Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:You keep giving me examples of evidence, and philosophy. Thank you very much.

GG

Evidence: "distinction, clearness, obviousness"

Philosophy: lit. "love of wisdom"

You're welcome. I'm glad they could introduce some obviousness into your life

Interestingly, there are examples in animals of co-operative behaviour, helping the weak, and other things we might call good or kind.

Richard Dawkins touched on a possible reason for this in The Selfish Gene.

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.

GG

It can be proved with mathematical models.

You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ulver wrote:

generalgrog wrote:You keep giving me examples of evidence, and philosophy. Thank you very much.

GG

Evidence: "distinction, clearness, obviousness"

Philosophy: lit. "love of wisdom"

You're welcome. I'm glad they could introduce some obviousness into your life

And enter the poster with 22 posts that jumps in and takes someone out context..this usually is the sign that the thread is coming to an end.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.

GG

It can be proved with mathematical models.

You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?

GG

What I am saying is that you can model "social" and "anti-social" behaviour in a population and they oscillate around average values rather than going to extremes.

For example, let's assume a population which contains two "personality" types. Type 1 will always fight aggressively when it meets a rival. Type 2 will back down. It would seem likely that type 1 would come to dominate the population, because it will always beat type 2 in a fight. However this does not happen, because when two type 1s meet each other, they do so much damage that their survival is compromised. If there are lots of type 1 in the population, they spend all their time killing each other rather than breeding, while the type 2s have more energy left for reproduction. Thus an equilibrium is maintained, with the number of type 1 at a level which gives them the best chance of usually meeting type 2 individuals.

This doesn't prove that "morality" evolved, however it proves a mechanism by which "morality" could evolve, and it provides part of a possible explanation for the behaviour we observe in nature.

As you do not believe in evolution, I suppose this would not interest you.

Kilkrazy wrote:Interestingly, there are examples in animals of co-operative behaviour, helping the weak, and other things we might call good or kind.

Richard Dawkins touched on a possible reason for this in The Selfish Gene.

And then there are lions that eat their young.

GG, your a nice guy mate, we should just stop talking about this stuff.

Ok, so i believe that we evolved thanks to physical evidence, the fossil record, plate tectonics, DNA evidence and a whole lot more.

How is it "faith" in the same way as God? That is "stuff" right there!

The only way you could argue it, would be maybe if you say that we are all living in the matrix or something, and as such we only have "faith" that physical things are real.

Is it "faith" that this screen is in front of my face?!

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.

GG

It can be proved with mathematical models.

You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?

GG

What I am saying is that you can model "social" and "anti-social" behaviour in a population and they oscillate around average values rather than going to extremes.

For example, let's assume a population which contains two "personality" types. Type 1 will always fight aggressively when it meets a rival. Type 2 will back down. It would seem likely that type 1 would come to dominate the population, because it will always beat type 2 in a fight. However this does not happen, because when two type 1s meet each other, they do so much damage that their survival is compromised. If there are lots of type 1 in the population, they spend all their time killing each other rather than breeding, while the type 2s have more energy left for reproduction. Thus an equilibrium is maintained, with the number of type 1 at a level which gives them the best chance of usually meeting type 2 individuals.

This doesn't prove that "morality" evolved, however it proves a mechanism by which "morality" could evolve, and it provides part of a possible explanation for the behaviour we observe in nature.

As you do not believe in evolution, I suppose this would not interest you.

Wait that doesn't explain morality. That explains people levels, but doesn't support that either. Its an assumptive model designed to prove a preferred result.

Anyway, i gotta go to bed I am up early.. but...

Frazz, regards the "lions eat their young comment"

Are you a young earther as well?

mattyrm wrote:Anyway, i gotta go to bed I am up early.. but...

Frazz, regards the "lions eat their young comment"

Are you a young earther as well?

Only if you mean "Frazzled were you around when the earth was young?"
maybe...

"Son, I knew the Mesozoic Era, and you're no Mesozoic Era."

There's nothing "assumptive" about that, Fraz. It's just one piece of the puzzle. One piece of evidence, in a larger pool which adds up to a plausible explanation.

