Isn't it possible that God created the world (in six days) already in a stage that scientists would define at an "age of Millions of years"?

Is it reasonable I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for 200 dollars?

Isn't it possible that God created the world (in six days) already in a stage that scientists would define at an "age of Millions of years"?

For theist, any bull shit is possible!! it's just providing the emperical evidence were theist are lacking!!:rolleyes: :D :o

K,
I think you meant can people be monotheistic and still believe in evolution, and the answer is yes.

Religious opinions such as Deism are monotheistic, yet hold modern scientific evidence and findings as the reality of the universe's origin, and use rationalism and empiricism as part of their everyday lives.

Isn't it possible that God created the world (in six days) already in a stage that scientists would define at an "age of Millions of years"?

Yes, anything is possible for a deity.

But why would God set out to deceive us?

But why would God set out to deceive us?

Why do you think he's deceiving us?

Baron Max

Could I be polylithic instead?:p

Is it reasonable I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for 200 dollars?
If one of your dollars had the value of US$1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, quite posibly

For theist, any bull shit is possible!! it's just providing the emperical evidence were theist are lacking!!:rolleyes:

Really - I thought it was the atheist that was lacking in practical application
:cool:

Really - I thought it was the atheist that was lacking in practical application

Yes, he knows that you believe things like that are the case. Hence he said "For theist, any bull shit is possible!! it's just providing the evidence were theists are lacking!":rolleyes:

Damn I thought I made myself clear enough! It's probably do to so much delusional state, that theist have a hard time comprehending "common sense"

Damn I thought I made myself clear enough! It's probably do to so much delusional state, that theist have a hard time comprehending "common sense"

And the argument "you are wrong because you are wrong" borrows from this same body of common sense?

And the argument "you are wrong because you are wrong" borrows from this same body of common sense?

Yawns!!!

You are lacking EVIDENCE of your claims!! and this is specifically what I fucking stated!! get your head out of your (!)

Yawns!!!

You are lacking of your claims!! and this is specifically what I fucking stated!! get your head out of your (!)

be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

religion!=science

get [SIZE="3"]your head out of your (!)

Science=conclusion formed from data.
Religion=conclusion formed from avoidance of having ones head bashed in, via a copy of the bible.

The cost of your beliefs:
http://nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm


Great Sam, now just provide EVIDENCE
of your claims, assertions. Who gives a shit what one believes, I can believe I've got a purple monkey on my back, I have faith that the purple monkey on my back keeps me safe. This my belief, and you can't shake me from it!

See the stupidity? the sarcasm of belief? If I've got no evidence of this monkey on my back that keeps me safe, I'm basically delusional!!

What's the difference from asserting a higher purpose, a god, an agel or demon? If you don't have evidence for what you claim to believe, then it's simply delusion! :p

The cost of your beliefs:
http://nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm


Great Sam, now just provide EVIDENCE
of your claims, assertions. Who gives a shit what one believes, I can believe I've got a purple monkey on my back, I have faith that the purple monkey on my back keeps me safe. This my belief, and you can't shake me from it!

See the stupidity? the sarcasm of belief? If I've got no evidence of this monkey on my back that keeps me safe, I'm basically delusional!!

What's the difference from asserting a higher purpose, a god, an agel or demon? If you don't have evidence for what you claim to believe, then it's simply delusion! :p

I believe Mozart is better than Handel.

I believe van Gogh was a good painter.

I believe Picasso might not have done so well if he was born a 100 years earlier.

Now y'all go ahead and prove its true/false.


Oh, btw, you have to say "Jai Bajrang Bali" to get full protection from your purple monkey (http://www.mantraonnet.com/hanuman-yantra.jpg). Reading the chalisa (http://varan_bhaath.tripod.com/Pages/H_Chaalisa_Hin.htm) is even better, I hear.

PS atheist leaders (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF) have proved to be bigger murderers all by themselves (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)than many theists combined.

I believe Mozart is better than Handel.

I believe van Gogh was a good painter

Pure opinion that actually has no value to anything. I love Fleetwood Mac, you dont - it's entirely inconsequential to anything.

When someone asserts that something like a god exists it's a completely different ball game. Even more so when that baseless opinion is shoved upon society in the manner that it is.

PS atheist leaders have proved to be bigger murderers all by themselves than many theists combined.

This argument has no value to anything. Of course if you want to get technical then god, (the jewish/christian version), has killed more people than anyone and everyone combined. Of course communism and atheism are two different things, and of course a person being atheist and being nasty isn't of any relevance to anything. There's nasty people all over the place of all differing beliefs or lack thereof. Move on to something worthwhile.

Yawns!!!

You are lacking EVIDENCE of your claims!! and this is specifically what I fucking stated!! get your head out of your (!)

do you ever worry about coming across as a bad tempered high school drop out confounded by the claims of a physicist?

do you ever worry about coming across as a bad tempered high school drop out confounded by the claims of a physicist?

Aww, that old chestnut. Sweet but stupid.

Of course communism and atheism are two different things

Are you saying the communist leaders were NOT atheists?

Did any of them destroy places of worship or forbid the practice of religion?

Are you saying the communist leaders were NOT atheists?

