"Atheism for Kids" movie to destroy America yet again

[QUOTE=Giggan;1102344]Of the many things you could truthfully say negative about Ronald Reagan, that's not one of them.

Anyways, I remember seeing more anti-Dogma stuff than this film is getting. Dogma wasn't really anti-religious in any way though. I have no plans on seeing this film just beause it looks boring, like 95% of everything else Hollywood churns out. They love the controversy because it gets the film attention it otherwise wouldn't have received. Those Christian publications don't stop people from seeing the movie that would have, they just make people bitch about it who otherwise would have kept their mouth shut.

----
I protest not getting a signature by writing this after each post.[/QUOTE]

good post.

[QUOTE=Loren Vitale;1101957]Considering religiosity is inversely correlated with both education and intelligence, it's unlikely they would ever find such engineers.[/QUOTE]

Correlation is unreliable. Ever hear of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It actually mocks organized religion, and one of its main aspects is its take on global warming...according to correlatory evidence, global warming is the result of the decline in the world's pirate population. Correlations are often just compelling coincidences.

[QUOTE=bassplr19;1071747]

If we find ONE microbe on Mars, that completely disproves biblical creation, provided of course we didn't bring it there.[/QUOTE]

As a Catholic, I feel like I should point out for those who aren't aware...not all Christians are fundamentalists. We don't all believe that God just flicked a switch and shit was created. I believe in evolution and whatnot and it doesn't conflict with my belief in God. In fact, I went to Catholic school my whole life and remember being taught at [I]least[/I] as far back as fourth grade that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally, or held as historical facts. In fifth grade, I was taught by my very religious religion teacher that they are "religious truths," which are just meant as guidelines to help us live our lives (and in some instances, like Genesis, to explain creation in the best way that time's understanding of the world allowed).

Point being: when you hear the term Christian (or Catholic, etc etc), don't just assume crazy. There are crazies who believe in the Christian God just like there are crazies who believe in other gods and in no god at all.

[QUOTE=tom9d;1102370]Correlation is unreliable. Ever hear of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It actually mocks organized religion, and one of its main aspects is its take on global warming...according to correlatory evidence, global warming is the result of the decline in the world's pirate population. Correlations are often just compelling coincidences.[/QUOTE]

That's not a statistical correlation, that's a revelation given by His Noodly Appendage (may peace be upon him. Ramen.) to the prophet Bobby Henderson, and is incontrovertible fact, no matter what evidence to the contrary may say.

Anyway, this correlation isn't just a compelling coincidence. There are a wide variety of studies done recently, using different methodologies, all of which have found a negative correlation. While none of them are perfect, and you could probably find fault with all of them, taken together they provide strong evidence for a negative correlation.

[QUOTE=tom9d;1102379]As a Catholic, I feel like I should point out for those who aren't aware...not all Christians are fundamentalists. We don't all believe that God just flicked a switch and shit was created. I believe in evolution and whatnot and it doesn't conflict with my belief in God. In fact, I went to Catholic school my whole life and remember being taught at [I]least[/I] as far back as fourth grade that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally, or held as historical facts. In fifth grade, I was taught by my very religious religion teacher that they are "religious truths," which are just meant as guidelines to help us live our lives (and in some instances, like Genesis, to explain creation in the best way that time's understanding of the world allowed).

Point being: when you hear the term Christian (or Catholic, etc etc), don't just assume crazy. There are crazies who believe in the Christian God just like there are crazies who believe in other gods and in no god at all.[/QUOTE]

you really are right. Very good point. It is sadly the case sometimes though, that people [I]do[/I] interperate the Bible as literal, which is what gets people in sloppy messes. Humans cannot think in terms of Biblical reasoning. It is a guideline, you are very right. That's always what I've thought of the Bible as; a moral standing on how you should treat others told in a slightly metaphorcal form. I have my thoughts about a God, and it may not be in accordance with you or anyone else, and that's ok. You hit the nail on the head with this post.

[QUOTE=Loren Vitale;1102386]That's not a statistical correlation, that's a revelation given by His Noodly Appendage (may peace be upon him. Ramen.) to the prophet Bobby Henderson, and is incontrovertible fact, no matter what evidence to the contrary may say.