Mannahnin wrote:There's nothing "assumptive" about that, Fraz. It's just one piece of the puzzle. One piece of evidence, in a larger pool which adds up to a plausible explanation.

But its not evidence.

Look I don't have a dog in this hunt, and you're not even discussing the usual 1 in every 5 threads about how reliosu people are stupid but using something else-morality to bootstrap an argument. However, the model noted is not a clean model. The problem is the baseline assumptions, and there are assumptions for any model or analysis thats the whole idea, are off. Every bit of human behavior is different in different times, different groups, et al. IE define baseline morality to test in the first place? Every time you try you will use cultural norms. Thats not reality, thats just the cultural norms of the analytic. Its great fun but it the mere attempt will create the result.

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

generalgrog wrote:This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.

This is either a total lack of understanding of the scientific method, or just trolling.

And, I repeat, I'm not an atheist. My faith allows me to simultaneously believe that the gods inspire us, AND that we evolved and developed in a way comprehensible to the human mind.

You and athiests have faith in the scientific method. This crap ton of evidence you spout, is all based on faith. You keep giving me examples of evidence, and philosophy. All of your posts are proving my point. Thank you very much.

No one needs to have faith in the scientific method. That's its whole point. You observe things carefully and honestly, you set up good experiments, you conscientiously factor out extraneous data, and the pieces of a puzzle slowly add up to give you a reasonably reliable conclusion. One that increases our understanding of the universe (Newton came up with the Theory of Gravity, and he was a devout Christian), and allows us to make real improvements in our lives.

Do you have "faith" in science because it has allowed us to basically eradicate smallpox? Or are you just happy that people were smart enough to figure it out using scientific methodologies and now people aren't dying in droves from it?

We have computers because of the scientific method. Are you a member of the "Scientific Method Religion" because you believe your computer works? Is it a faith proposition for you to believe that I'm an actual human being, and not just a complex program in your computer pretending to be a human being? Do you have faith that there is such a thing as the internet? Or do you simply observe the data available to your eyes and mind and conclude that yes, the internet really does exist?

Well part of the scientific method is knowing that eventually, some other theory is going to come along too. Just pointing that out.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:There's nothing "assumptive" about that, Fraz. It's just one piece of the puzzle. One piece of evidence, in a larger pool which adds up to a plausible explanation.

But its not evidence.

Look I don't have a dog in this hunt, and you're not even discussing the usual 1 in every 5 threads about how reliosu people are stupid but using something else-morality to bootstrap an argument. However, the model noted is not a clean model. The problem is the baseline assumptions, and there are assumptions for any model or analysis thats the whole idea, are off. Every bit of human behavior is different in different times, different groups, et al. IE define baseline morality to test in the first place? Every time you try you will use cultural norms. Thats not reality, thats just the cultural norms of the analytic. Its great fun but it the mere attempt will create the result.

If there are problematic assumptions, feel free to point them out. KK broke down an example of animal behavior in groups, and pointed out that it shows how more cooperative and less aggressive behavior is actually a survival and reproduction advantage. Do you disagree that being cooperative is generally considered a good and moral thing in human culture? Do you disagree that being aggressive/combative is often synonymous with behaviors we see as immoral? Jesus said to turn the other cheek; this is an explanation of how his moral instruction is actually advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.

Frazzled wrote:Well part of the scientific method is knowing that eventually, some other theory is going to come along too. Just pointing that out.

I wouldn't say "knowing". More being open and accepting about the possibility or likelihood that you may be mistaken, or missing a piece of the puzzle, and some other theory may come along and prove to be more accurate. Definitely that.

Gravity and Evolution are two big examples of theories which don't seem likely to be supplanted any time soon.

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:There's nothing "assumptive" about that, Fraz. It's just one piece of the puzzle. One piece of evidence, in a larger pool which adds up to a plausible explanation.

But its not evidence.

Look I don't have a dog in this hunt, and you're not even discussing the usual 1 in every 5 threads about how reliosu people are stupid but using something else-morality to bootstrap an argument. However, the model noted is not a clean model. The problem is the baseline assumptions, and there are assumptions for any model or analysis thats the whole idea, are off. Every bit of human behavior is different in different times, different groups, et al. IE define baseline morality to test in the first place? Every time you try you will use cultural norms. Thats not reality, thats just the cultural norms of the analytic. Its great fun but it the mere attempt will create the result.

