Are atheists the most easily indoctrinated people? Why?

[Uiiop]

Edit because theambiguity of disbelief doesn't help your case. There's also the fact the fact not only the actual Oxford dictionary disagrees with you as well as the stanford encyclopedia of philpsophy

But to be fair there are other venues to determine without dictionaries or to reject them all together.

From oxford:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I know that...that's what i was responding to.

[ShinChonJi]

Atheism itself is a belief, just like the thousands of other religions out there. The number of Gods they believe in happens to be one less than the monotheistic Abrahamic religions of today, which is zero.

Can you scientifically prove there is a God? No. Can you scientifically prove that there isn't? No. So believing in either side takes a certain amount of "faith".
The best unbiased, faithless position one could take then, would be to say, "Well maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. Maybe it's one of the Abrahamic Gods, maybe it's one of the Hindu ones, or Buddhist ones, or maybe it's none of the God's in human knowledge."

That being said, unless there is a definitive way we can prove the presence of absence of a God, then we can't make a judgement. The uniqueness of the Bible is that while the Bible was written over the span of 1,600 years, as per carbon dating of the various scriptures excavated, there is a unifying theme in that the God written in the Bible records events that have not happened yet, and then fulfills those recorded events many many years later. Most significantly, it would be the prophecies of the coming of Jesus, made in the Old Testament. Those prophecies were fulfilled about 600 years after the last book of the Old Testament.

Of course, for those skeptics who say well, everything is written in the Bible, and self referencing doesn't prove anything, the Bible itself isn't actually one book, but is made up of 66 books and letters, excavated over different periods. And even if they don't believe in the first set of prophecies, Jesus came and gave a bunch of new prophecies that Christians are supposed to be studying up and waiting for to fulfill.

But, most Christians today have lost that true purpose, which is waiting for the 2nd set of prophecies to fulfill. They just focus on using the Bible to make their physical lives better, and dealing with troubles of life with verses of the Bible, and fellowship.

So I guess for some atheists, when they see those types of Christians who don't study the Bible at all and just say, "You know what, I don't even have to do anything, and Jesus loves me and God loves me and I get to go to heaven cause I believe.", this pushes them further away from the religion.

Bonus question: From what I typed, can you guys guess if I'm a Christian or Atheist, or Agnostic?

[Neutraligon]

Atheism itself is a doctrine, just like the thousands of other religions out there. The number of Gods they believe in happens to be one less than the monotheistic Abrahamic religions of today, which is zero.

Can you scientifically prove there is a God? No. Can you scientifically prove that there isn't? No. So believing in either side takes a certain amount of "faith".
The best unbiased, faithless position one could take then, would be to say, "Well maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. Maybe it's one of the Abrahamic Gods, maybe it's one of the Hindu ones, or Buddhist ones, or maybe it's none of the God's in human knowledge."

That being said, unless there is a definitive way we can prove the presence of absence of a God, then we can't make a judgement. The uniqueness of the Bible is that while the Bible was written over the span of 1,600 years, as per carbon dating of the various scriptures excavated, there is a unifying theme in that the God written in the Bible records events that have not happened yet, and then fulfills those recorded events many many years later. Most significantly, it would be the prophecies of the coming of Jesus, made in the Old Testament. Those prophecies were fulfilled about 600 years after the last book of the Old Testament.

Of course, for those skeptics who say well, everything is written in the Bible, and self referencing doesn't prove anything, the Bible itself isn't actually one book, but is made up of 66 books and letters, excavated over different periods. And even if they don't believe in the first set of prophecies, Jesus came and gave a bunch of new prophecies that Christians are supposed to be studying up and waiting for to fulfill.

But, most Christians today have lost that true purpose, which is waiting for the 2nd set of prophecies to fulfill. They just focus on using the Bible to make their physical lives better, and dealing with troubles of life with verses of the Bible, and fellowship.

So I guess for some atheists, when they see those types of Christians who don't study the Bible at all and just say, "You know what, I don't even have to do anything, and Jesus loves me and God loves me and I get to go to heaven cause I believe.", this pushes them further away from the religion.

