gould points out, many people believe that evolution justifies certain behaviors. In some cases this belief may be harmless. In other cases it's far from it. This would not happen if scientists respected the boundaries of their magisterium and understood that science can't answer moral questions or dictate social policy.

---

The same could be said about relgion and the Inquisition.

I wasn't really asking the question you answered. What I asked is give me an example of an area previously defined by science that has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

I don't know what you mean by "refuting an area." I can tell you that morality is historically an area that has been defined by religion; attempts to define it scientifically have been unsuccessful and often catastrophically fatal, especially with advances in technology. The 20th century is a lesson on this point, to which the Inquisition can hardly hold a candle in terms of human suffering.

---

I would hate to see what the Inquisition could do with 20th or 21st century technology, wouldn't you? Over the centuries, in terms of human suffering there has been every bit as much catastrophically fatal applications in the name of religion and religious morals.

---

Giving modern technology to the Inquisition would make little difference because the Inquisition never had mass extermination as a goal. That's the crucial difference between it and some of the major humanistic philosophies.

---

What humanistic philosophy had mass extermination as a goal? Those were corrupt political ideologies that led to mass exterminations. Those corrupt political ideologies are contrary to the tenets of humanism. I don't think you understand humanism. Humanism embraces the dignity of the human being and seeks to diminish human suffering. Gott Mit Uns was stamped above the Swastika.

---

The Nazis sought to diminish human suffering, too. They just defined humanity a bit differently than you do. They defined it, as you say, according to their own cultural interpretation and justification. By what standard do you judge their ideology "corrupt?"

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion/s magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisterial is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

---

You could just as easily say that religion determines the boundaries and science is left to the gaps. It's not necessarily a matter of giving equal weight (people have many opinions on that) but of understanding the nature and limitations of the different modes of inquiry.

You can believe in science, as do I. But to insist that science is the only valid source of truth is not in itself a scientific position. It is a matter of faith just as much as any religious dogma.

---

Ok, give me an example of where an area previously defined by science has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

The proper question is whether an area defined by science has been assigned to religion, not God. The NOMA principle is agnostic as to the existence of God.

Gould's book on NOMA has an example of science trespassing the boundaries of religion in the story of William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. Bryan's crusade against evolution was inspired by German military officers in World War I, many of whom were biologists and former university professors. These scientists used Darwinism as a moral justification for cruelty and violence. The German philosophy was that "struggle not only must go on...but it should go on so that this natural law may work out in its cruel, inevitable way the salvation of the human species." Similar ideas are found in the writings of American racists of the same era, including the textbook at issue in the Scopes trial. Regarding certain New York "hill families" allegedly predisposed to poverty and crime, the book states that "if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading."

As Gould points out, many people believe that evolution justifies certain behaviors. In some cases this belief may be harmless. In other cases it's far from it. This would not happen if scientists respected the boundaries of their magisterium and understood that science can't answer moral questions or dictate social policy.

---

The same could be said about relgion and the Inquisition.

I wasn't really asking the question you answered. What I asked is give me an example of an area previously defined by science that has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

I don't know what you mean by "refuting an area." I can tell you that morality is historically an area that has been defined by religion; attempts to define it scientifically have been unsuccessful and often catastrophically fatal, especially with advances in technology. The 20th century is a lesson on this point, to which the Inquisition can hardly hold a candle in terms of human suffering.

---

I would hate to see what the Inquisition could do with 20th or 21st century technology, wouldn't you? Over the centuries, in terms of human suffering there has been every bit as much catastrophically fatal applications in the name of religion and religious morals.

---

Giving modern technology to the Inquisition would make little difference because the Inquisition never had mass extermination as a goal. That's the crucial difference between it and some of the major humanistic philosophies.

---

What humanistic philosophy had mass extermination as a goal? Those were corrupt political ideologies that led to mass exterminations. Those corrupt political ideologies are contrary to the tenets of humanism. I don't think you understand humanism. Humanism embraces the dignity of the human being and seeks to diminish human suffering. Gott Mit Uns was stamped above the Swastika.

---

The Nazis sought to diminish human suffering, too. They just defined humanity a bit differently than you do. They defined it, as you say, according to their own cultural interpretation and justification. By what standard do you judge their ideology "corrupt?"

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion/s magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisterial is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

---

You could just as easily say that religion determines the boundaries and science is left to the gaps. It's not necessarily a matter of giving equal weight (people have many opinions on that) but of understanding the nature and limitations of the different modes of inquiry.

You can believe in science, as do I. But to insist that science is the only valid source of truth is not in itself a scientific position. It is a matter of faith just as much as any religious dogma.

