| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 3:59:27 PM | Why don't you list the charitable organizations founded and operated by atheists that feed and clothe the poor or help them out in other ways.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates in 2000 and doubled in size by Warren Buffett in 2006. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and, in the United States, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. (Bill Gates is an American entrepreneur, software executive, philanthropist and an atheist.)
S.H.A.R.E. -- Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort, a 25-year old organization.
Fred Hollows Foundation -- This Foundation has worked in 29 countries and has restored sight to more than a million people. Even after he was diagnosed with cancer Fred continued with his work. He died 11 years ago. Fred was very outspoken on his atheist beliefs. His widow, Gabi Hollows took over the Foundation after his death.
Second Harvest Food Bank -- Each year, the America's Second Harvest Network provides food assistance to more than 25 million low-income hungry people in the United States, including more than 9 million children and nearly 3 million seniors.
Rethink -- Working together to help everyone affected by severe mental illness recover a better quality of life.
Mama's Kitchen -- "Nurturing the heart, one meal at a time." -- While the world waits for a cure, Mama’s Kitchen, a non-profit charitable organization, delivers food and support to San Diegans affected by AIDS or other critical illnesses. We care for every man, woman and child – straight and gay, every color and every race.
Heifer Project International -- which provides income-producing animals to promote self-reliance for families and communities in poverty-stricken areas. Families that receive gifts of animals are required to pass on one or more of their animal's offspring to other needy families. Only 6% goes to admin costs, although fund raising costs are a healthy chunk at nearly 20%.
Etc.
On topic...
One of the "evil" of religion in my opinion is that it seems to perpetuate the myth that only religious people can be and/or do "good".
| |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 5:00:01 PM | post #173
The bible is talking about anal intercourse
If that were the case, it would also have proscribed by stoning to death couples where a man lies with a female as with a man.
- not exactly good clean sex is it?
Good clean sex, is a matter of preference and point of view. Provided that it is not coercive and that the sex is genuinely consensual and doesn't involve minors or animals....what people choose to do in the privacy of their own space is a matter for the participants.
One of the evils of religion is to impose on non adherants the sexual values and preferences prescribed or proscribed by the dogmas of the dominant religion of the time.
Religion has contributed to the sum total of human misery by taking an unhealthy interest in what individuals choose to do sexually in the privacy of their own space. Religious institutions that have anathema'd the use of the condom in sexual intercourse by its believers because of some scriptural dogma, have helped to undermine the effectiveness of the harm minimisation strategies of the anti AIDS campaign for believers and non believers alike....hardly a good way of promoting good clean sex I think.
The notion of sex being clean or dirty is a most unhelpful concept when it comes to the development of sexuality......minimise harm and manage risks yes....but aesthetics....that is a personal matter | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 9:02:05 PM | Madfiddler:
No, indeed you are correct and verging is the gentle way to put it.
Thanks TMF. I'm trying to be a nice guy, the "newer" "gentler" atheist... 
E.Kyro :
Why don't you list the charitable organizations founded and operated by atheists that feed and clothe the poor or help them out in other ways.
Old Soul replies msg 178... 'nuff said. Well done OS... facts are the strongest foundation of any argument, kudos.
Ravenstar, excellent use of factual information and how it applies, msg 165 and 175 kudos, keep it up.
HarveyLemmings, great use of both of the above mentioned, glad to see you here. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/1/2008 10:20:56 PM | In a way I agree, there are a huge number of wars that would never have been fought if it hadnt been for religion. I see religion as being one of the biggest obstacles to true social development I guess man can always find an excuse other then the truth for his failures....finding fault in religion is a good one i guess.....wars & wrong are created by those that have no values...there faught for Power not God.....find another scape goat, The true servant to God serves God with love & compassion.......
So what was the motivating factor behind the crusades and the inquisition if it wasn't religion? What is the motivating factor behind someone's extreme hate like Phelps and his family if it isn't religion? What is the motivating factor behind islamic fundamentalists when they crash aircraft into buildings if it isn't religion?? In regard to your statement:
wars & wrong are created by those that have no values
Yet religion is supposed to instill "values" or morality as it were. So let's take the crusades for example, where was the morality in it? What great moral force was it that drove christians to slaughter muslims and vice versa? I will give you a hint... it starts with "G" and ends with "D"... Do you say that the combined slaughter of the crusades was moral thing, if so, who's morals?? THe crusaders or the sarracins??
Why did islamic fundamentalists fly aircraft into skyscrapers?? If they did NOT believe in a god, do you think they would have done this? This leads me to another question, and it may have already been asked... but how many people have been slaughtered in the name of atheism as compared to in the name of a god?
Just saw this:
No, indeed you are correct and verging is the gentle way to put it...as usual in this type of argument, we slipped over the brink from verging into what one of the mods (late, in rapier like jab of wit) has coined so deftly, "tu quoque of the playground fallacy"...to be redefined on the spot as needed as soon as the current argument begins to fail...followed by echoing cries of "neener neener neener." The irony is that rather than intelligently making a point or counterpoint, you simply said that.
Rather uncalled for Lemmings, I would say apologies are in order... | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 12:05:51 AM |
Nationality is irrelevant. John Walker Lindh is from California, didn't stop him from joining up with the Taliban.
No it is NOT irrelevant... Yes it is. Even if all of the hijackers were of Iraqi descent it wouldn't mean Iraq had something to do with 9/11, the same way an American could hijack a plane and fly it into the Eiffel Tower without the US government having sanctioned his action. We're fighting an ideology, not a nationality. I thought that was obvious to even the most ignorant, but you've proven me wrong. that fact of the matter is that no Iraqi was involved in 911 Correct. ...and the fact is that the terrorists WERE Arabian...a country, although islamic, is one of the wests Allies, or so they say. 15 of the 19 terrorists were of Saudi descent. Yes, Saudi Arabia is one of our allies. Saudi Arabia called the attack "regrettable and inhuman" the very day it happened, whereas (if I recall correctly) Iraq was the only country where the press celebrated the attacks. Regardless, nationality is irrelevant. The hijackers didn't do what they did because they're Saudi, they did it because they're religious fundamentalists. (they sure spend a lot of time at the Whitehouse) A very important ally of the US geographically located in the middle east? Yes, I should very much hope that communications are open and often. Of course it's relevant...and we weren't fighting the Taliban (that's Afghanistan and Iran, not Iraq) It's Al Quaeda that took responisibility for 911. Oh wow, you're really ill informed. al Qaeda were the masterminds behind the September 11th attacks, this is true. But the Taliban in Afghanistan gave them aid and shelter, making them accountable. The west removed a friend of militant Islam, good. The Taliban could care less about us (except as an example to hold up about "western decadence")...they are a fanatical, fundamentalist group trying to make their countries islamic fundamental theocracies(remember the Ayatollah?) They could care less about us in the sense that they're nothing more than simple barbarians satisfied with ruling over what little land they lord over. But they absolutely despise our way of life, make no mistake there. And they are directly responsible for giving aid to al Qaeda. Iraq was a secular country Wrong. that was NOT involved in either the Taliban nor Al Quaeda (there may have been some individuals.. who knows, but none have surfaced) Actually a few individuals have surfaced. And there was a link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Certainly not to the extent of the Taliban and Afghanistan, but a link nonetheless. Saddam was a despot, for sure...and he was PUT THERE by the US many moons ago, but he did not tolerate any factions that were a threat to his regime... and that would include the Taliban. You are correct, and nobody has ever suggested that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were in cahoots. Furthermore, you point out that the US installed Saddam as if it weakens my argument when in reality it strengthens it. The US did bring Saddam to power and it's about time we did something to begin to pay the Iraqi people back for that. I don't watch news on TV very often(I have better sources), but right from day one (yes, 911) this whole conflict was propagandized as an ideological conflict. Remeber Bush's "Axis of Evil".. what the hell is that if not inflammatory religious jargon? Whatever problems you may have with the 'axis of evil' comment, it wasn't based on religion. You're going to have to cite many more examples to prove your assertion here. What legitimate reasons are there for the invasion of a Sovereign country against the will of the UN? A country that was NOT involved in 911? Under UN law, a state loses its sovereignty when it does one of four things 1. If it participates in regular aggressions against neighboring states or occupations of their territory 2. If it violates the letter and spirit of the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in other words, fools around promiscuously with the illegal acquisition of weapons of mass destruction 3. If it should violate the Genocide Convention, the signatories to which are obliged without further notice to act either to prevent or punish genocide; and 4. If it plays host to international gangsters, nihilists, terrorists, and jihadists. Iraq did all four of those things, it was certainly not a sovereign country. People in power...whether a minister or a President are the ones who make POLICY.. they are the ones who people listen to and get their dumbass ideas from. Without some kind of authority or power there can be no influence or manipulation. Oh I agree. But people have more than enough dumb ideas to come up with on their own, they don't need to believe that, for example, land in Israel is holy. Look at this thread...it has gone from discussing if religion is the evil in the world to political and ideological debate...using religion as the basis.