Anyway, this correlation isn't just a compelling coincidence. There are a wide variety of studies done recently, using different methodologies, all of which have found a negative correlation. While none of them are perfect, and you could probably find fault with all of them, taken together they provide strong evidence for a negative correlation.[/QUOTE]

show us some proof then.

I'm not for tom or you, or anyone else. If what you say is true though, where are your links?

I think that's fair.

I don't even need links...I don't doubt the correlations. My point is that a correlation is not proof of something. All that means is that there is some sort of relationship between statistic A and statistic B. It doesn't say that one causes the other, or that they are even directly related. A correlation just says that some sort of relationship has been observed, which could be causal, or could be a complete coincidence.

Example...

In a group of 600 people, 300 were given a week-old sandwich and 300 were not. Of the 300 who were, 85% experienced violent vomiting. The 300 who were not given the sandwich were fine.

There is an obvious correlation between being given the week-old sandwich and vomiting. This might lead you to believe that the sandwich caused the vomiting, if you choose to accept correlation as a proof.

But what I didn't say was that each of the 85% who experience violent vomiting also ingested syrup of ipecac, while the 15% who did not vomit ingested no syrup of ipecac. See how it works? Correlation only suggests a relationship...not causality. Of course, sometimes the relationship is causal - but the point is, it is often not.

[QUOTE=LeHaHi;1102394]show us some proof then.

I'm not for tom or you, or anyone else. If what you say is true though, where are your links?

I think that's fair.[/QUOTE]

I posted one last page.

[URL=http://www.nber.org/papers/w8080.pdf]National Bureau of Economic Research[/URL]

Not that it's proof, since proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol gradation. I'm too lazy to go look up others, but next time you're at the library, grab the Sep. 1999 issue of [I]Scientific American[/I] and [I]Nature[/I] 394 from July 1998, off the top of my head. It's sad I still remember the exact issues; it's been five years since I last beat this horse into the ground

[QUOTE=tom9d;1102410]I don't even need links...I don't doubt the correlations. My point is that a correlation is not proof of something. All that means is that there is some sort of relationship between statistic A and statistic B. It doesn't say that one causes the other, or that they are even directly related. A correlation just says that some sort of relationship has been observed, which could be causal, or could be a complete coincidence.

Example...

In a group of 600 people, 300 were given a week-old sandwich and 300 were not. Of the 300 who were, 85% experienced violent vomiting. The 300 who were not given the sandwich were fine.

There is an obvious correlation between being given the week-old sandwich and vomiting. This might lead you to believe that the sandwich caused the vomiting, if you choose to accept correlation as a proof.

But what I didn't say was that each of the 85% who experience violent vomiting also ingested syrup of ipecac, while the 15% who did not vomit ingested no syrup of ipecac. See how it works? Correlation only suggests a relationship...not causality. Of course, sometimes the relationship is causal - but the point is, it is often not.[/QUOTE]

I never said there was a causal relationship, did I? I said there was a strong inverse correlation. That's all I said. Hence, in general, the more educated one is, the less likely one is to be religious, and the less religious one is, the more likely one is to be educated. Given this correlation, the religious wingnuts will have a bit of trouble finding qualified engineers to build their giant fucking robot. I'm not the one that read too far into that.

[QUOTE=tom9d;1102410]I don't even need links...I don't doubt the correlations. My point is that a correlation is not proof of something. All that means is that there is some sort of relationship between statistic A and statistic B. It doesn't say that one causes the other, or that they are even directly related. A correlation just says that some sort of relationship has been observed, which could be causal, or could be a complete coincidence.

Example...

In a group of 600 people, 300 were given a week-old sandwich and 300 were not. Of the 300 who were, 85% experienced violent vomiting. The 300 who were not given the sandwich were fine.

There is an obvious correlation between being given the week-old sandwich and vomiting. This might lead you to believe that the sandwich caused the vomiting, if you choose to accept correlation as a proof.