---

Ok, give me an example of where an area previously defined by science has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

The proper question is whether an area defined by science has been assigned to religion, not God. The NOMA principle is agnostic as to the existence of God.

Gould's book on NOMA has an example of science trespassing the boundaries of religion in the story of William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. Bryan's crusade against evolution was inspired by German military officers in World War I, many of whom were biologists and former university professors. These scientists used Darwinism as a moral justification for cruelty and violence. The German philosophy was that "struggle not only must go on...but it should go on so that this natural law may work out in its cruel, inevitable way the salvation of the human species." Similar ideas are found in the writings of American racists of the same era, including the textbook at issue in the Scopes trial. Regarding certain New York "hill families" allegedly predisposed to poverty and crime, the book states that "if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading."

As Gould points out, many people believe that evolution justifies certain behaviors. In some cases this belief may be harmless. In other cases it's far from it. This would not happen if scientists respected the boundaries of their magisterium and understood that science can't answer moral questions or dictate social policy.

---

The same could be said about relgion and the Inquisition.

I wasn't really asking the question you answered. What I asked is give me an example of an area previously defined by science that has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

I don't know what you mean by "refuting an area." I can tell you that morality is historically an area that has been defined by religion; attempts to define it scientifically have been unsuccessful and often catastrophically fatal, especially with advances in technology. The 20th century is a lesson on this point, to which the Inquisition can hardly hold a candle in terms of human suffering.

---

I would hate to see what the Inquisition could do with 20th or 21st century technology, wouldn't you? Over the centuries, in terms of human suffering there has been every bit as much catastrophically fatal applications in the name of religion and religious morals.

---

Giving modern technology to the Inquisition would make little difference because the Inquisition never had mass extermination as a goal. That's the crucial difference between it and some of the major humanistic philosophies.

---

What humanistic philosophy had mass extermination as a goal? Those were corrupt political ideologies that led to mass exterminations. Those corrupt political ideologies are contrary to the tenets of humanism. I don't think you understand humanism. Humanism embraces the dignity of the human being and seeks to diminish human suffering. Gott Mit Uns was stamped above the Swastika.

---

The Nazis sought to diminish human suffering, too. They just defined humanity a bit differently than you do. They defined it, as you say, according to their own cultural interpretation and justification. By what standard do you judge their ideology "corrupt?"

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

Nazism was a scientistic ideology, not a Christian one. If you judge it corrupt on humanistic grounds, it remains for you to prove scientifically that your interpretation of humanism is valid and binding. As you know, scientific proof must have reference to specific observations, hypotheses, and tests.

If "scientism" is even a valid concept, Nazis abused the use of science, or falsely claimed their work was science. However, you cannot deny that Germany was nearly 100% Christian. A Christian nation embraced the Nazi ideology. All you need to judge Nazi Germany corrupt by humanistic standards is to apply the definition of humanism. Absolutely, one can prove by the scientific method that millions were harmed by applied Nazi ideology.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Not true. It's well known that Hitler persecuted Christians, not unlike the Soviets.

You don't improve your argument by including known lies. You would do better to recognize that the Nazis co-opted or bullied everyone they could, from church leaders to scientists to business leaders.

Hitler worshiped Hitler, no one and nothing else.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

TexasScientist said:

---

If "scientism" is even a valid concept, Nazis abused the use of science, or falsely claimed their work was science. However, you cannot deny that Germany was nearly 100% Christian. A Christian nation embraced the Nazi ideology. All you need to judge Nazi Germany corrupt by humanistic standards is to apply the definition of humanism. Absolutely, one can prove by the scientific method that millions were harmed by applied Nazi ideology.

---

No doubt millions were harmed by Hitler's brand of humanism, but that wasn't my question. The question is what makes your brand any more authoritative. Maybe it's just a matter of faith to you? That's an acceptable answer.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If "scientism" is even a valid concept, Nazis abused the use of science, or falsely claimed their work was science. However, you cannot deny that Germany was nearly 100% Christian. A Christian nation embraced the Nazi ideology. All you need to judge Nazi Germany corrupt by humanistic standards is to apply the definition of humanism. Absolutely, one can prove by the scientific method that millions were harmed by applied Nazi ideology.

---

No doubt millions were harmed by Hitler's brand of humanism, but that wasn't my question. The question is what makes your brand any more authoritative. Maybe it's just a matter of faith to you? That's an acceptable answer.

---

Hitler was as humanist as he was Catholic.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

No, Nazi Germany was in no way Christian,

You would be more accurate to say Goring wore a tutu.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

No, Nazi Germany was in no way Christian,

You would be more accurate to say Goring wore a tutu.

---

I guess the slave holding United States was not a Christian populace either, by your standard.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

No, Nazi Germany was in no way Christian,

You would be more accurate to say Goring wore a tutu.