Because they're intertwined. People are doing evil things in the name of religion, and they are our enemies. People are our enemies? Which people? ALL religious people? I was referring to radical Islam, but I absolutely believe that religion is a danger to humanity. People (namely those in power) are doing evil things and using religion as a justification for their own greed and ego...yes. I concur. I didn't say that. But "religion" is not making them do this.. it's just helping them to feel justified.. it's a psychological defense mechanism whereby they don't have to be accountable for their greed. No, it comes from religion. Nobody would believe that certain parts of the earth are holier than others without religion, nor would they fly airplanes into office buildings, etc, etc, et-freaking cetera. The current administration hyped up it's desire to take control of Iraq(which was in the works BEFORE 911) by playing on the fears of their people and by turning it into a religious and ideological conflict Stop right there. I won't have you flaunting that around as if it were fact. The Iraq war was not advertised as Christianity vs. Islam. Obviously those topics came up and are relevant to the discussion, but WMD hold no faith and most people would agree that WMD were the single most advertised rationale for war. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 7:04:52 AM | RE msg 163:
HarveyLemmings: I did not suggest that the world would be a perfect place without religion. Just that it takes the problems we already have as a species and multiplies them.
scorpiomover: Stalin killed 20 million, because he believed they were a threat to the U.S.S.R. Not because of religion. The problems we already have as a species tends to multiply without religion.
HarveyLemmings: Wow, you really missed my point.
Did I say Stalin killed 20 million because of the church? No. I said he rose to power by taking advantage of the servility the church had hammered into generations of Russians.
scorpiomover: Actually, they were afraid of the Russian army. Did you know that the Russian army was ordered to advance by as much as 30 km a day, at a minimum, and if they didn't, they would all be shot? So they did. They lost a ridiculous number of soldiers, but they did. Being in the Russian Army meant you would do what you were told, no matter how twisted and sick it was, because the punishment for disobeying a superior officer was usually death, and a painful one at that, with no court martial. It was done on the spot by your own squad. So you didn't disobey anyone who controlled the Russian Army, and neither did the soldiers in the Russian Army, and that was the Tsar. The Tsar's power base was the same as the Roman Emperors', military power.
HarveyLemmings: Well I must concede your point that armies are an important part of totalitarianism but I dare say you missed mine. 1) I have no idea why you are bringing the subject of armies and totalitarianism to due with why Stalin rose to power, and if the Russian people were servile, either to the Church, or anyone else. Can you please explain what the hell you are talking about?
2) Where do you get the idea that during the Russian Monarchy, that Russia was a Totalitarian Regime? Totalitarianism is when the state regulates everything, and whether in public or in private. The Russian Monarchy never did that. It was a dictatorship. So I have no idea why you are bringing totalitarianism into this thread.
Are you claiming that Communist Russia was a Totalitarian Regime? Please note that it was one of the few examples in history of a state founded and run on Atheism. Is this what we are to expect from any world without religion? That our every move will be watched, and that the Secret Police will come and take 20 million away, just from Russia alone? What a liberal place you propose.
3) You claimed that the reason why Stalin rose to power was because of Russian servility. But Stalin was a serving member of the Communist Party, who was voted into his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party by the other members of the Communist Party, and then used his position to gain control of the Communist Party. Notice that the Russian People had no involvement with this process whatsoever. So where do you get the idea that Stalin rose to power because of Russian servility?
Despite what you suggest, meteorology does not affect cultural credulity. 1) You are trying to use words such as "meteorology", "cultural" and "credulity", which are words that are not often used by most people, for what purpose? Normally, most people I know would describe such speech as "hiding behind big words". So let's take the big words away and use simple more understandable language for everyone to REALLY see what you are saying:
meteorology = the study of weather
cultural = of or relating to culture
credulity = tendency to believe readily
Translating your sentence into simpler English, that gives:
Despite what you suggest, the study of weather does not affect the tendency to believe readily that is of a given culture.
Either way you cut it, you suggest that studying the weather makes a culture, not a people, more likely to believe what they are told.
But being servile means that you just do as you are told. That has absolutely nothing to do with being gullible enough to accept whatever you are told, nor does that have anything to do with the study of the weather. I don't know where you get these ideas from.
But let me make my point again, to you, like I would to a 3-year-old. You might get it, if you're lucky.
If a person is willing to go along with anything, then they won't fight anything if they don't want to do it.
If they won't fight anything, then they won't fight the weather.
If they won't fight the weather, and the weather is freezing cold, so cold you could die, you'll die from too much cold. That's called Hypothermia.
How cold does Russia get? Well, in the warmest places, it gets to -15C and in the coldest places it gets to -60C. How cold is that?
Well, at -15C, American cars don't run. Not just one or two. Most of them.
At -23C, your eyes freeze shut when you blink.
At -60C, Polar bears move South.
That's a Russian winter for you.
Now, if you can survive that, then would you be afraid of that much? No.
Would you be afraid of a priest telling you that you will go to hell? Not really. Hell passes through once a year, and stays for months.
Would you be afraid of anything other than maybe starving to death, or being killed by a soldier? No way in hell. You've survived hell. How bad can it be?
Because without religion far less people would believe homosexuality is immoral, there would be no Fred Phelps protesting soldiers funerals, I quote my own message (Msg 154) in reply to YOUR message (Msg 151):
Don't tell me Fred Phelps and his detestable family would protest the funerals of US soldiers with signs that say 'God Bless IED's' unless that kind of morality was plainly taught in the bible. This is what G-d has to say about those who torments widows and orphans, such as those who turn up at the funerals of US soldiers and say that they deseved to die in front of their wives and children: Do not torment any widow or orphan. If you torment any one of them at all, that they cry out to me in anguish and pain, I will certainly hear his/her cry. My anger will be as if it was literally on fire, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives will become widows and your children fatherless. Exodus 22:22-24 If there is ONE group of people that G-d REALLY has it in for, it's those who torment the widows and orphans. There is a special circle of Hell, reserved just for Fred Phelps, and his supporters.
no holy wars against small countries printing cartoons, etc. When I was a teen, we used to have this Nintendo game, called "Fire". It was a great game. You had to play a fireman, and catch babies falling out of buildings. A whole load of mothers complained about the game, and it got banned, because not all the babies would get saved by people playing the game. They said it was barbaric and might give kids ideas. Now, I knew loads of people who played it, and NO-ONE thought it meant that one should chuck babies out of windows. There was never one report of anyone copying the game. That is infringement of freedom of expression, because there was no harm in the game at all. Remember, the UK is a secular state, like Denmark. But our rights of freedom of expression were denied us.
If you really believe that it is OK to show cartoons are not offensive, then how about publishing an adaptation of "When the Wind Blows", which was a children's book, depicting the deaths of people from a nuclear bomb and the corresponding nuclear fallout, except that in the adaptation, it would show the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about a cartoon of the Vietnamese civilians who died or got horribly mutilated from napalm? Why do we never see cartoons like that?
It's because the West suppresses such cartoons. The proof is Spider-Man.
Why were the Twin Towers cut out of Spider-Man? Why was it deemed that a film's media should be curtailed just because the American public would find it offensive? American movies are shown in cinemas, on TV, and sold as DVDs, in every country in the world, so sales aren't dictated solely by America or even the West. The only reason is that people in the West would be offended, and there would be pressure brought to bear against the studio.
There is one other culture where cartoons were only displayed that were in support of the country. The U.S.S.R. But as you pointed out, that was a Totalitarian Regime.
When I see cartoons that are extremely offensive to non-religious Americans being shown and not being recalled or protested, I might believe that the West is a place of freedom of expression. Till then, I'm not buying it.
Also, I will agree that holy wars cannot be fought without theism, because the word in English means something associated with a divine power. So by definition, a holy thing requires the existence of a divine being. But all that means is that an atheist cannot fight a holy war, because of the use of the word. But the Bishop of Durham said that one doesn't need to believe in G-d to be a good Christian. So the words "holy war" cannot be applied to religion as a group, but only to theists. Also, theists don't need to belong to a religion. So one can claim to fight a "holy war" and still not belong to any religion.
If we then wish to use the words "holy war" to apply to religion, we must remove the requirement of it applying only to theists. Also, if we wish to understand the notion of a holy war, as opposed to any other type of war, we must be able to extend that principle to all people, atheists and theists, religious and non-religious alike. Now, a holy war is generally understood to mean a war that is approved and required by an authority that happens to be a divine being. So the understanding of a "holy war" can only be any war that is approved and required by an authority, such as a government. This would make sense, because if a theistic state declared a war, that would be a war approved by their god/gods, which would make it a holy war. So if a secular state declared a war, that would be the equivalent. So, the practical understanding of a "holy war" is any war that is approved and required by an authority, such as a government. That would exclude the American Civil War, because there was no single authority in that war. But that would include any other war that the US government required to be fought, such as Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, and if any future wars sanctioned by the US government.
So I don't see "holy wars" going away, even if you get rid of religion. Only the literal definition of "holy war". But not the concept and not the atrocities.
I'm not saying that an atheist is less or more likely to commit a murder than a religious person (assuming we're talking about everyday, normal people here). I didn't post that you SAID it overtly. I posted that it was a necessary requirement for your statement to be true.