If there are problematic assumptions, feel free to point them out. KK broke down an example of animal behavior in groups, and pointed out that it shows how more cooperative and less aggressive behavior is actually a survival and reproduction advantage. Do you disagree that being cooperative is generally considered a good and moral thing in human culture? Do you disagree that being aggressive/combative is often synonymous with behaviors we see as immoral? Jesus said to turn the other cheek; this is an explanation of how his moral instruction is actually advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.

Thats his assumptioins that it would show that. Its also assumed that that an effective assumption in the first place which would have to be programmed in ie that alphas would compete. Another methord is that Alphas form a chain of dominance. That blows the model . A final note is comparison to reality. A final final note in thats not predictive of morality of but of alpha types and beta types. A final final final note doesn't fit in the spectrum of alphas and betas. Without looking at the model further I can't add more, but while fun, its not a prodicter of anything except some game theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth was flat except its not
sound barrier is a barrier but wait its not.
Frazzled can only eat two pizzas in one sitting Gott im Himmel did he just eat three?

I'm not sure I follow you.

It looks to me like you are jumping to conclusions about the model KK gave us a brief synopsis of, without bothering to learn any of the details about it.

I think I'm going to go play 40k.

Love ya!

You're right. I am going by the one paragraph of information given. However, I'm moving on as I absolutely hate everything about these threads, find them pointless, insulting, and asinine (sounds a lot like work and frankly life now that I think about it). Please continue the discussion but me gots ta go.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.

GG

It can be proved with mathematical models.

You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?

GG

What I am saying is that you can model "social" and "anti-social" behaviour in a population and they oscillate around average values rather than going to extremes.

For example, let's assume a population which contains two "personality" types. Type 1 will always fight aggressively when it meets a rival. Type 2 will back down. It would seem likely that type 1 would come to dominate the population, because it will always beat type 2 in a fight. However this does not happen, because when two type 1s meet each other, they do so much damage that their survival is compromised. If there are lots of type 1 in the population, they spend all their time killing each other rather than breeding, while the type 2s have more energy left for reproduction. Thus an equilibrium is maintained, with the number of type 1 at a level which gives them the best chance of usually meeting type 2 individuals.

This doesn't prove that "morality" evolved, however it proves a mechanism by which "morality" could evolve, and it provides part of a possible explanation for the behaviour we observe in nature.

As you do not believe in evolution, I suppose this would not interest you.

Wait that doesn't explain morality. That explains people levels, but doesn't support that either. Its an assumptive model designed to prove a preferred result.

It provides a mathematical proof of a mechanism of behavioural differences which if passed down to the offspring could lead to patterns of behaviour we view as being moral or immoral.

These kinds of behaviours are observed in animal populations.

If you want to explain them, you can say that God did it, or you can investigate and model the situation and see if it could arise through some kind of mechanism.

Or just ignore it and take no interest.

Morality is a sense of conduct which is defined by a moral code.
As KK correctly states we started to evolve this morality by differentiating between behaviour that is good and behaviour that is bad. This then became a set of values, a code of conduct if you like, whereby doing something which the group seems to be not in the general best interest of the group was frowned upon. This is prevalent, outside of our human societies, the most in apes and has also been demonstrated in dolphin society.

When language was formed and a more ordered society was created in humans this became some of the first sets of rules some of which are echoed in most religious texts as a way of living in harmony, although I am not referring to morality in that sense in this case.

So, yes, morality has evolved.

generalgrog wrote:And you have two choices when it comes to why you have that empathy. Do we criticize the monkey when he beats up and kills the other monkey with a stick? No we say it is acting naturally. Do we criticize a lion for killing and eating a beautiful zebra? No, we say the zebra is acting naturally. If athiessim was consistent and really believed that we are just a higher form of animal, brought about by natural processes, running off of preprogrammed gene impulses. Then it is entirely inconsistent to criticize mankind for performing evil acts. If we are just animals acing naturally, why does it all of a sudden become "evil" to act like animals?