---

I guess the slave holding United States was not a Christian populace either, by your standard.

---

You're stretching now, hoss. Even for your standards.

quash said:

---

Hitler was as humanist as he was Catholic.

---

Yes, Hitler was baptized into the Catholic faith by his practicing mother. He was even confirmed to appease his mother; however, at an early age he expressed his disbelief in Christianity. He never attended mass once he left home.

He was Catholic in the sense that when one is baptized Catholic, they are always Catholic. Some choose to reject it. Obviously Hitler did and hated Christianity.

Coke Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Hitler was as humanist as he was Catholic.

---

Yes, Hitler was baptized into the Catholic faith by his practicing mother. He was even confirmed to appease his mother; however, at an early age he expressed his disbelief in Christianity. He never attended mass once he left home.

He was Catholic in the sense that when one is baptized Catholic, they are always Catholic. Some choose to reject it. Obviously Hitler did and hated Christianity.

---

So do you believe he is in Purgatory, or out at this point?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

No, Nazi Germany was in no way Christian,

You would be more accurate to say Goring wore a tutu.

---

I guess the slave holding United States was not a Christian populace either, by your standard.

---

You're stretching now, hoss. Even for your standards.

---

So you believe the 1800's U.S.A. was mostly populated by Christians?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

TexasScientist said:

---

So do you believe he is in Purgatory, or out at this point?

---

Why do you assume that I believe he is in Purgatory? Are you seeking an opinion or were you simply mocking the Catholic doctrine?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

No, Nazi Germany was in no way Christian,

You would be more accurate to say Goring wore a tutu.

---

I guess the slave holding United States was not a Christian populace either, by your standard.

---

You're stretching now, hoss. Even for your standards.

---

So you believe the 1800's U.S.A. was mostly populated by Christians?

---

Nope. Assuming, by 'Christian', you mean 'people who actively believe the Gospel and who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord, and therefore order their lives in obedience to God', that has always been a minority in any country.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

So do you believe he is in Purgatory, or out at this point?

---

Why do you assume that I believe he is in Purgatory? Are you seeking an opinion or were you simply mocking the Catholic doctrine?

---

What's your opinion? It is my understanding that Catholics go to Purgatory for a time for penance, and once that is sufficient they are released. I really want to know your opinion.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

You are building a straw man argument, and a thin one at that, TS.

Come on, show some of that brain you brag about.

Have an honest discussion and stop your dancing around.

TexasScientist said:

---

What's your opinion? It is my understanding that Catholics go to Purgatory for a time for penance, and once that is sufficient they are released. I really want to know your opinion.

---

According to Catholic theology, when one dies, they are subject to their particular judgement. Only two options exist: Heaven or Hell.

For in the Book of Revelation 21:27 is states the following about heaven:

and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Only those who die in friendship with God will enter heaven. Meaning that one must be free from mortal sin at the time of death.

Any sin is mortal if it meets three conditions: Grave in nature (murder, adultery, rejecting God or His Church, etc.) , knowing that it is wrong, and freely committing it anyway.

When those who die in friendship with God or in God's grace (without a mortal sin on their sole) and who still have an attachment to sin that is NOT mortal in nature, they will need to be have their attachment from sin purged BEFORE entering heaven, hence, Purgatory - the name given to the time/place to "become clean".

I Corinthians 3:11-15 may well be the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it comes to Purgatory:

For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubbleeach man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

With respect to Hitler, only God knows whether he repented before his death.

My opinion, while God is merciful, he is also just. I can only assume that Hitler is rotting in the worst section of hell.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

What's your opinion? It is my understanding that Catholics go to Purgatory for a time for penance, and once that is sufficient they are released. I really want to know your opinion.

---

According to Catholic theology, when one dies, they are subject to their particular judgement. Only two options exist: Heaven or Hell.

For in the Book of Revelation 21:27 is states the following about heaven:

and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Only those who die in friendship with God will enter heaven. Meaning that one must be free from mortal sin at the time of death.

Any sin is mortal if it meets three conditions: Grave in nature (murder, adultery, rejecting God or His Church, etc.) , knowing that it is wrong, and freely committing it anyway.

When those who die in friendship with God or in God's grace (without a mortal sin on their sole) and who still have an attachment to sin that is NOT mortal in nature, they will need to be have their attachment from sin purged BEFORE entering heaven, hence, Purgatory - the name given to the time/place to "become clean".

I Corinthians 3:11-15 may well be the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it comes to Purgatory:

For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubbleeach man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

With respect to Hitler, only God knows whether he repented before his death.

My opinion, while God is merciful, he is also just. I can only assume that Hitler is rotting in the worst section of hell.