Bonus question: From what I typed, can you guys guess if I'm a Christian or Atheist, or Agnostic?

How can atheism be a doctrine when it holds no beliefs or dogmas, follows no creeds or holy men, has no holy books, no rituals?

[Uiiop]

As a whole non-atheist works. If you find that word perfectly fine then i don't really see the issue.

a non-atheist would be a person who is not atheist. If you mean nontheist then sure. Of course the only difference between the terms nontheist and atheist is if you use the greek or the latin prefix for not.

Slip-up on part. You'll see in the post you quoted i fixed it.

And again that's your perspective on it. Some including those who call themselves atheists feel that there is a difference. Hence why this semantic argument is a thing that happens.

[Neutraligon]

From oxford:

I know that...that's what i was responding to.

So how does oxford disagree with us?

[Neutraligon]

a non-atheist would be a person who is not atheist. If you mean nontheist then sure. Of course the only difference between the terms nontheist and atheist is if you use the greek or the latin prefix for not.

Slip-up on part. You'll see in the post you quoted i fixed it.

And again that's your perspective on it. Some including those who call themselves atheists feel that there is a difference. Hence why this semantic argument is a thing that happens.

Really, I haven't met a single atheist who agrees with you (personal anecdote I know).

[ShinChonJi]

Atheism itself is a doctrine, just like the thousands of other religions out there. The number of Gods they believe in happens to be one less than the monotheistic Abrahamic religions of today, which is zero.

Can you scientifically prove there is a God? No. Can you scientifically prove that there isn't? No. So believing in either side takes a certain amount of "faith".
The best unbiased, faithless position one could take then, would be to say, "Well maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. Maybe it's one of the Abrahamic Gods, maybe it's one of the Hindu ones, or Buddhist ones, or maybe it's none of the God's in human knowledge."

That being said, unless there is a definitive way we can prove the presence of absence of a God, then we can't make a judgement. The uniqueness of the Bible is that while the Bible was written over the span of 1,600 years, as per carbon dating of the various scriptures excavated, there is a unifying theme in that the God written in the Bible records events that have not happened yet, and then fulfills those recorded events many many years later. Most significantly, it would be the prophecies of the coming of Jesus, made in the Old Testament. Those prophecies were fulfilled about 600 years after the last book of the Old Testament.

Of course, for those skeptics who say well, everything is written in the Bible, and self referencing doesn't prove anything, the Bible itself isn't actually one book, but is made up of 66 books and letters, excavated over different periods. And even if they don't believe in the first set of prophecies, Jesus came and gave a bunch of new prophecies that Christians are supposed to be studying up and waiting for to fulfill.

But, most Christians today have lost that true purpose, which is waiting for the 2nd set of prophecies to fulfill. They just focus on using the Bible to make their physical lives better, and dealing with troubles of life with verses of the Bible, and fellowship.

So I guess for some atheists, when they see those types of Christians who don't study the Bible at all and just say, "You know what, I don't even have to do anything, and Jesus loves me and God loves me and I get to go to heaven cause I believe.", this pushes them further away from the religion.

Bonus question: From what I typed, can you guys guess if I'm a Christian or Atheist, or Agnostic?

How can atheism be a doctrine when it holds no beliefs or dogmas, follows no creeds or holy men, has no holy books, no rituals?

True, I changed the word from "doctrine" to "belief", as "doctrine" has a religious connotation to it, while belief I believe in more neutral.

EDIT: And you guys are all just arguing semantics here, IE: Definitions of words....

[Uiiop]

Since you put this in later

Edit because theambiguity of disbelief doesn't help your case. There's also the fact the fact not only the actual Oxford dictionary disagrees with you as well as the stanford encyclopedia of philpsophy

But to be fair there are other venues to determine without dictionaries or to reject them all together.

From oxford:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

As to the disbelief thing, there is a reason atheists do not use that word, and instead use the term lack of belief.