Every atheist will answer this question in a different way, we’re very diverse (as any group defined by non-belief in somebody else’s idea will be). For me, personally? I don’t hold much value in the notion of ‘evil’, I believe it is important for society to punish behaviour that is detrimental to society, and while I note social animal groups will exile members who are a threat to the group I don’t think having a parallel in the animal kingdom actually matters one bit. On a personal level, I have my own principles, and I have empathy, and I use these two things to attempt to muddle out the right course of action, same as everyone else does, whether they’re a believer in God or not.

I’m sure for other atheists the answer is very different. But however we get there, the simple fact that atheists are not any more likely to be sociopaths is evidence that a person can develop a moral code without a belief in God.

I prefer the other option, and that is that we are not animals, and are acting out of the sin nature within us.We have empathy because God gave us that empathy. We have a battle going on inside of us. Paul the apostle pointed this out in the epistle to the Romans chapter 7.

And you’re welcome to believe that, and I won’t call you a sociopath for believing it. Please extend me the same courtesy.

generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.

GG

Well, obviously atheists have belief sets, it’s just those beliefs don’t extend to a belief in God. If you think the word faith extends as broadly as that, then you’ve made the word all but meaningless, which is a pity considering how powerful it is in describing a belief in God.

More importantly, I’ve seen you get very defensive about how Christianity and I’ve thought on most occasions you had good reason, because people were often declaring to Christians what a Christian should be, what they should think and why they’re hypocrites for holding any of those beliefs, or trying to catch out Christians by declaring some belief on their behalf.

I am disappointed you’ve displayed the exact same behaviour in this thread.

generalgrog wrote:You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?

GG

They’ve undertaken models in which various elements of the group were given different moral codes, and they then interacted, with simple systems to gather food and replicate. The moral codes with strong elements of co-operation flourished.

In one of the most celebrated instances, people were tasked with writing codes that would be most successful. People wrote incredibly complex codes, but the code that won every single game was also the simplest ‘co-operate with everyone, until someone betrays me, then stop co-operating with that person’.

Frazzled wrote:And then there are lions that eat their young.

And there are people that eat their young. This is easily explained by the idea that evolution produces systems that are good enough, not ones that are perfect.

Frazzled wrote:But its not evidence.

Yes, it is. It isn’t a complete, indisputable piece of evidence that discredits all alternatives in and of itself, but it doesn’t have to be to be evidence.

It says that in a social group, the morale codes that tend to be successful in most circumstances are the ones that promote cooperation. These models could very well have produced the opposite answer, that aggressive, selfish behaviour was optimum, in which case we’d have to re-address our understanding, but they didn’t.

sebster wrote:I’m sure for other atheists the answer is very different. But however we get there, the simple fact that atheists are not any more likely to be sociopaths is evidence that a person can develop a moral code without a belief in God.

I never said anything opposite of what you just said. In fact I have been pointing out that our morality is an "imprint" from God. In fact Paul the apostle wrote that the Law was written in everyone's heart. In other words we all know good and evil, right and wrong. It's just that we can't help ourselves and we do wrong even though we desire to do right. Atheism takes that teaching, and turns it into a series of DNA inspired impulses and purely natural processes.

Again I find an inconsistency with the athiest philosophical world view, because you don't have an "ultimate authority" to fall back on. You just have DNA and nature. If it's all just DNA and nature and purely random processes, how can good and evil exist? This seems to say that our prisons are full of DNA evolutionary defects. Why not just exterminate them?

Isn't this what Stalin and Mao did? I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
You are seriously proposing to me that someone "proved" through mathematical modeling that morality evolved in humans. Really? I mean Really?

Yes, its been done, though not everyone agrees with the assumptions that underpin the coding.

You can do amazing things with higher level logic and mathematics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Again I find an inconsistency with the athiest philosophical world view, because you don't have an "ultimate authority" to fall back on. You just have DNA and nature. If it's all just DNA and nature and purely random processes, how can good and evil exist? This seems to say that our prisons are full of DNA evolutionary defects. Why not just exterminate them?