Also, you never specified that you were talking about everyday, normal people. If you were, then I would immediately point out that all everyday, normal people don't ever want to be priests and never are. Nor are everyday, normal people the kings, queens and nobles of history. Since all wars that have an affiliation with religion were declared to have that affiliation either by priests, or by kings, queens or nobles, no everyday, normal person ever ordered such a war.
But a religious person, again allowing the assumption that they really believe it, can be preached something vile in the name of god. That is an assumption, one that you have no ability to make, without predicating all of your examples on the basis that it is true. Since I can question that assumption, any conclusions that you reach are based on that assumption, and merely because I can question that assumption, your argument is not true, until you prove that assumption.
something vile in the name of god. Now you are saying something that is vile. Well, what is vile? Something morally reprehensible. But morality according to religion comes from that religion, according to G-d. So if something is unanimously vile, then G-d believes it vile too. In which case, those preachers are false preachers, preaching against the Will of G-d. If it is not unanimous, then what proof is there that all non-religious people will believe it to be vile, just because you think it is vile? Also, what proof is there that what you think is not vile, that all non-religious people will agree with you? How do you know that you are not vile to most non-religious people?
I'll use my above example of homosexuality. What truly believing Christian can look at
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
and not see it for what it is? It isn't a metaphor, it's an attack on homosexuality. The otherwise tolerant Christian has been manipulated by religion to view homosexuals as dirty, something that could never happen to an atheist. The Bible also says that "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day" in Exodus 35:2. When did you notice Christians not having lit any form of fire, including a bar-b-q on a Sunday? So you cannot just quote one verse out of the Bible, and criticise Christians, and expect people to take you seriously.
Also, please enlighten me where you know plenty of tolerant Christians who attack homosexuals? The only ones you quoted are Fred Phelps, and I've already shown that he is going completely against the Bible. He's just an intolerant bigot.
HarveyLemmings: An atheist could develop a nuclear weapon. Only a theist would believe that thermonuclear war is the final step before the glorious rapture.
scorpiomover: The A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were revenge for Pearl Harbour, and to show American might. Religion had nothing to do with it.
HarveyLemmings: Two, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't revenge.
scorpiomover: Let's get something straight: Half of London was bombed into oblivion. It was so dangerous that most of the children in London were evacuated, and were not able to see their parents for years. Coventry was bombed almost into oblivion, so much so that there are only a few roads that survived out of the whole city. This is something that has marked and changed the British people from then on, because everyone who was under 16 during 1940-1945 was evacuated, and has issues with being away from their parents at a young age. But British people don't constantly mention it. We don't make films like Americans do about Pearl Harbour. We don't bother discussing it in anywhere near as much as Americans mention Pearl Harbour. You Americans are obsessed with Pearl Harbour. Face it.
HarveyLemmings: What the hell does the bombing of London have to do with the United States dropping bombs on Japan? If you wanted to attack what you perceive as American obsession with Pearl Harbor you should have posted it in a relevant thread. It's really simple. The bombing of London is similar to the attack on Pearl Harbour. But we got hammered far worse than America ever did and most of those people were civilians. So if anyone has a right to go on about any attacks during WWII, it's the Brits, not the Americans. However, as I pointed out, we Brits don't go on and on about the London Bombings, but you Americans go on and on about Pearl Harbour. We didn't see a need to bomb any country with a nuclear weapon, and we still don't. You did. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if you got attacked by someone, and then go on and on about that attack, and then you stabbed the guy 15 times, that you would be considered a suspect, with revenge for the previous attack as a motive. That motive has been cited many times and accepted in your own courts. Don't be obtuse.
Citing London is extremely relevant, because it shows that Americans took an extreme reaction, because "they were attacked", as if "they were the only one", when they weren't. That's an irrational emotional reaction, which usually results in other irrational emotional reactions, such as revenge.
A theoretical 'what-if' universe where Pearl Harbor never happened does not concern me, nor does it have anything to do, again, with what actually happened. The Scientific Method works roughly as follows:
1) Propose a hypothesis.
2) Then propose a hypothetical situation wherein if the hypothesis would be true, one resut would be expected, and if the hypothesis would be false, another different result would be expected.
3) Then either enact the hypothetical situation as an experiment and collect the results, or take an existing situation that matches the hypothetical situation, and collect the results.
4) Show by the type of results obtained, if the hypothesis was true or false.
I have applied the Scientific Method to the situation of Pearl Harbour. Yet you deny clearly claim it does not concern you. Do you now deny the validity of the Scientific Method? Are you anti-science?
What're you talking about? The bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 and the Soviets didn't test their first nuclear weapon in 1949. OK. I got my figures wrong on this one. I read it when I was 7. But the book was put in my garage, and everything was sold while I was abroad. Serves me right for not checking my facts
However, does a 4-year gap constitute a serious tactical advantage, if that advanced weaponry is not used in the meantime? Maybe, if American forces fought a war during 1945-1949. But the next war that America fought was the Korean War, which didn't start until 1950. So the advantage was never used. So no advantage was ever gained. So where is the display of power? How can you display yourself as powerful, if by the time you need it, the other side has it as well?
Because it's so incredibly childish and flippant. A country that would unleash two nuclear weapons out of simple, blunt revenge would never have lasted long enough to develop into a world power in the first place. That is an assumption, based on what? Your own beliefs? Alexander the Great mounted his campaign against Persia, only because Persia beat his father. He managed to establish a world power, that is unequalled, even by American standards, because the known civilised world was completely conquered by Alexander, but the known civilised world has NEVER been conquered in any way, shape or form, voluntarily or otherwise, by the US. Nor has it the power to do so.
I suppose you would also tell me that the Roman Emperors weren't petty, selfish or vindictive?
I suppose you would tell me that The Roman Empire was not a world power?
I suppose you would tell me that the USA which is less than 250 years old, has survived far longer than the Roman Empire?
Where do you get these ideas?
I am not saying that war is solely caused by religion. But it has directly caused countless atrocities, and the one thing I really cannot emphasize enough is how some things could ONLY be caused by religion. Like what? Thumbscrews? The Iron Maiden? Fire Ships? All used without any reason for religion. Again the vapid observation that something bad exists outside of religion.
What is vapid, is your vapid desire to only take any interest in that which supports your beliefs, to attack that which doesn't, and to attempt to devalue that which proves your opinions are not right.
None of what you said contradicts my assertion that religion has made the conflict worse. Are you slow, or something? What makes you think that just because 2 people don't agree on everything that they would fight more, because of a difference of opinion? I've got loads of friends who are atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and all sorts. Some are arabs. We sometimes argue. But it's not made worse because of religion.
Let me first get this out of the way: don't for a second expect anybody with a brain to believe that Muslims and Jews fighting each other has nothing to do with religion. Arabs and Jews got along well enough for hundreds of years. Not perfectly, but who gets along perfectly for hundreds of years? But they got along. The conflict would never have existed if the British had been straight up. Now, it's just a case of 2 groups who both feel offended and hurt by the other.
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51) But they DO. My uncle was friends with his Arab neighbours for many years, until his passing. So are many Arabs. It's only the young Arabs who seem to have a problem, because they are uneducated about history, and listen to propaganda by corrupt leaders, as so many young people do today.
Besides, all this says is to not take Jews or Christians as best "friends". You cannot say that it doesn't mean best friends, because you cannot read Arabic. It doesn't get Muslims cannot get on with them, in any way, shape or form.
"The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18) Now, you are quoting a section of the Koran which gives an answer to Christian Missionaries. That doesn't mean that Muslims cannot get on with them, either.
But while we're at it, let's also analyse another point. Your 2 quotes in msg 158, are both quoting the wrong verse. I got suspicious. So I googled them. Guess what I found? Yes, your "source":
UNHOLY QUOTES FROM THE KORAN THAT PROMOTE TERRORISM
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/koran.html
You claim to be against religion, and claim things about the Koran, yet you plagiarise quotes from a site that is run by Christian Apologetics, who put up a page just to attack Islam. You don't even bother to read the Koran in full. You just take it from an already biased source. Not only that, but a source which is directly opposed to your own reasoning.
So your quotes are ALL based on what other people have claimed. How would that be different than someone who just blindly believes what they are told, without at least bothering to read the real thing, and make your own mind up? How can you possibly say that you don't automatically believe any rubbish that you read or hear? I am thankful that you are not religious. What would you think, if you watched a TV evangelist? It's no wonder you think that religious people blindly believe everything they hear, if this blatant copying of an anti-Islamic site, without any thought, is an example of what you do. But stop judging others by your low standards. Not everyone is that gullible.
Amongst others. Those verses are not my opinion, they're not a point of view, they are factually canon in the Islamic faith. No. The Arabic Koran is a canon in the Islamic faith. Your personal interpretation of those verses, is a matter of your personal opinion, which you have already made clear. So you are posting subjectively.
Second of all I never said that the sole source of strife between Palestine and Israel was religion. Just that without religion peace would have been made by now. But people don't act that way. I've got 2 friends, who were friends since they were 4, till they were 30 and 32 respectively. Then a man came between them, and said nasty things about one to the other, and they got into an argument over it, and they stopped getting on. They haven't resolved it, even 6 years later. Once you cause two people or two groups to dislike each other, it doesn't go away, just because you decide to leave. It stops, when you admit that you were the one at fault to each party, which the British have never done.