That kinda sounds like backtracking. You seem to treat the dictionary as something that can be the end all be all on the matter and then noted that it failed and it's the subject themselves that decides it.
Which makes more sense to me don't get me wrong but the claim still does have issues.

I know that...that's what i was responding to.

So how does oxford disagree with us?

Read this then the second link in the aforementioned post.

[Elysian Kentarchy]

Bonus question: From what I typed, can you guys guess if I'm a Christian or Atheist, or Agnostic?

If I had to guess, Agnostic. If only because you said "Abrahamic Gods". I had wanted to say Christian since you actually took the time to capitalize "God" which is a sign of specifically talking about one God and your commentary on how Christians today behave (which I personally agree with) but the "Gods" thing irks me so much it swayed me to Agnostic.

[Neutraligon]

How can atheism be a doctrine when it holds no beliefs or dogmas, follows no creeds or holy men, has no holy books, no rituals?

True, I changed the word from "doctrine" to "belief", as "doctrine" has a religious connotation to it, while belief I believe in more neutral.

EDIT: And you guys are all just arguing semantics here, IE: Definitions of words....

Sure we are, words are important. So tell me, what is the term for everyone who is not a theist. Right now most atheists I now use the term atheist and then include adjectives to describe the type of atheist they are.

[Neutraligon]

Since you put this in later

From oxford:


As to the disbelief thing, there is a reason atheists do not use that word, and instead use the term lack of belief.

That kinda sounds like backtracking. You seem to treat the dictionary as something that can be the end all be all on the matter and then noted that it failed and it's the subject themselves that decides it.
Which makes more since to me don't get me wrong but the claim still does have issues.

hardly, I was responding to your claim that oxford disagree s by pointing out that oxford includes the term lack of belief. That is harldy backtracking, but rather pointing out how I do not see how it disagrees with us.

So how does oxford disagree with us?

Read this then the second link in the aforementioned post.

Not sure how that shows oxford disagrees.

[Uiiop]

Slip-up on part. You'll see in the post you quoted i fixed it.

And again that's your perspective on it. Some including those who call themselves atheists feel that there is a difference. Hence why this semantic argument is a thing that happens.

Really, I haven't met a single atheist who agrees with you (personal anecdote I know).

And that's relatively true, since for the record I'm actually more on the fence of this than anti-inclusive definition. I honestly don't take the argument personally. I don't care if you want to take or put in atheism with my agnosticism. Lack of belief isn't something I base my Idenity on.
For the people you're talking about well...I mostly found them on the philosopher-related subreddits. I can dig deeper and provide examples if you want them

[ShinChonJi]

Bonus question: From what I typed, can you guys guess if I'm a Christian or Atheist, or Agnostic?

If I had to guess, Agnostic. If only because you said "Abrahamic Gods". I had wanted to say Christian since you actually took the time to capitalize "God" which is a sign of specifically talking about one God and your commentary on how Christians today behave (which I personally agree with) but the "Gods" thing irks me so much it swayed me to Agnostic.

Looolll you know what. I'm a Christian. Non denominational, because denominations were created by man, not God. God doesn't want to see his kingdom split into thousands of bickering pieces.

And the thing about the other various religions is that IF there is one true God, or a true group of. gods, and your belief deviates from the truth, then you might as well believe in a pink invisible elephant in the room, because wrong is wrong.

Similarly if you think you've already obtained salvation because you believe in God, then this "God" you believe in is certainly different than the God of the Bible, which states in Jn 14:23 that we have to also obey Jesus' teachings.

And semantics is just arguing about what to call yourself. The real discussion is, there is a God written and described in the Bible. You should read the scriptures, understand it, then believe.

[Camicon]

Atheism itself is a doctrine, just like the thousands of other religions out there. The number of Gods they believe in happens to be one less than the monotheistic Abrahamic religions of today, which is zero.

Atheism is not a doctrine. A lack of belief is just that, and nothing more.

Can you scientifically prove there is a God? No. Can you scientifically prove that there isn't? No. So believing in either side takes a certain amount of "faith."