That's not a particularly good question, as there have been hundreds of logically consistent answers given. Look up some of the work by Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, or G. E. M. Anscombe. All of them discuss certain immutable virtues in a way that has nothing to do with God by necessity. Remember, you can always substitute physical human nature for God, because ultimately we do not control our base responses to stimuli; like feeling pain when stabbed.

Personally, I don't buy virtue ethics, not in the common sense. I'm a utilitarian, and I don't believe in the same sort of good or evil that perfuses most religions.I see them as short-hand representations of actions that, if taken, generally result in negative consequences of greater significance than positive consequences, so the issue of an absolute, governing authority isn't problematic for me. Similarly, I regard virtues as characteristics that, in general, will produce positive results of greater significance than negative results, where negative and positive are contextually defined by society.

generalgrog wrote:
Isn't this what Stalin and Mao did? I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.

Sure, and its actually a valid solution to the question if you don't suppose that things like compassion are valuable, or if you simply don't value them enough across all possible cases to establish a universal standard. Alternatively, you might simply be deliberately immoral, or amoral; because, despite what Aristotle said, some people amay actively intend to do evil.

However, the ultimate point is that you aren't likely to get many people to agree with that approach, as it often opens those in agreement to the same ultimate disposal via genocide. The one broad exception being cleansing pogroms based on relatively immutable characteristics like ethnicity, or religion; both of which have historically found broad support in certain populations.

generalgrog wrote:I never said anything opposite of what you just said. In fact I have been pointing out that our morality is an "imprint" from God. In fact Paul the apostle wrote that the Law was written in everyone's heart. In other words we all know good and evil, right and wrong. It's just that we can't help ourselves and we do wrong even though we desire to do right. Atheism takes that teaching, and turns it into a series of DNA inspired impulses and purely natural processes.

Again I find an inconsistency with the athiest philosophical world view, because you don't have an "ultimate authority" to fall back on. You just have DNA and nature. If it's all just DNA and nature and purely random processes, how can good and evil exist? This seems to say that our prisons are full of DNA evolutionary defects. Why not just exterminate them?

Atheism does not argue for, or anyway support, social darwinism. Stop putting assumed beliefs onto my belief set, it's very rude and I'm sure you'd find it very rude if I did the same to you.

Why not kill them... more to the point is why would atheism argue for the need to kill them? Under what tenet of atheism would you find the argument to kill them? You won't find any such thing, because atheism has no tenets that argue for any course of action.

Isn't this what Stalin and Mao did? I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.

To the extent that Hitler had a religion, he was a Christian (followed out of a combination of political convenience and a love for Germanic tradition, which included German protestantism. The pagan thing is nonsense, a result of people taking Himmler's beliefs and extending them to Hitler and to the greater Nazi party - probably due to people wanting to distance Christianity from Nazism and because occult powered Nazis makes for some pretty stories.

And yes, Mao and Stalin did that, because they believed in communism, and communisn puts the state first and foremost, and then only considers the welfare of the people in material terms. But given that one can be an atheist and a libertarian, and that the most famous group of libertarians - the Randians, are that very thing, it's silly to think atheism drives one towards any kind of all powerful, murderous state government.

Atheism, in fact, doesn't do anything, it argues for nothing, it argues against nothing, it just says I don't believe in one thing that you believe in.

generalgrog wrote:If you say that we have evolved a sense of morality because it benefits us, where is your proof of this? This sounds more like philosophy or a religious doctrine than anything else. See...... athiests do you use faith.

You missed the point.

If there are possible solutions to the problem of morality that do not turn on the existence of God, then God does not have to exist in order to explain the presence of morality.

That's not a faith choice at all, its literally just a recognition of logical validity.

dogma wrote:we do not control our base responses to stimuli; like feeling pain when stabbed.

I don't, but I'm super tough and fight people everyday and never lose.

generalgrog wrote:

sebster wrote:I’m sure for other atheists the answer is very different. But however we get there, the simple fact that atheists are not any more likely to be sociopaths is evidence that a person can develop a moral code without a belief in God.