Don't ignore the teensy, tiny detail of Jerusalem being claimed by both religions. Jerusalem is the one city that both have equal access to, with the one exception of the Temple Mount, that the Jews have conceded to the Arabs. How can that be of issue, when it's equal for both, and better for the Arabs?
The big difference being corruption is something we frown upon and generally fight against wherever possible. Nobody is suggesting that some kinds of corruption are OK. If you claim that corruption is the fault of religion, then you are implying that such forms of corruption without the influence of religion, which exist within your own government, ARE OK.
Atheists are immoral all the time, claiming that we are all animals That isn't an immoral claim, it's a factual observation.
and that evolution promotes the success of the most selfish animal Quite the opposite. The human species wouldn't have survived without its ingrained solidarity.
Such people even blame women for being raped, because "humans are animals", and "men are biologically programmed to spread their seed", and it is the womans' problem to make sure that she is not alone with a man You know very well that that is not an atheist belief.
And yet religion has allowed crackpot reverends to go on national TV and fool people into believing otherwise. Religion is a thing, not a person. Only a person can allow something to happen, and only a person can not allow something to happen, like yourself, such as protesting to your government to enforce responsibility on the media to report what is true. Unless you have joined a march against that, you are the one who is allowing this to happen.
Well the bible doesn't blame homosexuality for terrorism but it certainly calls it an abomination. The word is To'evah. You don't have a translation for it, to begin with.
Also, when has calling something abominable meant blaming it for terrorism? Rape is abominable. I suppose that rape is to blame for terrorists? What, are you going to say that all terrorists were raped?
You're missing it, the vital point isn't the lie it's how many people believe the lie to be the word of god thanks to religion. You know damn well that many people believe what they watch on TV by a figure of authority, whether it is said by a religous figure or a secular figure. It's got nothing to do with religion. I suppose that you are going to tell me that the people in the UK who believed Tony Blair that Iraq could attack Britain in 45 minutes with a WMD, believed him because he announced he was a Catholic, 5 years AFTER his announcement, and their belief.
Most people who believe this, believe the reverend because they are used to accepting the claims of national public figures who go on TV, such as politicians, and by extension they accept reverends as well, because TV does not distinguish between political leaders and evangelists. I would strongly disagree with that. Nobody who is going to buy into Jerry Falwell's BS is just a casual fan, they're a dyed in the wool Christian.
He isn't lying, though. I am sure that every time he spewed something hateful he could find scripture to support it. You keep quoting scripture, and I keep showing how you are deliberately misleading the truth. You might believe such things, but that doesn't make it true. It just would mean that you have are gullible enough to believe whatever you are told.
I assume you're talking about the incident in Denmark.
For one, the cartoons were certainly nothing to get offended by, let alone protest. If that was true, then why do American politicians hate Michael Moore so much? He's just a film-maker. It's not like it's different to cartoons.
Also, then if no-one found cartoons offensive, then they wouldn't find video games offensive too. So why was the game "Fire" banned?
Violence and jihad are unacceptable responses to political satire and no free society should tolerate it. Arabs take insults very seriously, and by insulting Mohammed, those cartoons insulted their way of life. The way they see it, they were defending their way of life.
We don't suspend our freedom of speech for a group of barbarians. The Romans were the ones to coin the word "Barbarian". But the Romans used to Crucify Christians. I suppose that you believe in that?
Also, since when were you free to call for an overthrow of your government? So how can you say you are free?
And if it takes our troops to defeat that kind of mentality then we should be very proud. But they haven't. They haven't yet, and there is no clear end in sight either. How can you be proud of defeating a kind of mentality that says that you have every right to offend anyone you want in a cartoon? After all, if cartoons are not offensive, then what's wrong with calling a woman a whore in a cartoon? Are you saying that you should be proud to have your troops defend the kind of mentality that says that you have every right to call a woman a whore?
Now, I'll ask you a different question: let's see if you have the brains to figure this one out:
A newspaper only makes money on its sales. So newspapers regularly sensationalise information. Sometimes they even print information that caused deaths, such as when newspapers have printed the details of a man on trial for child abuse, who was cleared of all charges and shown to be completely innocent, and ended up being killed as a result of people reading the newspaper, which implied he was guilty, who then went after him, and killed him.
Also, journalists have to be aware of how people will react to their stories. It's part of the job to understand people, and to understand how things can be represented and how they affect people. So there is no way that any editor would not know what effect these cartoons would cause.
If this newspaper had published a different type of cartoon, it would have remained with the same amount of circulation. By publishing an inflammatory cartoon, they gained notoriety, and their sales would have gone up massively overnight. In other words, there was a lot of money to be gained, if they knew the harm this cartoon could cause, before they published it. That provides motive.
The cartoons were put there deliberately to raise circulation.
Now, it's not any of my business if they deliberately published a cartoon that caused the destruction of their own building. But embassies were blown up, and they KNEW that this would happen.
They chose to make money off other people's deaths. What is the difference between them and an arms dealer? Neither pulls the trigger. Both merely provide the ammunition.
That doesn't mean I can't give you plenty of in context verses that are less than admirable. You've tried that already. All you've shown is that it is possible to be deliberately misleading. Heck, I could quote Jane Austen and show that it's against marriage, because most of the characters who attempt marriage seem to end up not that happy. But it's not. You can twist almost any book to represent something that is not there. That doesn't make you clever. That makes you sly and devious.
Of course supplying something shameful from the Christian bible doesn't affect Judaism, for example. No, it doesn't, because Christianity and Judaism became based on 2 completely separate sets of foundations, since 50 AD, only 50 years after Jesus was born.
Each religion has its own small details to point out. You can pick on just about anything, and twist the truth, if you have a deliberate bent to. That doesn't mean it's true. That just means that you twist the truth to depict what you want to believe. Nietzsche called this the Will To Truth. He said that all were capable of this, atheists and religious alike.
But on a larger scale all religions have one thing in common, and that is that they ask us to give up our ability to reason. No religion, to my knowledge, asks anyone to give up reason. But I know many governments who do.
Also, think about it: G-d gave you a brain. Why would he want you to waste it? So I have to conclude, that if you believe that religion gives up your ability to reason, it is only because you have given up YOUR OWN ability to reason. At least, as far as this and other such comments go.
Your witless parroting is growing quite tiresome. If you would make sense, I would stop showing you how ridiculous your comments sound.
My assertion is that anybody who thinks their holy book only contains 'thou shalt not kill' is missing lots of other parts, and that is very important to point out if somebody is calling it the word of god. My assertion is that anybody who thinks that a holy book that contains 'thou shalt not kill' as part of the fundamental principles of that book, such as in the Ten Commandments, contains lots of other parts that overrule this, are completely ignoring how clearly 'thou shalt not kill' is made as part of that book, and that is very important to point out if somebody is claiming that such a holy book has been the cause of much unnecessary murder.
Your assertion seems to be that anybody who says that the modern day holy books only contain immorality is missing lots of other parts, and that is true. Your assertion seems to be that anybody who says that the modern day holy books only contain immorality is missing lots of other parts, and that is true.
But do you continue to miss the point? If somebody is going to tell me that the bible is the word of god then it doesn't matter how many 'love thy neighbor's and 'blessed are the meek's there are because it only takes one 'a priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death' to discredit the whole thing. Well, if you are going to tell me that one thing that you can only POSSIBLY show as being critical, discredits the whole body of work, then I will pose you a question:
If somebody is going to tell me that the laws of your country claim that people are "presumed are innocent until proven guilty", then it doesn't matter how many freedoms there are, because it only takes one a suspected terrorist may be held without charge, to discredit the whole claim of American freedom.
The debate over the true interpretation of the texts would remain a harmless archeological one without the belief in god behind it. The debate over the true interpretation of the texts would remain a harmless one without the attacks against religion behind it.
You're impossibly sure of yourself, friend. No. I just check up what you say, and find flaws in all of it. It's not my fault if I verify your claims, and they have no foundation. That is you appealing to lesser minds.
One thing we can agree on is that there are multiple translations of the Koran. Who are you and I to say which is the definitive version? Not you. Which means all of your claims have no basis in reality.
Just as I cannot claim one to be more legitimate than the other, nor can you call any of the viewpoints definitively wrong. But you are the one who is making libellous claims. That would be no different than me claiming that all atheists are paedophiles, and finding a support from an atheist website written in a foreign language, with 2 possible translations of that website. You would expect me to recant my claim that all atheists are paedophiles. Why should you have a one rule for yourself and a completely different rule for everyone else?
The Japanese in World War II believed Hirohito to be divine, they were dying for their god. No. They were dying for Japan. It's part of the Japanese code, to follow duty, even unto death, whether for a god or a man. Anyway, dying for their god is nothing like dying to be rewarded by your G-d.
Brilliant, Independence Day in religious debate! Well, there are numerous other examples of American soldiers who committed such actions in war, but that would have taken a little longer to come up with. If you will make extensive faulty arguments, I'm gonna run a little short on time to research them all in great depth.
