The Absolute Truth

that was fantastic


in the name of the father, the son and into the hole he goes...

Hehehehehehehehehehehehe . . . that was a good one . . .

I suspect that what you are attempting to say is that there is only one truth (your English sucks). If that is your claim, then you aren't "freeing" anyone, because they are not free to come to a conclusion that the truth is something other than what you claim.

As a fellow human, I am humbly requesting you all to read the Quran translation with open mind. I believe you will find the Truth there. As Allah (God) mentioned in the second chapter: “this is the Book of God, there is no doubt in it….”

You can read the Quran translation at:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration.

You don't understand Fresco.

The Nazi's were wrong because they don't believe what I believe. If you follow the truth then you won't be a Nazi.

You agree that the Nazi's were absolutely wrong, no?

Of course I, like the majority, think the Nazis were/are wrong from an ethical point of view. But where those ethics originated is the key issue. It may simply be the case that "the altruism gene" is more dominant than "the survival of the fittest gene" which was highlighted in Nazi ideology. The word "absolute" merely suggests the "divine authority" of religion, or the "categorical imperative" of Kant. It does not explain the situation of conflicting ethics, like "should I steal to feed my starving child" etc.

This implies that National Socialism was a comprehensive system of thought with invariable premises leading to an inevitable conclusion. That, in essence, is what religions are, or claim to be. But National Socialism was not a comprehensive system of thought, and lead to no conclusions about the human condition or about society. In fact, National Socialism was simply a scam, a facade with which to superficially justify Hitler's intention to seize and employ absolute power in Germany. Hitler was not concerned with the well being of Germans--as an example (should i feed my starving child), bombing of petroleum production and refining facilities, in particular the USAAF attacks on the Romanian oil fields and refineries, had all but eliminated Germany's ability to supply its fuel needs. So, the entire potato crop for 1944 was seized in order to produce the "ersatz" fuel which the war machine needed. In the winter of 1944-45, Germans faced stark famine. What few food resources remained to the occupied portions of Europe still controlled by the Germans were seized to feed Germany's armies, and not even necessarily to feed non-combatant Germans.

National Socialism absolutely had no concern for the well being of the German nation, which is to say, Hitler didn't give a tinker's damn for the German nation. He said this explicitly on more than one occasion as his enemies closed in around him. Stripped of all the very phony rhetoric, National Socialism was Hitler, and Hitler was ultimately selfish. That alone is sufficient reason to condemn "Nazism." The modern neo-Nazis, such as our member Hex Hammer, are reduced to mere racism (in general) and antisemitism (in particular).

No. I made no suggestion that "rationality" could form a basis for ethics. On the contrary, I suggested that Kant's "categorical imperative" which appeals to "rationality" falls into the domain of "the Absolute", which I reject. There were indeed many reasons for condemning Nazism, only some of which had "Absolutist" connotations.

As a fellow human, I am humbly requesting you all to read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins with an open mind. I believe you will find a proposition for the truth there. As Richard said "it's a real tragedy to base your life upon something for which there is no evidence, never was any evidence".
or check WWW.richarddawkins.net

richarddawkins.net

IMO Dawkins is naive in playing the "evidence card". For the believer, his very existence is "evidence" and all else is a test of his "faith". A much stronger card is societal dysfuctionality at the macro-level, but de facto parochialism and tribalism lead to a state of denial supported by the myth of "universal brotherhood".

Heavy, fresco, i would'nt say Dawkins is naive, "his very existence is evidence" sounds more naive to me.

Believers define their "self concept" as co-extension of a "God concept". (hence the "in God's image" jargon). Such a "self" is transcendent of "body" (via the "soul" concept). They are not that interested in physical evidence.

Then they are not interested in evidence at all, I believe they are brainwashed

Yes, conditioned....but we atheists may be similarly conditioned by the "success of science" to accept a philosophical position called "naive realism". That position, and its concept of "objective evidence" starts to fall apart at the boundaries of research in physics. There is at least one prominent particle physicist (Polkinghorne) who has actually taken "Holy Orders", so we cannot assume that the "evidence question" is as clear cut as Dawkins might wish it to be.

Fair point about us being conditioned as well, but I think we are at least open to new ideas, to change. The god squad wont have none of that.