There is a widely used religious saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes" which would clearly indicate that no, none of these people were atheists - but indeed were god believers who just didn't show that they were god believers.

I suppose it now requires you to openly declare that that statement is fallacious.

Of course in either case communism still does not equal atheism.

Further to which, if I absolutely must, I would point you towards "christian communism", (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism). Are you claiming that these christians are also atheists? It's very doubtful, and thus we come to my point once more:

communism and atheism are two different things.

Anything you'd like to add?

There is a widely used religious saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes" which would clearly indicate that no, none of these people were atheists - but indeed were god believers who just didn't show that they were god believers.

I suppose it now requires you to openly declare that that statement is fallacious.

Of course in either case communism still does not equal atheism.

Further to which, if I absolutely must, I would point you towards "christian communism", (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism). Are you claiming that these christians are also atheists? It's very doubtful, and thus we come to my point once more:

communism and atheism are two different things.

Anything you'd like to add?

Did any of the above mentioned murderous communist leaders destroy places of worship or forbid the practice of religion?

Have any Christian communists done so?

Did any of the above mentioned murderous communist leaders destroy places of worship or forbid the practice of religion?


Its relevance to anything is.... what?

Given my last statement that there are no atheists in foxholes then we come to the undeniable conclusion that there is no such thing as an atheist, and so by default there's no such thing as an atheist communist. Even if there was, communism and atheism are two different things, (as explained).

But to be honest I fail to see why you're going to such lengths or what it's relevance is to anything. There have been and are bad atheists. There have been and are bad theists... What's the point? At the end of the day the biggest murderer in the history of the universe is god, (jewish/christian). The rest is small potatoes in comparison.

Now, I wont get into the salem witch trials, the inquisition the crusades etc because - the fact that millions of people were killed because of christianity does not mean that all christians are assholes, (they get that title by their own personal efforts).

To get back to the point: communism and atheism are two different things

That stands unless you are going to claim that the definition of communism is "lack of belief in a god". Are you?

Have any Christian communists done so?

What they do on their weekends is their business, it is of no relevance to anything. By the fact there are "christian" communists shows beyond any doubt that "communism and atheism are not the same thing".

Wake up.

Isn't it possible that God created the world (in six days) already in a stage that scientists would define at an "age of Millions of years"?
why would god want to do that?
I tell you why....so you can claim the bible is the Truth?
it aint!
the bible writers didnt know THEN what we know now thanks to the scientific research and the fossil record,so they made up whole bunch of fantasy myths to explain everything,unfortunately they were very wrong,and even now dont want to admit their book is a load of nonsense...so they hate science and everything modern,they just want to keep people stupid so they can control them better.
thats why all the fuss about teaching shyt like ID in the schools.
its not science its horseshyt.

I'm going to have to support SamCDKey on this one:

Atheists have been far more destructive, and far less constructive, than Theists in world history.

The majority of the greatest men in history have believed in God. A majority of the greatest murderers and fiends have not.

Of course, a great deal many horrible men believed in God, also. But there hasn't been many great men that haven't believed in God.

Rubbish!

Really it doesn’t matter.

Atheists could have killed 1 trillion people OR polytheists could have killed 1 trillion people or Christian missionaries could have wiped-out untold numbers of people as 3 entire continents and who knows how many island nations were conquered .... it still doesn't matter in terms of: Is there the least bit of evidence that the FSM, Yahweh or PU are real?

Answer: No there is not.

Atheists have been far more destructive, and far less constructive, than Theists in world history.

Kindly provide some data to support that.

A majority of the greatest murderers and fiends have not.

Strange, the mass majority of serial killers were religious.

do you ever worry about coming across as a bad tempered high school drop out confounded by the claims of a physicist?

LOL!!! that one was funny!

But basically I'm more concerned of self delusional people!
http://www.andrology.com/jokes/selfdelusion.htm

Snakelord:

The following men and women of reknown were religious to varying degrees. Just a small smattering, mind you:

Ramesses II the Great
Darius the Great
Leonidas
Aristotle
Socrates/Plato
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Augustus
Seneca
Marcus Aurelius
Hypatia
St. Augustine
Boethius
King Arthur
Charlemagne
St. Anselm
St. Thomas Aquinas
Geoffrey Chaucer
Joan D'Arc
Ghenghis Khan
Nicholas Copernicus
Caravaggio
Leonardo de Vinci
Michelangelo
Galileo Gallilei
Thomas Hobbes
Renee Descartes
William Shakespeare
Edmund Spencer
Queen Elizabeth I
Sir Issac Newton
Louis XIV
John Locke
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Benjamin Franklin
The Marquis de La Fayette
George Washington
John Adams
Sir Walter Scott
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Napoleon Bonaparte
Admiral Lord Nelson
Hegel
Schopenhauer
Kierkegaard
Duke Wellington
Beethoven
Abraham Lincoln
Robert E. Lee
Stonewall Jackson
Ulysses S. Grant
Emperor Meiji
Alexander II of Russia
Otto van Bismarck
Benjamin Disraeli
Teddy Roosevelt
General Pershing
Aleister Crowley
Churchill
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Charles de Gaulle
George Patton
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Douglas MacArthur
J.R.R. Tolkien
C.S. Lewis
John F. Kennedy
The 14th Dalai Lama
Martin Luther King Jr.
Margaret Thatcher
Ronald Reagan
Mother Theresa
Tony Blair

Off hand, I can think of the following atheists:

Epicurus
Macchiavelli
Voltaire
Thomas Paine
Thomas Jefferson (although officially a Deist)
Charles Darwin (died at least an Agnostic)
Nietzsche
Sartre
Simone Du Bouvoir
Ayn Rand
Asimov
Hawking
Dawkins

I'd add Einstein and Godel, but their mystical views on many things seem to imply a religiousity too much for Atheism, and too little for religious. Let's put them in the "middle" category.