Randy Quaid's decision was a calculated sacrifice. He made the mental connection that his one death would save others, most importantly his children. A "No True Scotsman" argument. He's not a "true" suicide, because he made a "calculated" decision. I suppose you think all terrorists just think with their penis. How on Earth did they manage to even learn to fly a plane into a building? Did Allah do it for them? Or was taking flying lessons NOT a "calculated decision"?
That is not at all the same as car bombing a night club to kill 20 infidels for leaving the house without their husbands. That is NOT why they do it, and you know that. But if that is what you think, then I pity you, for even these suicide bombers don't think Americans kill others just so that women can leave the house. Even in Muslim countries, women are allowed to go shopping.
bin Laden is an Islamic fascist, why would we ever show him any concession of diplomacy? Diplomacy is the art of convincing someone that they want to do something, that is against their own wants and needs. The WHOLE PURPOSE OF DEMOCRACY IS TO GET WHAT YOU WANT FROM PEOPLE WHO WON'T LISTEN TO REASON! Diplomacy isn't a concession, and nor is it a privilege. Diplomacy is what you use AFTER every other form of communication fails. Not using diplomacy is saying you want Bin Laden to NOT do what you want.
We weren't in Iraq in 2001 and he still seemed to have a bit of a problem. He was on good terms with your country for many years. For many years, the Americans HELPED Bin Laden. His religious beliefs haven't changed. His only desire was for the Russians and the Americans and all the other Western countries to stay out of Muslim countries. So he hasn't changed. All that happened was that before, the Russians were in Afghanistan, and the Americans were loathe to go into Muslim-controlled countries, because of the help the Russians were giving to these countries. Once the U.S.S.R. fell, U.S. forces started interfering in such countries, when only the U.N. has a right to start going in to these countries, because it represents most of the countries in the world, including many of the Muslim countries. Why would your country help him and then turn on him? Could it be they were friendly only when it suited them? Do you really expect him to like you, if you are a selfish friend, who only helps when it suits you?
Are you kidding? Believe me, Americans are not rolling around in cheap oil. Oil > Consumption (most recent) by country
#1 United States: 20,730,000 bbl/day
#2 China: 06,534,000 bbl/day
#3 Japan: 05,578,000 bbl/day
#4 Germany: 02,650,000 bbl/day
#5 Russia: 02,500,000 bbl/day
#6 India: 02,450,000 bbl/day
#7 Canada: 02,294,000 bbl/day
Total: 82,234,918 bbl/day
Weighted average: 399,198.6 bbl/dayhttp://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
Whether you like it or not, your country uses 25% of the world's oil, and over 3 times what China and Japan use, over 10 times what everyone else use, and over 50 times the weighted average.
The U.S. government, as a whole, consumes not quite 2% of all the liquid fuel that the entire U.S. economy uses in a given year. That translates into about 440,000 barrels of oil per day, or slightly more than the entire output of the oil field at Prudhoe Bay, when the pipelines are not shut down due to corrosion. Multiply by 365 days per year, and the U.S. government burns up about 160 million barrels of oil per year, at a cost of something over $10 billion at recent price levels. http://www.peak-oil-news.info/military-oil-usage-statistics/
That leaves 98% of that oil for consumers. So 98% goes to you guys.
Even the UK only uses 1,827,000 bbl/day, which is 8% of US consumption. But we have 1/5 of your population, which means that even if we had the same size population as the US, we would still only use 44% of your level of consumption, which still means each American uses twice as much oil as us Brits.
That's theft, of the one thing that can help rebuild their country and save the lives of the poor and dying. US (and other) troops are in the country as we speak guarding the first democratically elected president of Iraq. I dare say that election would never have taken place without US and British troops, so don't suggest that humanitarian aid is not important.
The GDP of Iraq in 2006 was $89.8 billion, and the estimated population was 26,783,383, with a yearly GDP Per Capita of $2,900. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
The GDP of the United States in 2007 was $13.543 trillion, and the estimated population was 303,465,000, with a yearly GDP Per Capita of $43,444. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states
The GDP Per Capita actually computes to a little higher for both countries, as a GDP of $3,352.83 for each Iraqi and a GDP of $44, 627.88 for each American. But let's not quibble too much, and just assume that the quoted amounts are more accurate. Although you could rework the calculations if you see fit. But the percentages are not going to be substantially higher.
So it isn't a huge leap the average Iraqi earns 6.7%, approximately 7% of what the average US citizen earns. Even with the higher values, it comes out to 7.5%. Could you live on 7% of what you currently earn?
2) Now, let's look at Iraq's oil revenue. According to the Energy Information Administration, which provides the Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government, in 2006, Iraq produced 2.0077 million barrels a day. It's up to 2.4 million now. The price of oil was over $60 a barrel during 2006. That works out to $120.462 million dollars A DAY. No. That isn't in a year. That's A DAY. That's $43,998,745,500 or $44 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! Now, the GDP of Iraq in 2006 was $89.8 billion, which means that Iraq's oil revenue is 50% of its GDP.
See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentTotalOilSupplyBarrelsperDay.xls for the figures on Iraqi oil production.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004_and_2005 for the price of oil.
Where the hell does all of this money go to? Do Iraqis get paid 50% of their income by the state? If not, then how can their GDP be so small, when their oil makes so much money?
3) According to a survey quoted by Rory Bremner, in a serious programme on Iraq shown a few years ago, Iraqis were asked what type of leader they wanted. They wanted a strong, military leader. There were a few other characteristics, but it basically fitted the exact characteristics of Sadaam Hussein.
Now, consider: in history, how many times have countries had puppet governments installed when they were invaded by foreign armies, and how many had democratically elected governments? If ALL Americans were required to leave Iraq, and all current oil contracts with foreign companies made null and void, and THEN, the Iraqis held an election, I could see how it would conform to American definitions of democracy. However, it would be very difficult to believe that American politicians would not be influenced to have an undue sway over the choice of candidates to ensure that every candidate was in their back pocket. Europe has a history of doing such manoevures, and from what I understand, America is not full of honest politicians. There is just too much vested interest in oil to believe that American politicians would allow a purely free choice of government.
I am sure that American forces follow the instructions of the American government. So the American forces have upheld whatever is good for America, and what the American government says is good for America is control of oil, and that would naturally be counter to Iraqi interests, when oil represents so much of their income. So it's practically impossible for American and Iraqi interests to coincide, and therefore it's practically impossible for American forces to uphold Iraqi interests, which would be the interests and choices of the Iraqi people. So it's not feasible to even suggest that American forces are protecting Iraqi democracy.
I totally agree that humanitarian aid is important. Why are we still in Iraq, when so many are killed in Darfur? Why are we not giving all our support to Ethiopia and countries where they have famine, instead of a country like Iraq? Who are we protecting? Their oil never belonged to Americans, and Americans have no right to it. Why are they still there, when there is no way that they can possibly help Iraq in this situation? The only way America can be helpful, is if it is neutral, and it can only do that in Iraq by refusing all Iraqi oil. That's the only way to avoid corruption.
So I don't see how they can be humanitiarian either. There is too much self-interest, and American politicians are known as to follow their self-interests, the same as politicians of countries such as the UK.
According to your argument, if you were doing it for G-d, but absolutely no point would be made, then it would still be a reason. No-one flies a plane full of innocent people into an office building to make a point unless it's to make that point. What? Please clarify.
It certainly is true that poor economic conditions help terrorism to breed, but nobody flies a plane full of innocent people into an office building to make a point unless they think there's a higher power willing them to. You posted that nobody would fly a plane full of innocent people people into an office building, to make a point, unless they think there is a higher power willing them to. So I have taken that as you wrote it, that such an incident was done to make a point. If it was done for G-d, then that would be your reason for doing so. You would NOT be doing it to make a point. If you were doing it to make a point, you would NOT be doing it for G-d. It's simple logic.
Moreover, you stated that "nobody would fly a plane full of innocent people people into an office building, to make a point, unless they think there is a higher power willing them to". A government is a higher power. Your government is a higher power. According to that, one might make the argument that someone could do a 9/11 on the basis of the instruction of your government.
The soldier is in open warfare. He is a uniformed soldier and he is fighting the same.
He can certainly be aware of his poor odds of survival but he wants to live. On the front line, your odds of surviving in World War I was ridiculously low, so low that you could not bet on living. He may want to live, but the only way would be to run and desert your comrades. It's called self-sacrifice. Again, fighting in a war against an aggressive nation is not something that requires god. You're defending your country and everything you hold dear. An atheist can fight a war to defend his mother, his wife, his children, his way of life.
1) Well, that's an awfully long list. Which one is it?
2) If it's in a war against an aggressive nation, AND to defend his country, AND everything he holds dear, AND his mother, his wife, his children, and his way of life, well, how can his children need defending from a foreign power if his children don't have a gun to their head? If you claim that "if you don't stop them now, they will get to your children", then one could use that argument about anyone, even your allies, because your allies will at some point become your enemy, at least, that has been human history till now. Has the fundamental nature of humanity changed because of the American War of Independence? No? Because of feminism? No? So what exactly has made your allies be your allies forever? So at some point, they wil be your enemy, and will threaten your way of life. So why stop at Muslims? Is it because they aren't Christians?