But what I didn't say was that each of the 85% who experience violent vomiting also ingested syrup of ipecac, while the 15% who did not vomit ingested no syrup of ipecac. See how it works? Correlation only suggests a relationship...not causality. Of course, sometimes the relationship is causal - but the point is, it is often not.[/QUOTE]

true.

[QUOTE=Loren Vitale;1102414]I posted one last page.

[URL=http://www.nber.org/papers/w8080.pdf]National Bureau of Economic Research[/URL]

Not that it's proof, since proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol gradation. I'm too lazy to go look up others, but next time you're at the library, grab the Sep. 1999 issue of [I]Scientific American[/I] and [I]Nature[/I] 394 from July 1998, off the top of my head. It's sad I still remember the exact issues; it's been five years since I last beat this horse into the ground[/QUOTE]

thanks.

[QUOTE=Loren Vitale;1102418]I never said there was a causal relationship, did I? I said there was a strong inverse correlation. That's all I said. Hence, in general, the more educated one is, the less likely one is to be religious, and the less religious one is, the more likely one is to be educated. Given this correlation, the religious wingnuts will have a bit of trouble finding qualified engineers to build their giant fucking robot. I'm not the one that read too far into that.[/QUOTE]

No you didn't. I was just explaining to Levi why I didn't need you to provide evidence of the correlations.

[QUOTE=tom9d;1102424]No you didn't. I was just explaining to Levi why I didn't need you to provide evidence of the correlations.[/QUOTE]

gotcha.

i'm off to bed!

good night all.

remember! this thread [I]is[/I] just about the Golden Compass.

Rock on Pullman!!

[QUOTE=tom9d;1102424]No you didn't. I was just explaining to Levi why I didn't need you to provide evidence of the correlations.[/QUOTE]

My apologies then. I'm used to conversing with fundamentalists who twist everything I say, so I go into defense mode easily.

[QUOTE=Loren Vitale;1101957]Considering religiosity is inversely correlated with both education and intelligence, it's unlikely they would ever find such engineers.[/QUOTE]

Sadly.....

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis[/url]

I am an engineer, however, I subscribe to the science!!!

[QUOTE=tom9d;1102379]As a Catholic, I feel like I should point out for those who aren't aware...not all Christians are fundamentalists. We don't all believe that God just flicked a switch and shit was created. I believe in evolution and whatnot and it doesn't conflict with my belief in God. In fact, I went to Catholic school my whole life and remember being taught at [I]least[/I] as far back as fourth grade that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally, or held as historical facts. In fifth grade, I was taught by my very religious religion teacher that they are "religious truths," which are just meant as guidelines to help us live our lives (and in some instances, like Genesis, to explain creation in the best way that time's understanding of the world allowed).

Point being: when you hear the term Christian (or Catholic, etc etc), don't just assume crazy. There are crazies who believe in the Christian God just like there are crazies who believe in other gods and in no god at all.[/QUOTE]

Catholics (blanket statement) are less likely to be fundamentalists, however, they still have some very stupid ideas (blanket statement), like anti-contraception, anti-gay, etc.

Protestants (blanket statement) are more likely to be bible thumping retarded literalists.

While it may be true that crazies are available in all colors, whose more likely to go crazy. My money is on the people who still believe in magic. Let's state another statistical FACT, [url]http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm[/url], [url]http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4149[/url]

Statistics may be imperfect and generalizations may not be the best thing to do, but if the shoe fits.

Now, we were not saying that you are religious because you stupid, nor you aren't religious because you are smart. But generally, the more you know the less superstitious you are.

I'd go see this movie if Nicole Kidman showed her boobs, anti-church or not.

You might be surprised at what religious people do and do not believe. The Pope is the authoritative voice of the Catholic Church, and so technically, all other religious figures have to agree with him...officially. That doesn't mean they have to in reality.

Another anecdote that will hopefully provide a different perspective to some people...I went to a private, Catholic High School. Only Catholics are even allowed to [I]apply[/I]. Religion is a big part of the school. Four years of religious study are required, as well as Christian service, a minimum of two retreats, and attendance at both Masses and Confession held by the school. True story: this is one of the best high schools in the country - the graduating class of 2007 had an average SAT score of 1460 out of 1600. So clearly, a religious presence in one's life does not directly cause a decrease in intelligence. It may be a common denominator...ie - poor people are more likely to be religious, and poor people are more likely to be unintelligent...in this case, poverty is the cause.