You're confusing atheism with anti-theism.

The best unbiased, faithless position one could take then, would be to say, "Well maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. Maybe it's one of the Abrahamic Gods, maybe it's one of the Hindu ones, or Buddhist ones, or maybe it's none of the God's in human knowledge."

Agnosticism, which falls under the umbrella of atheism.

That being said, unless there is a definitive way we can prove the presence of absence of a God, then we can't make a judgement.

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

The uniqueness of the Bible is that while the Bible was written over the span of 1,600 years, as per carbon dating of the various scriptures excavated, there is a unifying theme in that the God written in the Bible records events that have not happened yet, and then fulfills those recorded events many many years later.

There is no evidence whatsoever of the Bible ever correctly prophesying anything.

Most significantly, it would be the prophecies of the coming of Jesus, made in the Old Testament. Those prophecies were fulfilled about 600 years after the last book of the Old Testament.

You can twist the words in the Old Testament to make Napoleon Bonaparte fit the bill. And given the unknown number of times many of those scriptures were translated, there's no real way to know the meaning and intent of the original works. There is also extensive evidence of stories, mostly in the Old Testament, having been rewritten for new audiences.

Of course, for those skeptics who say well, everything is written in the Bible, and self referencing doesn't prove anything, the Bible itself isn't actually one book, but is made up of 66 books and letters, excavated over different periods.

Yup. And a great many books which were previously part of the Christian faith were arbitrarily excluded at various points throughout the first seven ecumenical councils.

And even if they don't believe in the first set of prophecies, Jesus came and gave a bunch of new prophecies that Christians are supposed to be studying up and waiting for to fulfill.

Prophecies that haven't been fulfilled are not evidence of anything.

But, most Christians today have lost that true purpose, which is waiting for the 2nd set of prophecies to fulfill. They just focus on using the Bible to make their physical lives better, and dealing with troubles of life with verses of the Bible, and fellowship.

Not really sure what this has to do with anything.

So I guess for some atheists, when they see those types of Christians who don't study the Bible at all and just say, "You know what, I don't even have to do anything, and Jesus loves me and God loves me and I get to go to heaven cause I believe.", this pushes them further away from the religion.

In my experience, most atheists are atheist because they don't like blind faith.

[Uiiop]

Since you put this in later
That kinda sounds like backtracking. You seem to treat the dictionary as something that can be the end all be all on the matter and then noted that it failed and it's the subject themselves that decides it.
Which makes more since to me don't get me wrong but the claim still does have issues.

hardly, I was responding to your claim that oxford disagree s by pointing out that oxford includes the term lack of belief. That is harldy backtracking, but rather pointing out how I do not see how it disagrees with us.

Read this then the second link in the aforementioned post.

Not sure how that shows oxford disagrees.

Because I have assumed(perhaps falsely) that this dictionary you're talking about was mistaken with one that has a higher, more authoritative reputation of which i linked and used different definitions.

[Neutraligon]

If I had to guess, Agnostic. If only because you said "Abrahamic Gods". I had wanted to say Christian since you actually took the time to capitalize "God" which is a sign of specifically talking about one God and your commentary on how Christians today behave (which I personally agree with) but the "Gods" thing irks me so much it swayed me to Agnostic.

Looolll you know what. I'm a Christian. Non denominational, because denominations were created by man, not God. God doesn't want to see his kingdom split into thousands of bickering pieces.

And the thing about the other various religions is that IF there is one true God, or a true group of. gods, and your belief deviates from the truth, then you might as well believe in a pink invisible elephant in the room, because wrong is wrong.

Similarly if you think you've already obtained salvation because you believe in God, then this "God" you believe in is certainly different than the God of the Bible, which states in Jn 14:23 that we have to also obey Jesus' teachings.

And semantics is just arguing about what to call yourself. The real discussion is, there is a God written and described in the Bible. You should read the scriptures, understand it, then believe.