3) The French hate your way of life. 'Can't stand it. Why don't you attack them?
4) If it's in a war against an aggressive nation, then surely it matters if you started the war. It surely also matters, if you are supposed to stay out of that war. It also matters if you are going to benefit by picking one side.
5) Ultimately, the other side says the same thing about you. So you can say that you are doing this, because you are self-interested and you don't give a damn about the mothers and children and way of life of the other side, but you can't say you. That would be lying.
Whether you like it or not, this is not a valid argument, unless you are willing to protect the Iraqi way of life too, and Iraqi civilians. But most Iraqis are Muslims. So the Iraqi way of life is an Islamic way of life. Maybe not what Americans call Islamic fundamentalism, but it's vitally opposed to American values. Also, during the actual taking of Iraq, there were very few civilian casualties. All the casualties we keep hearing about, are only since Iraq was taken. So, if America wanted to support its own logic, fairly, it would have to stay out of Iraq.
But you're not doing that. Also, no-one is attacking your way of life. Terrorists are attacking the American tendency to try and push their way of life on other countries. Brits don't like it either. But we're pretty apathetic when it comes to us being invaded.
Also, what "way of life" are you holding that is so special? "Girls gone wild" videos? Alcoholism? Please. What? It's not freedom. Freedom would imply you have a freedom that us Brits have had for many years before you did. Anti-slavery? Sorry. We beat you to that too.
An atheist cannot hijack a plane and fly it into a building full of innocent people, which ancient bronze age Palestinian demagogues accuse of being infidels, in order to hopefully be met by god and given some virgins after the necessary physical immolation. An atheist cannot even save a life, in order to do anything to do with G-d, because atheists don't believe in G-d. However, an atheist CAN hijack a plane and fly it into a building full of innocent people, which ancient Bronze Age Palestinian demagogues accused of being scum of the Earth, because there is no law that says that atheists couldn't exist in the Bronze Age, or Palestinian, or be demagogues. So there is no reason at all why such there weren't ancient Bronze Age Palestinian demagogues who were atheists. But it is completely impossible for a Muslim to hijack a plane and fly it into a building full of innocent people, which ancient bronze age Palestinian demagogues accuse of being infidels, in order to hopefully be met by god and given some virgins after the necessary physical immolation, because the Bronze Age ended in 1100 BCE, over 1500 years before the birth of Mohammed, about 570, so there can be NO ancient Bronze Age Palestinian demagogues who were Muslims. No Christian demagogues of that era either.
I notice that you keep having to bring rumours about what you might have heard about different religions, which all require the existence of a G-d, and say that atheists couldn't do that, when the only reason atheists can't do that, is that they don't believe in G-d. Well, atheists can steal, kill, and murder. At least try and stick to things which have some relevance to atheists.
Are you serious? What halfway competent army would forego the incredible tactical advantage of superior troop levels? What absolutely idiotic playground logic. There are a few things you might be interested to know about warfare:
1) Everything has a weakness, a fatal flaw. EVERYTHING. Armies are no different.
2) Perceived necessity is the mother of invention.
3) When an army fights on fair odds, they has had the chance to give it their all, and lose. So they see themselves as having done what they can.
But when you fight against extremely unfair odds, you haven't had the chance to fight. So you feel frustrated. You perceive an massive necessity to invent something that will even the odds, to give you a fighting chance. So you end up inventing something that will even up the odds. If the only way to even those odds up, is to attack the achilles' heel of the other side, that hurts it the most, and ends up putting the odds vastly in your favour, you will end up doing that, and usually, there is nothing to even up the odds, only to put it in your favour.
So when you are fighting a force with superior technology, you will end up inventing the means for wiping your enemy out. So far, the Islamic terrorists have discovered that suicide bombings are one way. Guerilla tactics are another. But there are far more deadly ways to give them the advantage, ones that are deadly to any American army. By trying to keep the advantage, you put the odds against you in the long run.
You can see this in the playground. Back when I was a kid, there were bullies, and the teachers never did anything. Now, the bullied kids have brought knives into the schools. Who do you think gets knifed? The bullies.
But you would only know that if you make a point of studying history objectively, without an agenda to subject it to your desires.
we are not in a war against Iraq, that war is over. Now we're fighting alongside the democratically elected government of Iraq to allow the Iraqi people a chance against religious extremism. For a war to be over, you would have to leave. Hasn't happened. Also, as I explained earlier, there is a lot that implies that the government of Iraq is far from democratically elected. But you keep believing what your politician demagogues tell you.
The only reason why you haven't been drafted is because they don't need that many troops. If they really needed half of America to serve, you'd be drafted. So you're a reservist. How sickening, your logic. Do you have any morals that you stand up for?
The Iraqis are fighting for their lives. They absolutely are, and not against US soldiers.
Furthermore, the whole idea is for the Muslim to die. It's half about the act for god, half about the holy reward afterwards. So then why do Islamic terrorists protest they don't want to die, after their suicide bombs have been disabled? Clarify what kind of scenario you mean.
But they are fighting a bully, who has more weapons and more technological advances and is using that against them. Oh right, big bad superpower denouncing the culture of honor killings.
I am simultaneously well aware of European atrocities and immeasurably proud to be part of that same civilization in which all people have equal rights, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and other virtues that radical Islam seeks to wipe out. Then you don't know much about European history. It's not about equal rights, or freedom of religion, or freedom of expression, and never has been. Also, are you proud of the atrocities done upon the Native American people of America? How is that equal rights? Why are they just given these little reservations in the middle of nowhere? While we're at it, what makes you such an expert on Islam that you can claim that Islam seeks to wipe out equal rights, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and other virtues?
You go on being afraid of religion, and blaming it for your own problems. That's just something you heard on the media, or from who heard the same and got indoctrinated by it. You go on believing that your American values are anything but products of the media. That's what Nietzsche called the herd mentality. You go on being a slave. I'm a free man, because I choose what to believe.
This has been a very long post. I'll address other posters later. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 182 | |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 7:39:28 AM | Still seem to missing the point, its the fact that religion is used as an excuse. I dont think the Russian Revolution could happen again, there are signs that China is moving away from communism. Part of freedom is an option to believe what you want, but its the fact that its being used to restrict others freedoms and civil rights, unfairly.
One of the points that has been mised is religious suicide cults.
On 18 November 1978, 914 American followers of Jim Jones (formerly a church in the mainstream Christian denomination Disciples of Christ) died in a mass murder/suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. The dead included 274 children.
On March 17, 2000, between 780 and 1000 members of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God died in a probable mass suicide in Uganda. The group had diverged from the Roman Catholic Church in order to emphasize apocalypticism and alleged Marian apparitions.[2] The group had been called inward-looking movement that wore matching uniforms and restricted their speech to avoid saying anything dishonest or sinful.
From 1994 to 1997, the Order of the Solar Temple's members began a series of mass suicides, which led to roughly 74 deaths. Farewell letters were left by members, stating that they believed their deaths would be an escape from the "hypocrisies and oppression of this world." Added to this they felt they were "moving on to Sirius."
On March 26, 1997, 39 followers of Heaven's Gate died in a mass suicide in Rancho Santa Fe, California, which borders San Diego to the north. These people believed, according to the teachings of their cult, that through their suicides they were "exiting their human vehicles" so that their souls could go on a journey aboard a spaceship they believed to be following comet Hale-Bopp.
Islam arguably has the harshest view of suicide of any major religion. Therefore some of the lowest suicide rates are found in Muslim nations like Jordan or Egypt. [30] Still, the extreme Islamist movement has strongly encouraged many Muslims to accept a theology in which becoming a suicide bomber is not considered suicide. Instead, it is described by the extremists as a "martyrdom operation", the purpose of which is to kill the enemy. From this viewpoint, one's own death is a consequence, rather than a goal.
Waco Koresh taught that the U.S. government was the enemy of the Davidians, and that they would have to defend themselves. In a video made by the Davidians and released during the siege, Koresh stated that he had been told by God to procreate with the women in the groups to establish a "House of David", his "Special People". This involved married couples in the group dissolving their marriages and agreeing that only Koresh could have sexual relations with the wives. On the tape, Koresh is also shown with several minors who claimed to have had babies fathered by Koresh. In total, Koresh had fourteen young children who stayed with him in the compound.
It maybe that in reality they have little to do with religion and a lot to do with the warped ideas of persuasive individuals. But its still the excuse of religion being used for the detriment of others. | |
|
| |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 3:00:37 PM | I don't think the problem lies in religion as much as in people allowing themselves to be lead without questioning.