Additionally, we were taught by priests that contraception is not wrong. I remember in junior year, my morality and ethics teacher, who was a priest in his late 60s, said that "Officially I have to tell you that the Church is against birth control. Officially, I can't tell you that I understand abstinence is unrealistic, and when engaging in intercourse before marriage, it is right to use contraception...I can't tell you that...officially." Oddly enough, there were also a lot of gay guys in the school...openly gay, because it was a place where people were not made fun of for being gay, even at 14 years old.

I'm not trying to preach or anything, so I hope that didn't come out that way. Like I said...I just like people to know that believing in God and organized religion does not = stupidity.

[QUOTE=Giggan;1102344]Of the many things you could truthfully say negative about Ronald Reagan, that's not one of them.

Anyways, I remember seeing more anti-Dogma stuff than this film is getting. Dogma wasn't really anti-religious in any way though. I have no plans on seeing this film just beause it looks boring, like 95% of everything else Hollywood churns out. They love the controversy because it gets the film attention it otherwise wouldn't have received. Those Christian publications don't stop people from seeing the movie that would have, they just make people bitch about it who otherwise would have kept their mouth shut.
[/QUOTE]

dogma is a very different scenario cause the name of the director was established with slapstick comedy with foul language, and on top of it an award winning film with "gay" themes.

This is different cause the movie is marketed to children, and just like how C.S. lewis's religious beliefs could be read on his pages is the same as Philip Pullman. All you have to do is read into the second and third book before you find numerous sentences that would make a devout Christian or catholic crap their pants. You could find at least more than 5 instances where the good guys reference the idea of "Kill,destroy, and defeat GOD"

and lastly........... Do you really find it to be an intelligent strategy to judge movies by previews. So If fight club had a "boring" preview, would you not watch it?

[QUOTE=tom9d;1102670]You might be surprised at what religious people do and do not believe. The Pope is the authoritative voice of the Catholic Church, and so technically, all other religious figures have to agree with him...officially. That doesn't mean they have to in reality.

Another anecdote that will hopefully provide a different perspective to some people...I went to a private, Catholic High School. Only Catholics are even allowed to [I]apply[/I]. Religion is a big part of the school. Four years of religious study are required, as well as Christian service, a minimum of two retreats, and attendance at both Masses and Confession held by the school. True story: this is one of the best high schools in the country - the graduating class of 2007 had an average SAT score of 1460 out of 1600. So clearly, a religious presence in one's life does not directly cause a decrease in intelligence. It may be a common denominator...ie - poor people are more likely to be religious, and poor people are more likely to be unintelligent...in this case, poverty is the cause.

Additionally, we were taught by priests that contraception is not wrong. I remember in junior year, my morality and ethics teacher, who was a priest in his late 60s, said that "Officially I have to tell you that the Church is against birth control. Officially, I can't tell you that I understand abstinence is unrealistic, and when engaging in intercourse before marriage, it is right to use contraception...I can't tell you that...officially." Oddly enough, there were also a lot of gay guys in the school...openly gay, because it was a place where people were not made fun of for being gay, even at 14 years old.

I'm not trying to preach or anything, so I hope that didn't come out that way. Like I said...I just like people to know that believing in God and organized religion does not = stupidity.[/QUOTE]

^5, QFT, etc.

[QUOTE=tom9d;1102670]I'm not trying to preach or anything, so I hope that didn't come out that way. Like I said...I just like people to know that believing in God and organized religion does not = stupidity.[/QUOTE]

Frances Collins should be all the proof anyone needs of that.Without religion, stupid people will be stupid and intelligent people will be intelligent, and with religion, stupid people will still be stupid and intelligent people will still be intelligent. It is, however, generally true that nontheists as a group are more intelligent than theists as a group. Blanket statements can be true about demographics, but people are individuals, not demographics.

In my case, it's not that I find people stupid for believing in gods. It's that I find the concept of supernatural entities itself stupid.