Similarly if there is no god and your belief deviates from the truth then you might aw well believe in the pink invisible unicorn, wrong is wrong. I have read the Torah, I see no reason why reading a book of what I consider fiction would make me believe. Telling me to read it is like me telling you to read Harry Potter and believe.

[Neutraligon]

hardly, I was responding to your claim that oxford disagree s by pointing out that oxford includes the term lack of belief. That is harldy backtracking, but rather pointing out how I do not see how it disagrees with us.


Not sure how that shows oxford disagrees.

Because I have assumed(perhaps falsely) that this dictionary you're talking about was mistaken with one that has a higher, more authoritative reputation of which i linked and used different definitions.

I linked to the oxford, the same one you used and underlined the part of the definition that also included lack of belief.

[Uiiop]

hardly, I was responding to your claim that oxford disagree s by pointing out that oxford includes the term lack of belief. That is harldy backtracking, but rather pointing out how I do not see how it disagrees with us.


Not sure how that shows oxford disagrees.

Because I have assumed(perhaps falsely) that this dictionary you're talking about was mistaken with one that has a higher, more authoritative reputation of which i linked and used different definitions.

Oh...i think i found the problem. For some weird reason i manged to slip past some subscription wall to get what i saw.
Weird but now i understand that the definitions i found sounds like thin air.
Still An encyclopedia from Stanford has to count for something....

[Uiiop]

Because I have assumed(perhaps falsely) that this dictionary you're talking about was mistaken with one that has a higher, more authoritative reputation of which i linked and used different definitions.

I linked to the oxford, the same one you used and underlined the part of the definition that also included lack of belief.

Again how a bit odd how you didn't notice the same side of the argument had already but never mind that.
I was referring to the second link I got which has some subscription BS so feel free to ignore that part of the argument.

[Neutraligon]

Because I have assumed(perhaps falsely) that this dictionary you're talking about was mistaken with one that has a higher, more authoritative reputation of which i linked and used different definitions.

Oh...i think i found the problem. For some weird reason i manged to slip past some subscription wall to get what i saw.
Weird but now i understand that the definitions i found sounds like thin air.
Still An encyclopedia from Stanford has to count for something....

Considering the one I linked to was equally prestigious and was also from the oxford English dictionary
This is the first part of the sentence

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism

. Now here's the problem the negation of the term does not mean the active disbelief in a god so there is a contradiction right there.

I will give an example there is blue, and then there is ablue or not blue. Atheism is somewhat like that.

[Uiiop]

Oh...i think i found the problem. For some weird reason i manged to slip past some subscription wall to get what i saw.
Weird but now i understand that the definitions i found sounds like thin air.
Still An encyclopedia from Stanford has to count for something....

Considering the one I linked to was equally prestigious and was also from the oxford English dictionary
This is the first part of the sentence

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism

. Now here's the problem the negation of the term does not mean the active disbelief in a god so there is a contradiction right there.

I will give an example there is blue, and then there is ablue or not blue. Atheism is somewhat like that.

Uhh...did you even read the wikipedia article i gave you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Di ... of_English
This dictionary is not based on the Oxford English Dictionary and should not be mistaken for a new or updated version of the OED. It is a completely new dictionary which strives to represent as faithfully as possible the current usage of English words.

External links:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

[ShinChonJi]

Atheism itself is a doctrine, just like the thousands of other religions out there. The number of Gods they believe in happens to be one less than the monotheistic Abrahamic religions of today, which is zero.

Atheism is not a doctrine. A lack of belief is just that, and nothing more.
I made the necessary changes from doctrine to belief.

Can you scientifically prove there is a God? No. Can you scientifically prove that there isn't? No. So believing in either side takes a certain amount of "faith."

You're confusing atheism with anti-theism.
Semantics. Atheists wouldn't be atheists if God was scientifically proven. Thus, the lack of solid scientific proof of the existence of God has led to non believers, which I collectively all lump together as atheists.

The best unbiased, faithless position one could take then, would be to say, "Well maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. Maybe it's one of the Abrahamic Gods, maybe it's one of the Hindu ones, or Buddhist ones, or maybe it's none of the God's in human knowledge."