If you're not using your brain, you can be sure that someone else is. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 4:04:02 PM | | While Religion alone may not have been solely responsible, it has and still does play a huge part in heinous acts throughout history, as does atheism. Where Religion is to blame is in not owning up to the fact that its dogma oppresses and degrades societies with its seperatism. This is absolutely at odds with true Christianity. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 186 | |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 4:48:37 PM | | I dinnae know about a cohort o true scotsman .. but a few scots to put these sassanachs in their place wouldnt go amisss ... | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 5:40:48 PM |
While Religion alone may not have been solely responsible, it has and still does play a huge part in heinous acts throughout history
Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. | |
|
| |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 6:17:28 PM |
While Religion alone may not have been solely responsible, it has and still does play a huge part in heinous acts throughout history, as does atheism. Where Religion is to blame is in not owning up to the fact that its dogma oppresses and degrades societies with its seperatism. This is absolutely at odds with true Christianity. That's very true, Skypoetone. Is not owning up to the heinous acts of atheists at odds with the morality of atheists? | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 6:22:22 PM | That's very true, Skypoetone. Is not owning up to the heinous acts of atheists at odds with the morality of atheists?
^^^The same would be true scorpiomover.
| |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/2/2008 6:27:34 PM |
1) I have no idea why you are bringing the subject of armies and totalitarianism to due with why Stalin rose to power, and if the Russian people were servile, either to the Church, or anyone else. Can you please explain what the hell you are talking about?
I didn't bring the issue of armies up. Somebody else tried to suggest that the only reason Stalin came to power was because he had muscle behind him.
As far as my point about the church and servility, I was pointing out that for a long, long time Russians lived and died under the belief that the czar was something more than human. Not a god, but not just a man either. To speak out against him was in itself blasphemy. Stalin came along and easily took advantage of that servility. Just a small point.
2) Where do you get the idea that during the Russian Monarchy, that Russia was a Totalitarian Regime? Totalitarianism is when the state regulates everything, and whether in public or in private. The Russian Monarchy never did that. It was a dictatorship. So I have no idea why you are bringing totalitarianism into this thread.
When I spoke of totalitarianism I was talking about Stalin's Russia..
And totalitarianism isn't merely the state regulating everything, it's when you live under a state that can even convict you of thought crime, the kind of state where you are property of the government and nothing else.
Are you claiming that Communist Russia was a Totalitarian Regime?
Under Stalin, absolutely.
Please note that it was one of the few examples in history of a state founded and run on Atheism. Is this what we are to expect from any world without religion? That our every move will be watched, and that the Secret Police will come and take 20 million away, just from Russia alone? What a liberal place you propose.
So wait....you openly admit that Stalin's Russia was a state where your every move was watched and where the secret police could take you away but it wasn't totalitarian?
And no, that is not the natural result of atheism. The most hellish depiction of totalitarianism ever conceived is atheist George Orwell's 1984.
There is nothing in an atheists belief that tells them they have the right to persecute others. Just as a Christian/theist can be a fascist, as can an atheist.
3) You claimed that the reason why Stalin rose to power was because of Russian servility.
I don't believe I ever claimed that Stalin came to power because of that, and if I did I worded my sentence poorly.
But Stalin was a serving member of the Communist Party, who was voted into his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party by the other members of the Communist Party, and then used his position to gain control of the Communist Party. Notice that the Russian People had no involvement with this process whatsoever. So where do you get the idea that Stalin rose to power because of Russian servility?
I'll just quote Christopher Hitchens on this point.
Until 1917, millions of Russians had been told for…hundreds of years that the czar is the head of the church – which he was, the Russian Orthodox Church. That the leader of the country should be something a little more than human. Not a god, but a little more. He’s not divine, but a holy father.
If you’re Josef Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you don’t know how to exploit an inheritance like that: millions of credulous, servile people.
And what does he do? Lysenko’s biology – miracles, we can have three harvests a year if we believe in Lysenko’s biology. Inquisition, heresy hunt, orthodoxy. Everything comes from the top and must be thanked for, and groveled for. A complete replication of the preceding theocracy.
For your argument to have…any force at all, you’d have to point to a society that adopted the teachings of Lucretius, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Albert Einstein…and then fell into famine, dictatorship, torture and genocide. And you won’t, I think, be able to point to such.
Despite what you suggest, meteorology does not affect cultural credulity. 1) You are trying to use words such as "meteorology", "cultural" and "credulity", which are words that are not often used by most people, for what purpose? Normally, most people I know would describe such speech as "hiding behind big words". So let's take the big words away and use simple more understandable language for everyone to REALLY see what you are saying:
Sorry, that's how I normally speak. I don't consider 'meteorology' and 'credulity' to be 'big words'.
But fine, let's water down my language. When I said "meteorology does not affect cultural credulity" I was responding to the comment of "But even so, they were not servile. You don't survive a Russian winter by being servile."
In other words, it's stupid to suggest that because the Russians had to survive bitter weather they somehow were less likely to be manipulated by a politically savvy leader. Is that simple enough for you?
Either way you cut it, you suggest that studying the weather makes a culture, not a people, more likely to believe what they are told.
 Completely incorrect.
But being servile means that you just do as you are told. That has absolutely nothing to do with being gullible enough to accept whatever you are told, nor does that have anything to do with the study of the weather.
And if you notice, the word servile doesn't appear anywhere in the sentence ""meteorology does not affect cultural credulity".
If a person is willing to go along with anything, then they won't fight anything if they don't want to do it.
If they won't fight anything, then they won't fight the weather.
If they won't fight the weather, and the weather is freezing cold, so cold you could die, you'll die from too much cold. That's called Hypothermia.
How cold does Russia get? Well, in the warmest places, it gets to -15C and in the coldest places it gets to -60C. How cold is that?
Well, at -15C, American cars don't run. Not just one or two. Most of them.
At -23C, your eyes freeze shut when you blink.
At -60C, Polar bears move South.
That's a Russian winter for you.
Yes, Russia does get very cold. An important observation on your part.
Would you be afraid of a priest telling you that you will go to hell? Not really. Hell passes through once a year, and stays for months.
Right. There's absolutely NO difference between a harsh winter and eternal hellfire. Wow.
Because without religion far less people would believe homosexuality is immoral, there would be no Fred Phelps protesting soldiers funerals Exodus 22:22-24 If there is ONE group of people that G-d REALLY has it in for, it's those who torment the widows and orphans. There is a special circle of Hell, reserved just for Fred Phelps, and his supporters. Do you even read anything that anyone writes, or do you ignore everything but what you want to believe and what you want to pick on?
Stop being a smartass when your points are easily refuted.
I never claimed that the bible is devoid of any morality, the problem is that it sends mixed messages. It is impossible to obey 100% of the bible because the contradictions are so rampant. Normally you would simply call this sloppy writing but when it is believed to be the word of god it creates a ****storm of problems.
You rightly reference Exodus and I would have to concede the point to you if I couldn't turn around and show you Deuteronomy 20:10-14, which shows an appalling lack of respect for widows.
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
no holy wars against small countries printing cartoons, etc. When I was a teen, we used to have this Nintendo game, called "Fire". It was a great game. You had to play a fireman, and catch babies falling out of buildings. A whole load of mothers complained about the game, and it got banned, because not all the babies would get saved by people playing the game. They said it was barbaric and might give kids ideas. Now, I knew loads of people who played it, and NO-ONE thought it meant that one should chuck babies out of windows. There was never one report of anyone copying the game. That is infringement of freedom of expression, because there was no harm in the game at all. Remember, the UK is a secular state, like Denmark. But our rights of freedom of expression were denied us.
You are absolutely correct when you suggest that the game shouldn't have been banned. And I don't believe it would in todays society.
If you really believe that it is OK to show cartoons are not offensive, then how about publishing an adaptation of "When the Wind Blows", which was a children's book, depicting the deaths of people from a nuclear bomb and the corresponding nuclear fallout, except that in the adaptation, it would show the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about a cartoon of the Vietnamese civilians who died or got horribly mutilated from napalm? Why do we never see cartoons like that?
You're comparing apples and oranges.
To publish a book for children that depicts nuclear war is inappropriate for many reasons.
To attempt to destroy a peaceful democratic nation because of a political cartoon is absolutely unacceptable. And just so everybody can see for themselves, here are the cartoons in question
http://static.flickr.com/56/106096282_8276d346e8_o.jpg
Also important to note is that, somewhere along the way, three FALSE cartoons were added to further incite violence (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/775)
It's not an excuse for murder.
Why were the Twin Towers cut out of Spider-Man? Why was it deemed that a film's media should be curtailed just because the American public would find it offensive? American movies are shown in cinemas, on TV, and sold as DVDs, in every country in the world, so sales aren't dictated solely by America or even the West. The only reason is that people in the West would be offended, and there would be pressure brought to bear against the studio.
Again, completely different for many reasons.
First of all no censorship to the movie took place. What you're referring to is the first trailer for the movie, which was originally released shortly before the attacks. Obviously it was pulled in the face of national tragedy. The only time the towers were featured in the film itself were as reflections in Spider-Mans eyes, and that scene IS in the film.
Second, the production of Spider-Man was done in America by Americans. It goes without saying that the cast and crew might be a little bit extra sensitive.
There is one other culture where cartoons were only displayed that were in support of the country. The U.S.S.R. But as you pointed out, that was a Totalitarian Regime.
Ah, I take it you've had a change of heart and agree with me on the totalitarian nature of Stalin's Russia now.