Bassplayer, you always seem so anxious to disprove anything related to religion. I'm not a Hindu, but that doesn't mean I'm going to research the religion and find any possible flaw and throw it in face of anyone who may or may not be a Hindu, hoping to save them...from what, falling victim to themselves? I appreciate that you at least have a unique viewpoint and aren't afraid to share it, but there's something to be said for diplomacy.

-----
I protest not getting a signature by writing this after each post.

[QUOTE]Golden delusions

A new film, The Golden Compass, has been accused of promoting atheism to children. But what's wrong with that?
James Ball

Articles

* Latest
* Show all

Profile
Webfeed
All James Ball articles
About Webfeeds
November 27, 2007 3:00 PM | Printable version

The Golden Compass, the film of the first book in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, is released next week. The books recreate Milton's Paradise Lost with God as the great adversary: they accuse the (fictionalised) church of numerous crimes against humanity in the name of control.

These religious themes have been excised from the film as far as possible but religious groups in the US are still not happy. Bill Donahue, CEO of the Catholic League, has accused the Golden Compass of being part of a "deceitful stealth campaign" to "sell the virtues of atheism". The Catholic League is urging Christians to boycott the movie.

Much as I would love to disagree, Donahue is right, though more as a result of simple marketing rather than some atheist conspiracy. The film has been toned down in order to reach a wider audience and so make more money. It will almost certainly encourage some parents to buy the books for their children. With any luck, their kids will read them - and start asking some awkward questions.

The extent to which these books are genuinely anti-religious is debateable: God may be portrayed as a senile despot, but he is at least real. A truly atheist series would set about disproving him - but that would be far less entertaining. If we're counting the Golden Compass as anti-religious, fair enough: provided we remember it is offset by The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Lord of the Rings, and, well, the entire machinery of Christianity.

Children of religious parents are often indoctrinated into faith from birth. They are baptised - and baptism is irreversible - before they can give their consent, told Bible stories from earliest childhood as if they are unquestionable truth, and taken to church each week. Why should atheism wait until kids grow up before mounting a fightback?

Atheists and those of a religious bent can live and socialise together quite happily - we're lucky enough to live in a liberal and tolerant society. This does not mean we should pretend there are no ideological differences between us. Christianity and atheism cannot both be right. If the former is correct, atheists are doomed to hell; if the atheists are on the money, Christians are allowing an aeons-old lie to restrict their freedoms and choices in their one shot at life. The stakes are high.

Christians have a biblical duty to evangelise and spread the faith. This was once backed up with harsh punishment for heathens and apostates, but thankfully those days are over. Spreading the good word remains a worthy way for the faithful to spend their time, though. If Christianity is allowed to convert the heathens, I think it only fair that the heathens are given a chance to fight their corner.

This need not be a bad thing for the Church. Having seen, chatted to, and even socialised with several evangelists, I believe faith is stronger for being challenged. If believers don't hear contradictory views, they have little reason to truly consider what they hold dear. This mature faith is all the better for this challenge: socialised Christianity often falters under a life crisis - the death of a relative, say, or the breakup of a marriage.

Christian groups need to decide what they really care about. Does a religion's worth come from "bums on seats" - the size of a congregation - or from the number of people who accept it "in their hearts"? Whether you're a believer or not, any religion that says the former is worth no-one's time.

So, why not stop protesting against anti-religious material? Instead of campaigning against a children's adventure film that has actively attempted to mollify Christian groups, let families go and see it: if the film echoes any of the book's promise, it should be an epic adventure. If that leads some children to read opinions which differ to your own, why worry?

There's no need to stop there. Christianity has almost everything going its way - culture and art for the last two millennia have been subject to its influence. It is in the home, it permeates society, and it recruits young. You can try to keep the flock faithful by silencing critics - or, failing that, petitioning the faithful to boycott their works. Alternatively, you can hone your own arguments, rally your evangelists, and spread the good word: and let your rivals do the same.[/QUOTE]

from here: [url]http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_ball/2007/11/golden_delusions.html[/url]

a-fucking-men

Spike! Your avatar has Kiki from Kiki's Delivery Service in that coffee! I love that movie.