I never said anything opposite of what you just said. In fact I have been pointing out that our morality is an "imprint" from God. In fact Paul the apostle wrote that the Law was written in everyone's heart. In other words we all know good and evil, right and wrong. It's just that we can't help ourselves and we do wrong even though we desire to do right. Atheism takes that teaching, and turns it into a series of DNA inspired impulses and purely natural processes.

I believe that the gods inspire honor and truth in us. But in my world view that does not conflict with the idea that human beings developed codes of morality over long periods of time as they are evolutionarily advantageous. The two truths coexist in my mind and my faith. I feel sorrow that in your mind they conflict.

generalgrog wrote:Atheism takes that teaching, and turns it into a series of DNA inspired impulses and purely natural processes.

I disagree entirely. Atheism doesn't say ANYTHING about the teachings of your religion. It doesn't care one whit about your religion or my religion. A person who is an atheist DOES, however, take the evidence of human behavior and morality and explain it a different way than you do.

generalgrog wrote:Again I find an inconsistency with the athiest philosophical world view, because you don't have an "ultimate authority" to fall back on. You just have DNA and nature. If it's all just DNA and nature and purely random processes, how can good and evil exist?

From a purely secular view, good and evil are the things which are beneficial to people and detrimental to people. As we've already explained to you, there is evidence to suggest that even animals like apes have a sense that things which benefit the group are good. It makes perfect sense that behavior like lying, stealing, or murdering are seen to be detrimental to oneself, because they are detrimental to one's family, to one's tribe, and to one's larger society.

generalgrog wrote:This seems to say that our prisons are full of DNA evolutionary defects. Why not just exterminate them?

These kinds of irrational conclusions and strange questions about immoral acts make me very worried about you. Either you fundamentally misunderstand the concepts we are talking about, or you are a terrible, damaged and hateful person who only keeps his destructive impulses in check out of a fear of punishment by god. I am pretty confident that it is NOT the latter, but the former makes me frustrated.

generalgrog wrote:Isn't this what Stalin and Mao did?

No, not at all. What they did is gain power, and hold onto that power through murder, chaos, and engendering terror in the people who served them. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with any evolutionarily beneficial behavior. What they did was both monstrous from a moral perspective, and counterproductive from an evolutionary perspective.

generalgrog wrote:I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.

NO HE MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT. If you say that again, I shall lose all respect for you, and will conclude that you are either wilfully spreading lies or irrecoverably ignorant. Isn't there a prohibition on bearing false witness in Christianity?

To the extent that Hitler followed any religion, it was Protestant Christianity. His antisemitism, for example, was inspired in part by Martin Luther, and the latter's On the Jews and their Lies. Wiki:

Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews.* In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

I will be more respectful to you than you are being to me by opining that he was not a good Christian, and acted very much contrary to the principles of your and his religion. Whoever told you that Hitler was a Neopagan is profoundly ignorant or actively trying to do evil in the world. I am a Neopagan.

*See Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003), The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945

The difficulty with arguing with you, General Grog, is that your standard of evidence is ultimately, "God did it because it says so in the Bible".

Other people look at the whole physical universe, and mathematics.

It is two separate and incompatible standards of evidence.

Mannahnin wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I could include Hitler too, but he wasn't an atheist, he was a Neo Pagan Pantheist.

NO HE MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT. If you say that again, I shall lose all respect for you, and will conclude that you are either wilfully spreading lies or irrecoverably ignorant. Isn't there a prohibition on bearing false witness in Christianity?

In court. I don't know whether this means they can do so outside of a courtroom, I doubt it. But that particular verse you're reffering to is in regards to a courtroom.

I will be more respectful to you than you are being to me by opining that he was not a good Christian, and acted very much contrary to the principles of your and his religion. Whoever told you that Hitler was a Neopagan is profoundly ignorant or actively trying to do evil in the world. I am a Neopagan.

Pffft, I've seen your posts. A Neo Paganislamist, I say!

Hitler was a Christian. GG knows this.

On the original topic

A feature of the skyline surrounding the Somerset town, the tree has been visited by thousands retracing the steps said to have been taken by Joseph of Arimathea, who some say was Jesus’ great uncle.

Could this be any less certain? said to have been, some say.
The tree isnt even 2000 years old, its a replacement tree! Just get a cutting and plant another one.