Moreover, the worse murders in history, Mao Zedong and Josef Stalin, were Dialectical Materialist Atheists. Hitler, a Christian-Germanic heathen, was a pussy cat compared to them.

I also received a pretty lame response in a thread I opened on this topic:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59167

Of course, this doesn't invalidate Atheism philosophically. It simply shows that Atheism does not equal human greatness.

Really it doesn’t matter.

Atheists could have killed 1 trillion people OR polytheists could have killed 1 trillion people or Christian missionaries could have wiped-out untold numbers of people as 3 entire continents and who knows how many island nations were conquered .... it still doesn't matter in terms of: Is there the least bit of evidence that the FSM, Yahweh or PU are real?

Answer: No there is not.

Actually I was rebutting Godless' link: the problem with belief. There is no evidence that nonbelief is any different.

At the end of the day the biggest murderer in the history of the universe is god, (jewish/christian). The rest is small potatoes in comparison.

Did you actually see him in action?:rolleyes:

You can run around the bush as much as you like, if there have been mass murderers of both denominations, the fact remains that you cannot make excuses for atheists (unless you claim that communism is itself a murderous philosophy) and paint theists with a broad brush.

That is just dishonesty.

...Atheists have been far more destructive, and far less constructive, than Theists in world history.

For the destructive assertion do you mean Atheists (absence of belief in the existence of 'God') or anti-religionists (belief that religion is the 'enemy')? I would agree that atheists were less constructive for three primary reasons.

1) Atheists are often indoctrinated at a young age by a parental authority. That tactic has a 90+% rate of instilling a 'magical thinking' congnitive geometry. If 90+% of a population are not Atheists then there is a much higher probability that this population will produce more constructive behavior amongst its members and make it difficult for 'outsiders'.

2) Atheists historically have had no social network equivelent that religion provides. Without resource sharing and pooling, they lacked the power and influence that their theist counterparts had.

3) Atheists have historically lived in fear of being hurt or killed for heresy.

The following men and women of reknown were religious to varying degrees. Just a small smattering, mind you

Your list, while vaguely interesting, isn't really data concerning how atheists are more destructive and less constructive than theists. It is also of no worth to anything.. I can provide you with an equally long list of various atheist men and women, (and I cannot believe you forgot to include Twain in your short atheist version).

P.S "King Arthur"...

Yeah, but Robin Hood was an atheist, as was Peter Pan and the giant that lived at the top of the beanstalk. Beat that.

the worse murders in history, Mao Zedong and Josef Stalin, were Dialectical Materialist Atheists. Hitler, a Christian-Germanic heathen, was a pussy cat compared to them.

Highlighting two nasty people does not equal "greatest majority of murderers and fiends have not believed in god".

I took a look at a website with a list of their "top ten despots", (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/topdespots1.html#tam). It turns out that only 4 of the 10 did not have religious belief. By those accounts it would support a claim that the higher majority, (I would not be so naive to use the word 'greatest'), of mass murderers did have belief in god. You provided me with a list of 2, and then even remarked that one of the religious ones, (Hitler), was like a "pussy cat". You're being seriously dishonest.


Of course, this doesn't invalidate Atheism philosophically. It simply shows that Atheism does not equal human greatness.

You fail to show any such thing.

You can run around the bush as much as you like, if there have been mass murderers of both denominations, the fact remains that you cannot make excuses for atheists

Please, stop being silly. I am seemingly the only one here stating openly that both atheists and religious people have killed others - while watching james refer to Hitler as a pussy cat and claiming that the "greatest majority", (something he thinks he can support with 2 names), of murderers were atheist. He's being foolish.

My statement was quite simple: Communism and atheism are not the same thing. Now, stop "beating around the bush" and explain to me how communism is defined as "lacking a belief in god". If you cannot do so then at least have the decency to admit your mistake.

An interesting sidenote:

Communism was a comprehensive, all-embracing religion and not simply a political party, political system or philosophy. This fact is illustrated by the numerous ways in which Communism embraced and attemped to promulgate peculiar quasi-religious (and often clearly anti-scientific) beliefs which had nothing all to do with politics or government. Although Communism typically touted itself as anti-religious and pro-science, it was, in fact, deeply anti-scientific and clearly a religion. One of Communism's hallmarks in the Soviet Union and China was its aggressive and violent suppression of other religions. Communism was "anti-religious" only in the sense that it forcibly suppressed all religions other than itself. From: Colin MacCabe, Godard: A Portrait of the Artist at Seventy, Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York (2003), page 398:

It is this dual allegiance to the philosophy of science and the Communist Party which explains Althusser's lack of publications in the fifties. In the late forties a Soviet, Lyssenko, challenged Darwinism by arguing for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Stalin backed the fraudulent scientist and argued for a distinction between proletarian and bourgeois science so that science itself became a function of the class struggle. Communist philosophers and scientists were pressured to back both Lyssenko and the philosophical distinction in a campaign whcih effectively severed any serious links between scientists and the Communist movement.