Yeah, amen.

[QUOTE=bassplr19;1102651]Catholics (blanket statement) are less likely to be fundamentalists, however, they still have some very stupid ideas (blanket statement), like anti-contraception, anti-gay, etc.

Protestants (blanket statement) are more likely to be bible thumping retarded literalists.

[/QUOTE]

This is the perception in many parts of America simply because Catholics are badly outnumbered. Believe me, Catholics can be just as bad.

[QUOTE=PocketFives;1103097]This is the perception in many parts of America simply because Catholics are badly outnumbered. Believe me, Catholics can be just as bad.[/QUOTE]

No, that's not the only reason for the perception. Protestants are more likely to be fundamentalists because the Bible is the emphasis in Protestantism, as opposed to Catholicism, in which the Eucharist is emphasized. Protestants believe in strict interpretation of the Bible - this is why they took issue with the Pope. Protestants felt the Pope was unnecessary, because God's word is spelled out in the Bible, and one must only follow the words of the Bible to lead a holy life.

Actually, the original Protestan theology, Lutheranism, emphasized "salvation through faith alone", not through following the words of the Bible. I stand by my statement that Catholocism is just as prone to wackiness; the wacky ones just haven't been as good at spreading in recent years.

[QUOTE=PocketFives;1103108]Actually, the original Protestan theology, Lutheranism, emphasized "salvation through faith alone", not through following the words of the Bible. I stand by my statement that Catholocism is just as prone to wackiness; the wacky ones just haven't been as good at spreading in recent years.[/QUOTE]

No...you're correct in saying that Martin Luther emphasized salvation through faith alone, but that is not contradictory to what I said. I did not say salvation is through following the words of the Bible. The fact is, traced back to Martin Luther, the Bible was considered the word of God and was to be followed strictly. As it turns out, it is more complicated than what I said, because while Martin Luther did teach that the Bible should be followed directly, Lutheranism eventually divided on the issue...so I'll say we're both right and both wrong...from wikipedia:

Right. My point was, to be saved in Luther's Lutheranism, you didn't have to really follow the Bible. You just had to believe you probably should and Jesus was your savior.

Incidently, American Lutherans, at least, tend to be really non-radical. But I'll stick with my trusty Quakers and Unitarians.

Martin Luther also wrote [url=http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm]On The Jews And Their Lies[/url], in addition to coming up with all that Lutheranism stuff.

Choice quote:
[QUOTE]
What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews. For in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 he commanded very explicitly that nothing is to be added to or subtracted from his law. And Samuel says in I Samuel 15:23 that disobedience to God is idolatry. Now the Jews' doctrine at present is nothing but the additions of the rabbis and the idolatry of disobedience, so that Moses has become entirely unknown among them (as we said before), just as the Bible became unknown under the papacy in our day. So also, for Moses' sake, their schools cannot be tolerated; they defame him just as much as they do us. It is not necessary that they have their own free churches for such idolatry.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16:18, "You are Peter," etc., inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now traveling across the country with twelve horses his ambition is to become a Kokhba devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with his usury, so that the great lords view it with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, some day a troop may gather against them, having learned from this booklet the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in an their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us an they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Spike;1103172]Martin Luther also wrote [url=http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm]On The Jews And Their Lies[/url], in addition to coming up with all that Lutheranism stuff.

Choice quote:[/QUOTE]

Didn't that one start off with, "I have a dream..."

?

[QUOTE=tom9d;1103173]Didn't that one start off with, "I have a dream..."

?[/QUOTE]

Haven't actually read it in its entirety, but who [i]wasn't[/i] a rabid anti-Semite back then?

[QUOTE=Spike;1103179]Haven't actually read it in its entirety, but who [i]wasn't[/i] a rabid anti-Semite back then?[/QUOTE]

Semites?

[QUOTE=Spike;1103179]Haven't actually read it in its entirety, but who [i]wasn't[/i] a rabid anti-Semite back then?[/QUOTE]

Haha...I don't think you got it. Think about it for a minute.