Agnosticism, which falls under the umbrella of atheism.
Agreed. This is what Agnosticism is.

That being said, unless there is a definitive way we can prove the presence of absence of a God, then we can't make a judgement.

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

The uniqueness of the Bible is that while the Bible was written over the span of 1,600 years, as per carbon dating of the various scriptures excavated, there is a unifying theme in that the God written in the Bible records events that have not happened yet, and then fulfills those recorded events many many years later.

There is no evidence whatsoever of the Bible ever correctly prophesying anything.
Read the New Testament. It's basically Jesus and the disciples say, "Hey Israel. Jesus fulfilled Old Testament Prophecy."

Most significantly, it would be the prophecies of the coming of Jesus, made in the Old Testament. Those prophecies were fulfilled about 600 years after the last book of the Old Testament.

You can twist the words in the Old Testament to make Napoleon Bonaparte fit the bill. And given the unknown number of times many of those scriptures were translated, there's no real way to know the meaning and intent of the original works. There is also extensive evidence of stories, mostly in the Old Testament, having been rewritten for new audiences.
I challenge you to try. List to me the parts where you think the words are twisted, and I'll show to you they aren't.

Of course, for those skeptics who say well, everything is written in the Bible, and self referencing doesn't prove anything, the Bible itself isn't actually one book, but is made up of 66 books and letters, excavated over different periods.

Yup. And a great many books which were previously part of the Christian faith were arbitrarily excluded at various points throughout the first seven ecumenical councils.
Because we ourselves cannot see the reasoning behind actions, doesn't make it arbitrary. Just as our parents have made decisions for us when we're toddlers, we didn't understand why they made those decisions for us when we were young, but we can't say they were arbitrary just because we lack the capability to understand them. I'm not saying you lack the capability to understand the Bible. I'm saying mankind lacks the capability to understand a being such as God.

And even if they don't believe in the first set of prophecies, Jesus came and gave a bunch of new prophecies that Christians are supposed to be studying up and waiting for to fulfill.

Prophecies that haven't been fulfilled are not evidence of anything.
True. Even in the Bible it says pay no heed to people who make prophecies which haven't fulfilled. But keep in mind of the perspective of timespan. For humans, a year is not that long of a time. For e.coli, it's literally like 1000's of generations. For God, the human timescale is a drop in the bucket. Just because his prophecy didn't fulfill yet doesn't mean it won't. But yes, for now, don't trust it. But we must know it, because if we don't, even if it happens in front of your face, you wouldn't recognize it.

But, most Christians today have lost that true purpose, which is waiting for the 2nd set of prophecies to fulfill. They just focus on using the Bible to make their physical lives better, and dealing with troubles of life with verses of the Bible, and fellowship.

Not really sure what this has to do with anything.
The Bible is unique because it has prophecy and fulfillment, among other things, like ability to resolve the concept of sin. If you ignore prophecy and fulfillment, you're ignoring a huge chunk of Christianity.

So I guess for some atheists, when they see those types of Christians who don't study the Bible at all and just say, "You know what, I don't even have to do anything, and Jesus loves me and God loves me and I get to go to heaven cause I believe.", this pushes them further away from the religion.

In my experience, most atheists are atheist because they don't like blind faith.

Yes, blind faith because they refuse to believe in something they don't know. Nor should they. But maybe they should actually go study the Bible thoroughly with an unbiased heart before coming to any conclusions. Having faith that all religion is blind faith without doing due diligence... isn't that also blind faith?

[Uiiop]

Considering the one I linked to was equally prestigious and was also from the oxford English dictionary
This is the first part of the sentence
. Now here's the problem the negation of the term does not mean the active disbelief in a god so there is a contradiction right there.

I will give an example there is blue, and then there is ablue or not blue. Atheism is somewhat like that.