Actually I was rebutting Godless' link: the problem with belief. There is no evidence that nonbelief is any different.Oh, I must have missed something.. sorry for butting in!

Michael

I'm agnostic athiest personally, your rational sort of sounds agnostic theist?

SnakeLord

Your quote on Communism kind of remnds me of monotheism a little.

Michael

Crunchy Cat:

Excellent points. Many have probably contributed to both the lack of atheists in world history and in the list of "great men and women", as well as lending themselves towards types like Stalin and Zedong.

Snakelord:

Your list, while vaguely interesting, isn't really data concerning how atheists are more destructive and less constructive than theists. It is also of no worth to anything.. I can provide you with an equally long list of various atheist men and women, (and I cannot believe you forgot to include Twain in your short atheist version).

I think you would be hard pressed to even come close to the list I have provided, in terms of historical prominence. Noting that I have excluded much of history for the purpose of brevity. I could give you essentially every emperor, king, duke, prince, president, prime minister, philosopher, composer, artist, poet, inventor, scientist, et cetera, in the history of man until the 19th century, and even then, not exclude too many people.

And yes, I also forgot to include Russell, Confucius, Montaigne, and Melville.

Highlighting two nasty people does not equal "greatest majority of murderers and fiends have not believed in god".

I did not say greatest majority. I said the majority of the greatest fiends and murderers in history.

Collectively, the Communist movement killed more human beings in a shorter time span than any other movement in history. 150 some million in 80 years. Officially, every leader of every Communist movement was an Atheist.

The only religionists that comes close to matching the death toll are Hitler and Hirohito.

I took a look at a website with a list of their "top ten despots", (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/topdespots1.html#tam). It turns out that only 4 of the 10 did not have religious belief. By those accounts it would support a claim that the higher majority, (I would not be so naive to use the word 'greatest'), of mass murderers did have belief in god. You provided me with a list of 2, and then even remarked that one of the religious ones, (Hitler), was like a "pussy cat". You're being seriously dishonest.

The list of "despots" provided are laughable. Robspierre? Papa Doc? Ivan the Terrible? Tamarlane? Pussycats compared to the Communist fiends of the 20the 20th century.

The atrocities of Stalin and Mao eclipse all else. Their followers such as Po Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il'Sung, and Kim Jung'il can even be counted as absurdly ineffective compared to them.

You fail to show any such thing.

Then please, show me what Atheism has provided so as to affirm the greatness it produces?

Then please, show me what Atheism has provided so as to affirm the greatness it produces?

The nuclear bomb.

The nuclear bomb was not invented by a theologian. 100,000 Japanese civilians were vaporized because of the work of secular scientists. There are 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world today because of science.

I think you would be hard pressed to even come close to the list I have provided, in terms of historical prominence.

I think we'd agree that the majority of people in times past - whether famous, infamous or unknown had religious beliefs. That I will not dispute, but that is not where you are making the error. The error comes in the form of you claiming that the majority of greatest murderers were atheists by mentioning 2 names while calling any religious murderer a "pussy cat" as if that somehow makes things all better.

Now, kindly show that the "majority" of greatest murderers were religious. Two is not a majority james, you should know that. (Unless you're using a total of 2/3 murderers in which case 2 is clearly the majority. What number are you using when you say majority? 10 Murderers total, 20? 100?)

I did not say greatest majority. I said the majority of the greatest fiends and murderers in history.

My apologies. Now kindly explain how 2 people can ever be considered a "majority" unless you're only prepared to take 2 murderers into account?

Officially, every leader of every Communist movement was an Atheist.

Officially was every leader of every communist movement a communist? Would it not seem apparent that instead of blaming their lack of belief in a god as the cause of all those deaths, that those deaths came from their society ideals etc? Needless to say, well apparently it is needed, lack of belief in a sky being does not compel a person to go out and kill one person or millions of people for that matter.

Atheism has nothing to say with regards to how life should be - that people should be equal, what politics work, how to treat your subjects etc.. No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in god - nothing else.

Atheism didn't kill anyone, in the 2 cases you cite - communism did. As I keep having to explain, communism and atheism are not the same thing.

There are people that kill that are atheists, people that kill that are religious.. Such is life.. I know, I know.. when it comes to anyone religious you label them as "Pussy cats", (how sweet), and think that somehow makes everything cosy, but that's silly.

In the meantime take a look at the quote regarding communism that I provided.

The list of "despots" provided are laughable. Robspierre? Papa Doc? Ivan the Terrible? Tamarlane? Pussycats

Yes yes.. *yawn* "pussy cats".. Sort yourself out.

Then please, show me what Atheism has provided so as to affirm the greatness it produces?