I wanna see a fantasy film for young kids with a rabid anti-circumcision message. I bet they would have [i]awesome[/i] monsters!

[QUOTE=Giggan;1103028]Bassplayer, you always seem so anxious to disprove anything related to religion. I'm not a Hindu, but that doesn't mean I'm going to research the religion and find any possible flaw and throw it in face of anyone who may or may not be a Hindu, hoping to save them...from what, falling victim to themselves? I appreciate that you at least have a unique viewpoint and aren't afraid to share it, but there's something to be said for diplomacy.[/QUOTE]

I may completely agree with you that I may need some lessons in diplomacy. I do research science, philosophy, and logic, which I use to try defeat the evil forces of Christianity and Islam and Judaism.

I attack when asinine wordage is spewn, like evolution didn't happen, completely negating the MOUNTAINS (literally, mountains are part of the evidence) of evidence. I attack when asinine new age or other supernatural wordage is spewn, like if you think positively that you will get a new car, things will happen just because you are thinking positively that will get you a new car, again, completely negating any hard work (ala the Secret).

I will also attack the logic of Hinduism as well, noting that they (not all, again blanket statement) support the caste system in India. Sure it may be outlawed, but it still happens.

I attack because it pisses me off when people are scammed and I feel someone needs to stand up to that shite. I also attack because I am being attacked by supernatural nonsense, they are still trying to get creationism/ID taught in schools, they are still trying to get abstinence only education taught in schools no matter how many studies show how ineffective it is, etc, etc....

[QUOTE=tom9d;1103443]Haha...I don't think you got it. Think about it for a minute.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was funny...:firedevil

[QUOTE=Loren Vitale;1103222]Semites?[/QUOTE]

I lol'd.

Lol'd of the Rings?

I'll tell you who was anti-Semitic:

Shakespeare.

(Actually for his time, he was pretty progessive. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew organs, senses, dimensions, something something?)

being Pro-Senitic back then means you only wanted to kill and torture the male Jews, not the women and kids. Maybe just punch them in the stomach.

A lot of people consider him anti-Semitic because at the end of the play Shylock literally tries to extract his pound of flesh, but really I think he's the most realistic and least asshatish of all the characters. He was like a pinpoint of light to the rest of the womanizing idiot characters in that play. And I mean, the reason Shylock is mad at that one dude (Antonio?) is because he spat on him for being a Jew. That'd piss anyone off.

[QUOTE=jane s.;1103546]I'll tell you who was anti-Semitic:

Shakespeare.

(Actually for his time, he was pretty progessive. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew organs, senses, dimensions, something something?)[/QUOTE]

Is that what that monologue is from? I thought it was from some holocaust play.

About people believing faith alone saves, I know a few filthy hos who drip with disease and degeneracy and go. "It's alright! I love Jesus, and he loves me, no matter how dirty I am!"

-------
I protest not getting a signature by writing this after each post.

[QUOTE=jane s.;1103546]I'll tell you who was anti-Semitic:

Shakespeare.

(Actually for his time, he was pretty progessive. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew organs, senses, dimensions, something something?)[/QUOTE]
If I prick you, do you not moan?

[QUOTE=Giggan;1103713]Is that what that monologue is from? I thought it was from some holocaust play.
[/QUOTE]

There's a good chance it's been quoted in a Holocaust play, but it's from [i]The Merchant of Venice.[/i]

[QUOTE=jane s.;1103876]There's a good chance it's been quoted in a Holocaust play, but it's from [i]The Merchant of Venice.[/i][/QUOTE]

Ahh, gracias. I never got into Shakespere. I think having to read Romeo and Juliet turned me off to him, I hate sappy lust stories.

-------
I protest not getting a signature by writing this after each post.

[QUOTE=Loren Vitale;1101957]Considering religiosity is inversely correlated with both education and intelligence, it's unlikely they would ever find such engineers.[/QUOTE]

"Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

[QUOTE=bassplr19;1105132]"Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer[/QUOTE]

He talked about that at last years Beyond Belief conference. I think he was invited back for this year's conference earlier this month, but unfortunately I didn't get to go.

Have you read [U]Why People Believe Weird Things[/U]?