But the implicit suggestion here is that the way the west handles offensive cartoons isn't much different than the way a totalitarian regime would, which is ridiculous and you know it.
When I see cartoons that are extremely offensive to non-religious Americans being shown and not being recalled or protested, I might believe that the West is a place of freedom of expression. Till then, I'm not buying it.
Is that a joke? Nobody makes political cartoons about atheists because they can go on television and say whatever they want. We're supposedly the most untrusted minority in the country.
But even in your fantasy world where atheists protest every comment against them your point STILL doesn't stand because no atheist ever KILLS anybody over something offensive. We don't boycott peaceful countries or kill their citizens over blasphemy.
Also, I will agree that holy wars cannot be fought without theism, because the word in English means something associated with a divine power. So by definition, a holy thing requires the existence of a divine being. But all that means is that an atheist cannot fight a holy war, because of the use of the word.
No, it's much more than a simple semantical difference.
But the Bishop of Durham said that one doesn't need to believe in G-d to be a good Christian.
Well the Bishop of Durham is wrong on many levels.
I suspect that what he meant was that even us misguided atheists can have Christian morals. I won't open that can of worms unless you want me to.
So the words "holy war" cannot be applied to religion as a group, but only to theists. Also, theists don't need to belong to a religion. So one can claim to fight a "holy war" and still not belong to any religion.
And what example would you give to me of a non-religious person fighting a holy war?
If we then wish to use the words "holy war" to apply to religion, we must remove the requirement of it applying only to theists.
Again, show me a deist blowing himself up.
Now, a holy war is generally understood to mean a war that is approved and required by an authority that happens to be a divine being.
I would very much disagree. A holy war can be fought simply over the teachings of the bible, it isn't required to view a preacher as divine.
So the understanding of a "holy war" can only be any war that is approved and required by an authority, such as a government.
Apparently you're vastly underestimating the meaning of the word holy. The US government isn't holy to Christians, the bible is.
This would make sense, because if a theistic state declared a war, that would be a war approved by their god/gods, which would make it a holy war. So if a secular state declared a war, that would be the equivalent.
Your logic is really terrible. To be fighting against an aggressive country is not at all the same thing as fighting a war for god, for so many different reasons.
So I don't see "holy wars" going away, even if you get rid of religion. Only the literal definition of "holy war". But not the concept and not the atrocities.
You're about 1/3 right. War wouldn't disappear without religion.
I'm not saying that an atheist is less or more likely to commit a murder than a religious person (assuming we're talking about everyday, normal people here).
I didn't post that you SAID it overtly. I posted that it was a necessary requirement for your statement to be true. But it isn't. Also, you never specified that you were talking about everyday, normal people. If you were, then I would immediately point out that all everyday, normal people don't ever want to be priests and never are. Nor are everyday, normal people the kings, queens and nobles of history. Since all wars that have an affiliation with religion were declared to have that affiliation either by priests, or by kings, queens or nobles, no everyday, normal person ever ordered such a war. Well if you'd like we can go from macro to micro. So far I have been pointing out the BIG atrocities that are only possible through religion, but if you want to break it down to modern, everyday life we can certainly venture into the realm of junk science in schools, molestation of children, picketing of soldiers funerals, etc, etc, etc. But a religious person, again allowing the assumption that they really believe it, can be preached something vile in the name of god. That is an assumption, one that you have no ability to make, without predicating all of your examples on the basis that it is true. Is it or is it not true that many practicing Christians very much admire Pat Robertson, the man who said We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit of ... health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality... It [terrorism] is happening because God Almighty is lifting his protection from us. ? That's just one example of a seemingly limitless supply. So if something is unanimously vile, then G-d believes it vile too. That isn't true. I believe human beings have certain ingrained morality. For example, no society would survive if it thought murder was OK. Of course we have wars and mass murderers, but most human beings (with the exception of sociopaths and psychopaths) at least understand the concept that killing another human being is something bad. Religion, at least the big 3, tell us that murder is OK in the name of god. I suspect that every time I give you an example from the bible it's overlooked or ignored, but I'm going to keep doing it. A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB) If it is not unanimous, then what proof is there that all non-religious people will believe it to be vile, just because you think it is vile? I'm not sure I understand this question. Also, what proof is there that what you think is not vile, that all non-religious people will agree with you? I never claimed to speak for every atheist, they're more than welcome to disagree with me on any issue. How do you know that you are not vile to most non-religious people? I don't, nor did I ever claim to know that. I personally doubt it, though. Other than my absolute hatred of religion my personal morals are, if I may say so, pretty strong. Who would disagree with me that murder, lying, stealing, bullying, torture, are wrong? The only realistic way a non-religious person could call me vile is if they personally didn't like me. The Bible also says that "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day" in Exodus 35:2. When did you notice Christians not having lit any form of fire, including a bar-b-q on a Sunday? Well for one the consequences of the two verses are quite different. A world where homosexuals are tolerated is different than one where they're persecuted. Second, you rightly point out that nobody gives a damn about Exodus 35:2. Do you want to know why? Because it's archaic nonsense. Who can't rally behind 'thou shalt not kill'? It's easy. But when God is asking you to cancel that Superbowl Sunday cook-out, you see how quickly the religious can look the other way. So you cannot just quote one verse out of the Bible, and criticise Christians, and expect people to take you seriously. I have quoted MANY verses from the bible. And when I am making the point that the bible attacks homosexuality, one verse is all it takes. Also, please enlighten me where you know plenty of tolerant Christians who attack homosexuals? The only ones you quoted are Fred Phelps, and I've already shown that he is going completely against the Bible. He's just an intolerant bigot. I only use Fred Phelps as an example of a situation that could only have been created by religion. Nationally we can look at leaders like Pat Robertson who blame terrorist attacks on homosexuality. Let's not pretend that Christianity, at least a significant percentage of it, doesn't have a problem with gay people. Personally, somebody very close to me is a homosexual. His parents are born again Christians who tell their son that he is going to hell. This schism would not exist were it not for religion. Again I will post "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) What world do you live in where a person of faith is going to read that and interpret it as anything but condemnation of homosexuals? HarveyLemmings: An atheist could develop a nuclear weapon. Only a theist would believe that thermonuclear war is the final step before the glorious rapture. scorpiomover: The A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were revenge for Pearl Harbour, and to show American might. Religion had nothing to do with it. HarveyLemmings: Two, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't revenge. scorpiomover: Let's get something straight: Half of London was bombed into oblivion. It was so dangerous that most of the children in London were evacuated, and were not able to see their parents for years. Coventry was bombed almost into oblivion, so much so that there are only a few roads that survived out of the whole city. This is something that has marked and changed the British people from then on, because everyone who was under 16 during 1940-1945 was evacuated, and has issues with being away from their parents at a young age. But British people don't constantly mention it. We don't make films like Americans do about Pearl Harbour. We don't bother discussing it in anywhere near as much as Americans mention Pearl Harbour. You Americans are obsessed with Pearl Harbour. Face it. HarveyLemmings: What the hell does the bombing of London have to do with the United States dropping bombs on Japan? If you wanted to attack what you perceive as American obsession with Pearl Harbor you should have posted it in a relevant thread. It's really simple. The bombing of London is similar to the attack on Pearl Harbour. And your point about Americas obsession with Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with my original comment that only through religion could people yearn for thermonuclear war. But we got hammered far worse than America ever did and most of those people were civilians. So if anyone has a right to go on about any attacks during WWII, it's the Brits, not the Americans. There is no special right required to stand up against the axis powers, but I won't argue that more British civilians died than American ones in WWII. However, as I pointed out, we Brits don't go on and on about the London Bombings, but you Americans go on and on about Pearl Harbour. Again, how is this relevant to the threat of messianic Iran getting their hands on nuclear weaponry? We didn't see a need to bomb any country with a nuclear weapon, and we still don't. Let's be fair, the UK didn't obtain nuclear weapons until 1952 and there hasn't been a justifiable reason to deploy them since them. But again, how is this relating to religion? You did. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if you got attacked by someone, and then go on and on about that attack, and then you stabbed the guy 15 times, that you would be considered a suspect, with revenge for the previous attack as a motive. That isn't a comparable scenario at all. Citing London is extremely relevant, because it shows that Americans took an extreme reaction, because "they were attacked", as if "they were the only one", when they weren't. As if they were the only one? Good god you're dense. That's an irrational emotional reaction, which usually results in other irrational emotional reactions, such as revenge. Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941, Japan was bombed in 1945. That's not an emotional reaction. A theoretical 'what-if' universe where Pearl Harbor never happened does not concern me, nor does it have anything to do, again, with what actually happened.
The Scientific Method works roughly as follows:
1) Propose a hypothesis.
2) Then propose a hypothetical situation wherein if the hypothesis would be true, one resut would be expected, and if the hypothesis would be false, another different result would be expected.
3) Then either enact the hypothetical situation as an experiment and collect the results, or take an existing situation that matches the hypothetical situation, and collect the results.
4) Show by the type of results obtained, if the hypothesis was true or false.
I have applied the Scientific Method to the situation of Pearl Harbour. And? Applying the scientific method doesn't automatically legitimize something. < |
| |
Home
login 