A lack of belief in gods. That's all it is.. Needless to say there are many people of "greatness" that lacked a belief in gods - perhaps even compelled that greateness. The greatness of Twain for instance comes largely from his atheism. 'Letters From Earth', 'Adam's Diary', 'What is Man' etc.. He could never have written such classics had he not have been atheist.

[edit] What I unfortunately forgot to mention earlier is that "greatness" is subjective. Whos vision of greatness do we use?

As an example, there are many people here that consider George Best a hero, a man of extreme greatness - to such degree that they almost worship the guy. All I personally see is an alcoholic wife beater that had the ability to kick a pigs testicle around a patch of grass. I see no greatness in it at all.

Likewise if I use some of the names you mentioned:

Tony Blair for instance. I'm sorry but I cannot think of one thing that would even raise Blair above the level of serious scumpot. There is nothing he has done that would make him "great" whatsoever. You also include a couple of people that are merely famous by virtue of killing people - or more to the point, being able to tell others to go out and kill people, (Alexander the Great for instance). Sure, he conquered pretty much everyone, but I personally wouldn't consider that "greatness".

Now Bob on the other hand truly was a man of greatness. He gave his own life to ensure the survival of his child. Then there's Dennis who ran into a burning house to rescue 4 children trapped inside with no concern for his own safety. Neither Dennis nor Bob waged any wars, won any elections or wrote any books - but their greatness exceeds that of those who did, (as far as I see it).

Still, each to their own I guess, (which is why your entire list is worthless).

The nuclear bomb.


The creation of the nuclear bomb is an astounding accomplishment. Atheists don't tell anyone to use those nuclear bombs.. You need to learn to understand the difference.

P.S The Hiroshima bombing was ordered by Truman - a religious baptist.

The nuclear bomb.
Fairly childish, but amusing.

J. Robert Oppenheimer may have been an atheist (he certainly was a sincere, thoughtful human being) but the god-fearing, blood thirsty, religious politicians and policy makers are the ones who drove it's development. You really should stop blaming brilliant scientists for the abominations that their work is turned into by rabid theists.

Fairly childish, but amusing.

J. Robert Oppenheimer may have been an atheist (he certainly was a sincere, thoughtful human being) but the god-fearing, blood thirsty, religious politicians and policy makers are the ones who drove it's development. You really should stop blaming brilliant scientists for the abominations that their work is turned into by rabid theists.

Yes the poor brilliant atheist, "forced" into designing the "evil bomb" for theose despicable theists. Not to mention all those sad brilliant men, forced over and over to create 20,000? more of them. All the others forced into designing the naphtha bombs and other chemical weapons.

Poor sad unfortunate unhappy sincere thoughtful humane rational scientists. Led around by those evil delusional theists against the will of their superior human intellect.

Yes the poor brilliant atheist, "forced" into designing the "evil bomb" for theose despicable theists.
Yes. Exactly.

Not to mention all those sad brilliant men, forced over and over to create 20,000? more of them. All the others forced into designing the naphtha bombs and other chemical weapons.
You equate mass manufacturing (funded and driven by rabid political theists) with the work of brilliant scientists? Sad, your lack of real-world experience is.

Poor sad unfortunate unhappy sincere thoughtful humane rational scientists. Led around by those evil delusional theists against the will of their superior human intellect.
Isn't it always the way? The brilliant sensitives among us lead by the blood-thirsty and power hungry. A shame, isn't it?

Isn't it possible that God created the world (in six days) already in a stage that scientists would define at an "age of Millions of years"?
yeah it is possible, and would also make sense, I mean in the Bible it says God is light, so time would indeed be very very very different for God, as explained by Einstein, light is kind of beyond time itself

yeah it is possible, and would also make sense, I mean in the Bible it says God is light, so time would indeed be very very very different for God, as explained by Einstein, light is kind of beyond time itself
Jibberish.

It's also possible that god created the entire cosmos so that it looks billions of years old, with galaxies in the middle of forming, supernova remnants already in place, etc.

Just like some people make brand new furniture that looks old and distressed. Maybe there are a bunch of gods and the trend in universes is for the "aged and distressed retro look".

Mindless blabbering bullshit.

Jibberish.

It's also possible that god created the entire cosmos so that it looks billions of years old, with galaxies in the middle of forming, supernova remnants already in place, etc.

Just like some people make brand new furniture that looks old and distressed. Maybe there are a bunch of gods and the trend in universes is for the "aged and distressed retro look".

Mindless blabbering bullshit.

Why is it jibberish? The Bible DOES say God is light. And light really IS kind of beyond time itself....what jibberish is there? You're just an atheist trying to defend your atheistic faith...

Why is it jibberish? The Bible DOES say God is light. And light really IS kind of beyond time itself....what jibberish is there? You're just an atheist trying to defend your atheistic faith...
No, that's jibberish.

Light is an entity with wave-like and particle-like properties and is not "beyond time". What the hell does beyond time mean? That's complete uneducated jibberish. So god is a photon? Which photon is he? What is god's wavelength? Can I measure god with a photometer?