Uhh...did you even read the wikipedia article i gave you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Di ... of_English
This dictionary is not based on the Oxford English Dictionary and should not be mistaken for a new or updated version of the OED. It is a completely new dictionary which strives to represent as faithfully as possible the current usage of English words.

External links:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

That and of course the dictionary you're using disagrees with you.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... s/negation

[ShinChonJi]

Looolll you know what. I'm a Christian. Non denominational, because denominations were created by man, not God. God doesn't want to see his kingdom split into thousands of bickering pieces.

And the thing about the other various religions is that IF there is one true God, or a true group of. gods, and your belief deviates from the truth, then you might as well believe in a pink invisible elephant in the room, because wrong is wrong.

Similarly if you think you've already obtained salvation because you believe in God, then this "God" you believe in is certainly different than the God of the Bible, which states in Jn 14:23 that we have to also obey Jesus' teachings.

And semantics is just arguing about what to call yourself. The real discussion is, there is a God written and described in the Bible. You should read the scriptures, understand it, then believe.

Similarly if there is no god and your belief deviates from the truth then you might aw well believe in the pink invisible unicorn, wrong is wrong. I have read the Torah, I see no reason why reading a book of what I consider fiction would make me believe. Telling me to read it is like me telling you to read Harry Potter and believe.

True, Harry Potter is fiction. However, if the writing of Harry Potter claims itself to be truth, and makes predictions about the future, then I guess it hinges on the fact about those prophecies fulfilling or not, doesn't it? If it says, "A man named Mr. Potter will be born in 2026 in London, England, at the address of blah blah blah blah blah blah (I don't know london Addresses). Mr. Potter will grow up with brown hair, a scar on his forhead, and at the age of 24, he'll marry a girl named Ginny Weasley, and have 2 kids at the age of 30. He will major in Biochemistry and will work as a professor at Oxford University."

And all those things actually happened in real life, what would you think of the book Harry Potter then? Perhaps, one would still remain skeptical, no matter how detailed of a prophecy/fulfillment that happens. And that's just the truth of the matter of our skeptical nature.

And think about this. If something as detailed as what is written above fails to make you believe that Harry Potter is truth, then what will?

Does the book have to write something major like, "This book is true because I, the author, predict that by the year 2052, all countries will be gone and it will just exist as one entity called Kingdom of God.", and in year 2052, miraculously all the countries dissolve and a new entity called Kingdom of God is created?

Would you believe then?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

I'm not sure pinning racism on scientific materialism really fits. For the first proponents of the Enlightenment, science itself was a metaphysical discipline - using reason and deduction as a means of understanding God's creation and bringing ourselves more fully in line with his design for the universe. The first 'racists' like Blumenbach, after all, were monogenists - they believed that God had created humanity as a singular creation, but that different races had degenerated into different forms following the Fall of Man. Hence the first justifications for racist policies and imperialism/colonialism - as the race closest to God's creation it was the European's duty to convert and control the degenerate races and bring them into the bosom of Christ so that they might be turned away from their sinful inheritance. The Valladolid debates dealing with the question of how the Spanish should treat the Native Americans way back in the 15th century have the first inklings of that mode of thought, and that was far before philosophical naturalism in its modern for came about. It was only later, when Lamarck, Darwin and company began to elucidate their theories of evolution, did a more 'naturalistic' explanation of race evolve.

Fair. It's valid to say that the process predates the late XVIII and XIX Centuries, but I would still argue that it was only then when it reached full maturity.

But even then it still retained its fundamentally metaphysical character. Louis Agassiz, the famous biologist and geologist, was a creationist who believed that God created the races separately. Georges Cuvier, the anatomist and paleontologist, believed likewise. The first evolutionists (from who we can pinpoint the origins of modern 'naturalist' conceptions of humanity and nature) like Darwin and Lamarck did not generally believe in race as a biological concept. The history of 'scientific' racism in the 19th and early 20th century is less of it flowing naturally out of a naturalist science, but of a pre-modern view informed by ideology and religious doctrine that people like Ernst Haeckel tried very hard to shoehorn into science, but never quite succeeded at.