---

Ok, thanks for taking the time to give me your answer.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

quash said:

Sounds like Big Steve's NOMA.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm

---

Quote:

---

Sam Lowry said:

Very much so. A wonderful essay, thanks for posting.

---

NOMA is a useless concept. Science can explore any area of inquiry, and using mathematics it can explore the probability of certain religious ideas being true. Just because god cannot be disproved doesn't mean he is equally likely to exist as not to exist. NOMA pretends to give science and religion equal weights and equal but different domains. However, it is science that determines where the line of non-overlap occurs. As a result, religion/god is left to the gaps. Once science has developed a way to investigate or explore a given area of religion/s magisteria, religion loses its prerogative. If science draws the line in NOMA, why even bother with the concept if religious magisterial is anything that's not science, as long as it is not science?

---

You could just as easily say that religion determines the boundaries and science is left to the gaps. It's not necessarily a matter of giving equal weight (people have many opinions on that) but of understanding the nature and limitations of the different modes of inquiry.

You can believe in science, as do I. But to insist that science is the only valid source of truth is not in itself a scientific position. It is a matter of faith just as much as any religious dogma.

---

Ok, give me an example of where an area previously defined by science has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

The proper question is whether an area defined by science has been assigned to religion, not God. The NOMA principle is agnostic as to the existence of God.

Gould's book on NOMA has an example of science trespassing the boundaries of religion in the story of William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. Bryan's crusade against evolution was inspired by German military officers in World War I, many of whom were biologists and former university professors. These scientists used Darwinism as a moral justification for cruelty and violence. The German philosophy was that "struggle not only must go on...but it should go on so that this natural law may work out in its cruel, inevitable way the salvation of the human species." Similar ideas are found in the writings of American racists of the same era, including the textbook at issue in the Scopes trial. Regarding certain New York "hill families" allegedly predisposed to poverty and crime, the book states that "if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading."

As Gould points out, many people believe that evolution justifies certain behaviors. In some cases this belief may be harmless. In other cases it's far from it. This would not happen if scientists respected the boundaries of their magisterium and understood that science can't answer moral questions or dictate social policy.

---

The same could be said about relgion and the Inquisition.

I wasn't really asking the question you answered. What I asked is give me an example of an area previously defined by science that has been refuted and attributed to god.

---

I don't know what you mean by "refuting an area." I can tell you that morality is historically an area that has been defined by religion; attempts to define it scientifically have been unsuccessful and often catastrophically fatal, especially with advances in technology. The 20th century is a lesson on this point, to which the Inquisition can hardly hold a candle in terms of human suffering.

---

I would hate to see what the Inquisition could do with 20th or 21st century technology, wouldn't you? Over the centuries, in terms of human suffering there has been every bit as much catastrophically fatal applications in the name of religion and religious morals.

---

Giving modern technology to the Inquisition would make little difference because the Inquisition never had mass extermination as a goal. That's the crucial difference between it and some of the major humanistic philosophies.

---

What humanistic philosophy had mass extermination as a goal? Those were corrupt political ideologies that led to mass exterminations. Those corrupt political ideologies are contrary to the tenets of humanism. I don't think you understand humanism. Humanism embraces the dignity of the human being and seeks to diminish human suffering. Gott Mit Uns was stamped above the Swastika.

---

The Nazis sought to diminish human suffering, too. They just defined humanity a bit differently than you do. They defined it, as you say, according to their own cultural interpretation and justification. By what standard do you judge their ideology "corrupt?"

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

These numbers seem odd. Were there no Jews? A census is a forced response system. Only certain questions are asked with only certain responses allowed. All of this could be set up for propaganda purposes. Also, are there any guarantees that people will answer truthfully or answers be reported truthfully? TS, do you have a copy of the census. This data has so many flaws, it's tough to make solid inferences. This certainly not scientific.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

So you are saying that the Christian morals failed? That still wouldn't put them in the same class as the scientific morals where the scientists designed the rockets, created experiments and helped with the design of efficient gas chambers.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

You are building a straw man argument, and a thin one at that, TS.

Come on, show some of that brain you brag about.

Have an honest discussion and stop your dancing around.

---

I don't think I've ever bragged, and I am honest in my discussion. My point: I'm sure you believe the U.S. is a Christian nation, becuase most of the population is Christian, Yet a large segment of the mostly Christian U. S. ignored, embraced, condoned, and/or assisted the institution of slavery for many years. I'm sure you personally believe slavery is wrong, even though neither the Bible nor Jesus teachings condemn slavery. In the same manner, the mostly Christian population of Germany ignored, embraced, condoned, and/or assisted Nazi Fascism. The comparison is analogous with somewhat analogous consequences.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

Why shouldn't they have?