BTW, as an atheist, I don't subscribe to the stupidity of "faith" like you sucker theists. And also, as an atheist (as are the vast majority of scientists and engineers), I rule your fucking world! Without me and my "kind" you'd be wiping your ass with a palm leaf and dying of old age at the ripe old age of 30.

No, that's jibberish.

Light is an entity with wave-like and particle-like properties and is not "beyond time". What the hell does beyond time mean? That's complete uneducated jibberish. So god is a photon? Which photon is he? What is god's wavelength? Can I measure god with a photometer?

BTW, as an atheist, I don't subscribe to the stupidity of "faith" like you sucker theists. And also, as an atheist (as are the vast majority of scientists and engineers), I rule your fucking world! Without me and my "kind" you'd be wiping your ass with a palm leaf and dying of old age at the ripe old age of 30.

despite bringing us the latest technology for our backsides, it seems you are still unable to bring some solution on the horizon for the problems of disease, old age and death.

(BTW - out of curiosity, how has your life improved with the latest innovations in the "smearing" technique)

Yes. Exactly.


You equate mass manufacturing (funded and driven by rabid political theists) with the work of brilliant scientists? Sad, your lack of real-world experience is.


Isn't it always the way? The brilliant sensitives among us lead by the blood-thirsty and power hungry. A shame, isn't it?

Apparently atheism is a no balls scenario.

(BTW - out of curiosity, how has your life improved with the latest innovations in the "smearing" technique)

apparently service to lord-god by typing to death is not sufficient for you.

BTW, as an atheist, I don't subscribe to the stupidity of "faith" like you sucker theists. And also, as an atheist (as are the vast majority of scientists and engineers), I rule your fucking world! Without me and my "kind" you'd be wiping your ass with a palm leaf and dying of old age at the ripe old age of 30.

Your "kind" is kind enough to give tissue papers to wipe a$$, thereby extending the lives of theists by 60 youthful years.

Ha!

Those are some of the lamest responses I've ever seen! Great!

LG:
despite bringing us the latest technology for our backsides, it seems you are still unable to bring some solution on the horizon for the problems of disease, old age and death.

Are you an idiot? Really? You think our atheistic science has progressed zero distance in these areas from the religiously-ruled world before the invention of science?
You really think we live the same short and brutish lives we lived even a hundred years ago? Man, I'd love to send you back for a good long visit.

sam:
Apparently atheism is a no balls scenario.
You seem to be saying that only women can be atheists. Why would you say such a rediculous thing sammy dear?

everneo:
Your "kind" is kind enough to give tissue papers to wipe a$$, thereby extending the lives of theists by 60 youthful years.
In essecnce, yes. You're quite welcome my ignorant friend.

despite bringing us the latest technology for our backsides, it seems you are still unable to bring some solution on the horizon for the problems of disease, old age and death.



science will soon accomplish that feat. when it does, the emerging problems would be miseries like prolonged, vigorous, non-stop nonsenses.

You seem to be saying that only women can be atheists. Why would you say such a rediculous thing sammy dear?


Actually I was suggesting that to be an atheist you'd have to leave your balls at home, since with all the superior knowledge, the best they can come up with against evil theists is to build bigger weapons that kill substantially more people.

Hard to imagine a humane secular scientist sitting at his desk thinking up delayed action cluster bombs and how they can cause maximum damage to civilian populations, including children, knowing of course, that without him or others like him, there'd be very little likelihood of getting them made.

science will soon accomplish that feat. when it does, the emerging problems would be miseries like prolonged, vigorous, non-stop nonsenses.
I see
In the future empiricists will be very very clever but at the moment they are not
:rolleyes:

[QUOTE]
Are you an idiot? Really? You think our atheistic science has progressed zero distance in these areas from the religiously-ruled world before the invention of science?
I had no idea you were such a smart chum.
Please tell us who, when and where science was 'invented'

You really think we live the same short and brutish lives we lived even a hundred years ago?
no
now we are capable of being more brutish by more efficient methods

Man, I'd love to send you back for a good long visit.
How much worse could it be than present day iraq or hiroshima in 1945 or (etc etc)

Actually I was suggesting that to be an atheist you'd have to leave your balls at home, since with all the superior knowledge, the best they can come up with against evil theists is to build bigger weapons that kill substantially more people.


The best? No, not really.. Science, (not atheism), does what is possible... no matter how the world might view it. We could all fight sticks and stones for all science gives a shit - that is not why wmd are made, that is not why nukes have been made. The only reason nukes have been used is because a religious man has ordered it - but the orders of a religious man are of no consequence to science.

Although it's an impossibility, let's say that science developed a time machine. Some pagan then decided to go back in time and kill Mary before she gave birth to jesus. The scientist is not at fault, the pagan is. What you need to do is sit down and figure this into your equations. Science will do what it is capable of doing - regardless to the possible negative side effects of that discovery. It is not upto those scientists to use what they wrought.

The best? No, not really.. Science, (not atheism), does what is possible... no matter how the world might view it. We could all fight sticks and stones for all science gives a shit - that is not why wmd are made, that is not why nukes have been made. The only reason nukes have been used is because a religious man has ordered it - but the orders of a religious man are of no consequence to science.

