|
God
Apr 15, 2003 18:54:15 GMT -5
Post by Salome on Apr 15, 2003 18:54:15 GMT -5
i dont know about that... i'm going insane just thinking about it
|
|
|
God
Apr 16, 2003 20:23:46 GMT -5
Post by dietspam16 on Apr 16, 2003 20:23:46 GMT -5
i never said that it disproved religion, just alice's statement, and the holocaust were religious fanatics and most jihads, but not all, and the crusades wern't but a couple of fanatics.
|
|
|
God
Apr 16, 2003 20:35:29 GMT -5
Post by Dr.Quack on Apr 16, 2003 20:35:29 GMT -5
The holocaust did not have religious motives. It revolved around the pureness and spread of perfect german blood. Jews came from isreal, and thus were not of pure german blood. It was not just practicing Jews that were targeted, but even christians with a jewish relative would be prosecuted and killed. But it was not only those of Jewish desent that were killed, but gypsies, homosexuals, and communists.
|
|
|
God
Apr 16, 2003 20:57:23 GMT -5
Post by BlueDolphin on Apr 16, 2003 20:57:23 GMT -5
I just said the Holocaust because the largest group targeted was a religion (Judaism). Hitler did this in part because he probably knew about Europe's history of Anti-Semitism that would be easy to whip up into his own needs.
|
|
|
God
Apr 17, 2003 18:43:35 GMT -5
Post by Salome on Apr 17, 2003 18:43:35 GMT -5
i would like to point out that belief in communism is not a genetic trait, so wiping out communists would not help spreading perfect german blood therefore you are ignoring a major point of the holocaust
nazis used people as scapegoats, blaming economic and political problems on their existance. yah, they were trying to produce a pure master race, but that wasnt the only cause... there are probably others too
|
|
|
God
Apr 18, 2003 1:06:49 GMT -5
Post by Dr.Quack on Apr 18, 2003 1:06:49 GMT -5
I don't believe any were religious.
And the reason that they opposed communism is that it held a threat to their party. With the Jews, Jypsies, and Homosexuals, it was in the case of purifying German blood, but in the case of communists, it was for security.
|
|
|
God
Apr 19, 2003 1:05:18 GMT -5
Post by dietspam16 on Apr 19, 2003 1:05:18 GMT -5
crusades and jihads are very religious, and jews are both a religious group and an ethnic group.
|
|
|
God
Apr 19, 2003 1:23:04 GMT -5
Post by Dr.Quack on Apr 19, 2003 1:23:04 GMT -5
Yes, true. But the Nazi's targeted Ethnic Jews, for many of the Jews they captured were not Jewish by ideology, but Jewish by blood and relation.
|
|
|
God
May 13, 2007 21:43:13 GMT -5
Post by BlueDolphin on May 13, 2007 21:43:13 GMT -5
I guess it was always there. Really, I have no idea. I am not an expert here after all... Sorry to bump this thread from a few years ago, but I would like to reply to my younger self that this area of science is still very theoretical and nothing that scientists say here can be taken as obvious truth just yet. there is no infinite time, it must have come into existance at some point... therefore, why did it come into existance? something must have caused it to do so...what? I would also like to say that this question is relevant but endless. It is not just the Big Bang that one can ask this about. You could continually ask that question again and again as we find more and more causes. Like if we were to say subject A caused the universe, where did A come from? If A came from B, where did B come from? ...etc.
|
|
|
God
May 13, 2007 22:12:54 GMT -5
Post by henry on May 13, 2007 22:12:54 GMT -5
"there is no infinite time, it must have come into existance at some point..."
Time is infinite in that it does not exist, and there is only and has only ever been this moment of constant change.
Existence did not have to come into existence. It could have always been.
Why would something that is have to not be at some point? Have you ever seen something that wasn't, or seen something cease to be? What evidence is there for the existence of non-existence?
(I do realize that I'm replying to a years old post by someone who isn't around any more)
|
|
|
God
May 14, 2007 4:04:26 GMT -5
Post by Arachis on May 14, 2007 4:04:26 GMT -5
Im not sure, but I believe that in looking to see where matter came from, scientists were able to find data that supported (not proved) the existence of a non existence.
|
|
|
God
May 14, 2007 8:22:08 GMT -5
Post by henry on May 14, 2007 8:22:08 GMT -5
No, they weren't.
It is observable that on a large scale, everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. Thus people have concluded that it was once much closer together, and some have concluded that it must have all been in the same place. This does not suggest that existence didn't exist at the time of the singularity, as the singularity is believed to have existed.
|
|
|
God
May 14, 2007 8:39:20 GMT -5
Post by Arachis on May 14, 2007 8:39:20 GMT -5
well then if existence is proved to have been, what caused the singularity to explode into the universe? Im not saying it was necessarily God, but I feel its much more likely that there was some outside unoversable interference in the creation of the universe as we know it, than say that a tree falling in a forest makes no sound. I think it would be judgemental to assume in this case that there is or isnt a god, since both are quite beyond the scope of my comprehension anyway.
|
|
|
God
May 14, 2007 9:10:19 GMT -5
Post by henry on May 14, 2007 9:10:19 GMT -5
Yeah, if the universe began under the singularity model, it makes sense to me that an external force triggered it. Like some dust from another universe drifted into our singularity and set it off. Not like a giant white man crafted our universe meticulously for the purpose of creating human beings and giving them a planet and watching them fuck it up and then one by one transporting them to another world he created called hell because they ate the tasty pork he gave them or enjoyed each others bodies. The dust seems more likely, somehow.
|
|
|
God
May 14, 2007 13:19:11 GMT -5
Post by Archagon on May 14, 2007 13:19:11 GMT -5
Time is infinite in that it does not exist, and there is only and has only ever been this moment of constant change. Sorry to butt in (I have, like, 3 other threads to reply to), but... I'm not sure that view is supported by the scientific community.
|
|