Although it's an impossibility, let's say that science developed a time machine. Some pagan then decided to go back in time and kill Mary before she gave birth to jesus. The scientist is not at fault, the pagan is. What you need to do is sit down and figure this into your equations. Science will do what it is capable of doing - regardless to the possible negative side effects of that discovery. It is not upto those scientists to use what they wrought.

All about context, huh? :p

All about context, huh?

I take it you had absolutely nothing to dispute in my post?

I take it you had absolutely nothing to dispute in my post?

Nope nothing at all.

I completely agree with you.

Nope after all you just explained why religious texts/beliefs cannot be blamed for the way people use them.

Not really no..

A muslim makes a bomb and then uses that bomb because a god tells him to martyr himself and destroy as many infidels as possible.

A Christian blows up an abortion clinic specifically because a religious text and belief tell him that abortion is bad,

Science has nothing to say about infidels or the moral implications of abortion. Science is not a case of moral right or wrongs, it's a case of what is or isn't. While you keep ignoring it, it was a religious man that ordered the use of nukes... Science is not politics, it is not moral guidance. Kindly do not confuse them.

If it helps then yes, I would agree that, (if) there were a god, that the actions of humans are not specifically what it wants them to do - but "belief" is where the buck stops. It is "belief" that causes people to do the crazy things they do - as does the text they get those crazy beliefs from. Neither of them are science.

Not really no..

A muslim makes a bomb and then uses that bomb because a god tells him to martyr himself and destroy as many infidels as possible.

A Christian blows up an abortion clinic specifically because a religious text and belief tell him that abortion is bad,



Nope, no more than a scientist builds a bomb because he wants to kill people, although HE KNOWS thats what the ultimate and only aim of a bomb is.

People do what they do because they want to, and find justification for it anywhere they want.

Stalin wanted a perfect society. Hitler wanted a perfect society.
Both thought the best way to achieve it was by eliminating the undesirables.

Atheists want a perfect society, so do fundamentalists.
Not everyone has the same idea of what a perfect society means, of course, but usually it means having more people who are most like themselves.

Why some choose science (eugenics) and others religion tells you more about the people than science or religion.

Nope, no more than a scientist builds a bomb because he wants to kill people, although HE KNOWS thats what the ultimate and only aim of a bomb is.

The intention of all suicide bombers up to date, the people that flew planes into Twin Towers etc was not to kill people?

It's something I talk about quite a bit with colleagues..

We used to have a problem with the Irish. They would leave a bomb in a building and then phone that building telling everyone to evacuate. The bomb would detonate and the building would be destroyed but civilian casualties were generally prevented and the bomber also got away - sitting at home drinking champagne.

Muslims on the other hand do not care for the lives they are ending - including their own.

A scientist does not build bombs because he wants to kill people, a muslim detonates those bombs because he wants to kill people.

The intention of all suicide bombers up to date, the people that flew planes into Twin Towers etc was not to kill people?

It's something I talk about quite a bit with colleagues..

We used to have a problem with the Irish. They would leave a bomb in a building and then phone that building telling everyone to evacuate. The bomb would detonate and the building would be destroyed but civilian casualties were generally prevented and the bomber also got away - sitting at home drinking champagne.

Muslims on the other hand do not care for the lives they are ending - including their own.

A scientist does not build bombs because he wants to kill people, a muslim [i]does[i/] detonate those bombs because he wants to kill people.

So why do the soldiers use bombs in war, on children and civilians? Are they all Muslims? Are all Muslims suicide bombers? Are all suicide bombers Muslims?

And scientists who build atomic bombs that kill hundreds of thousands of people don't want to kill people? The ones who build chemical weapons never consider the effects on civilians? Did scientists stop making atomic bombs after WWII? Why?

Is the UK a Muslim nation?


a Sunday Herald investigation has revealed that Britain is now selling chemicals to Sudan - and others among the most dangerous regimes on earth - which give them the capability to make weapons of mass destruction.

Among the countries to which Britain is selling chemical warfare technology is Iran - a regime labeled as part of the 'axis of evil' by President Bush.

Others include Libya - long seen by the west as a state sponsor of international terrorism; Israel - which is involved in one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent times; and Taiwan - a nation which has been on the brink of war with China for decades.

The sale of these chemicals is strictly controlled by the international chemical weapons convention, to which Britain is a signatory, and any sale to nations that may use them as a weapon of war is illegal. Libya, Israel and Taiwan are not signatories to the convention. Nor are Thailand and Syria, yet Britain sells them the technology.

Another customer is Jordan. Like Sudan, Jordan has signed the convention but not ratified it, making the treaty effectively meaningless for both governments. The other nations to which the UK deals chemicals are Cyprus, India, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen.

Who is responsible for the proliferation of this information and technology? Muslims?

http://www.fas.org/cw/index.htm

Why?

Churchill was a celebrated atheist:

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.

http://iraqwar.org/chemical.htm


A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

So why do the soldiers use bombs in war

Politics.

According to Bush & Blair, (both religious men), the Iraqis had wmd and terrorists and oil and... etc etc etc. The soldiers do what they are ordered to do. In this instance those orders come from a deeply religious man, (his father didn't even consider atheists as citizens of America).

In the case of Hiroshima the order came from another religious man.

Now, these men could get a few scientists and ask what would happen. The scientist would say that: "Well, if you detonate this bomb, everything in a 100 mile radius would be evaporated" (eg), but the scientist would not get into the moral debates concerning whether it's right or wrong to drop such a weapon. Sure, even scientists, (of which I regard myself as one), have beliefs, ideals and opinions.. but those beliefs, ideals and opinions are not science. Why, I believe in an omnipotent leprechaun named Larry - but that is of no consequence to science - even my version of it which is focused on the human mind.

Science will show you what is possible. It's not science that uses it.

I used muslims as a pertinent analogy.. nothing more.

And scientists who build atomic bombs that kill hundreds of thousands of people don't want to kill people?

No. Maybe a specific scientist has beliefs, opinions and issues that would equal the killing of millions - but that belief is not science, it's belief.

The ones who build chemical weapons never consider the effects on civilians?

Of course they do. They will and always do provide the data. How it is used is not science.

Did scientists stop making atomic bombs after WWII?

No.

Why?

Politics.




[edit]

Churchill was a celebrated atheist

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage

And yet I get the distinct impression that you support James and his list concerning "greatest men". Tell me Sam, how many people did Alexander have to kill to earn the title of "great man"? How many deaths to be great? This, a religious man, loved by millions, considered "one of the greats". How many dead to earn that title? If science had have been around he would have accomplished those killings a lot easier, but it wouldn't have been the fault of science that Alexander decided to conquer.

Funny thing is, you guys seemingly believe it's ok when we use the word conquer but not when we use the word murder. While he tries to justify and deify one man for killing to such a degree whereby he nearly conquered an entire planet, an atheist is evil by attempting to do the same - and for what?

Let's get it straight right now for the pair of you.. An "atheist" does not have murder on his mind, "science" does not engage itself in the morality of such action. The only thing that considers, justifies and promotes death is "belief". Yes, an atheist that "believes" all christians are fucknuts can kill as can a religious man that believes all atheists are vermin. Atheism and science are not the cause.

No, that's jibberish.

Light is an entity with wave-like and particle-like properties and is not "beyond time". What the hell does beyond time mean? That's complete uneducated jibberish. So god is a photon? Which photon is he? What is god's wavelength? Can I measure god with a photometer?

Its not jibberish, at least if you're educated enough to know what the theory of relativity (but obviously you're not so I'll explain)

In the theory of relativity, light has no concept of time since all distances are zero...as objects travel closer the speed of light there rate of time is also closer to zero.....therefore six days of God could indeed be millions or billions of years...


BTW, as an atheist, I don't subscribe to the stupidity of "faith" like you sucker theists. And also, as an atheist (as are the vast majority of scientists and engineers), I rule your fucking world! Without me and my "kind" you'd be wiping your ass with a palm leaf and dying of old age at the ripe old age of 30.
Hahaha, another myth created by atheism...you have faith that science won't change in time and discover things like a soul (immaterial mind), afterlife (like Quantum Immortality), etc.....hahaha

Oh yeah, If Stalin kills millions atheists say it wasn't because he's an atheist, but if scientists who discover things happen to be atheist, they say it must be because they are atheist...hahahaha...another faith-based atheistic belief

SamCDKey:

Actually, I'm a pretty big fan of this nuclear bomb. It has probably stopped two more World Wars in the 20th century alone.

Nothing like MAD to keep the nations in check. Pray to God this doesn't change in a few decades.

Politics. Atheism and science are not the cause.

So its politics when scientists do it, but religion when its not a scientist?

Of course, atheism cannot be a cause, especially when an atheist thinks religious nutters should not share a planet with him. And scientists who make chemical bombs are merely advancing the cause of science since they are permitted to be as unethical as they like, as ethics is completely separate from science.

It is scientific curiosity to make bigger and better bombs, investigate the effects of different chemicals on humans, how several poisons work, how neutron bombs can kill all people but leave most buildings standing.

Its all science.

.....therefore six days of God could indeed be millions or billions of years...

Here is my issue with this, and it's blatant error..

It is biblically said that 1 day to god is a thousand years to man. In saying this, what god perceives as 6 days, (creation), to us actually took 6,000 years. In saying this we end up with a serious problem.

Accroding to the same biblical writers that explained that the 6 day creation was actually 6,000 years,the flood lasted for 40 days. What they are therefore saying is that the flood from a human perspective actually lasted for 40,000 years. the water itself lasted for well over 100 years.. What these biblical writers are professing is that the water resided on earth for well over 100,000 years. These same biblical writers state that Adam lived for over 900 years... What they are stating from a human perspective is that Adam actually lived for just short of a million years.

I'm sorry, you cannot have it both ways.

If Stalin kills millions atheists say it wasn't because he's an atheist, but if scientists who discover things happen to be atheist, they say it must be because they are atheist...hahahaha...another faith-based atheistic belief

Seems like it's now time to make it straight for you as well...

An "atheist" is someone who lacks belief in gods.. Period. A scientist who discovers something might be an athiest or he might be the most religiously devout person on the earth, it is entirely inconsequential to anything - because an atheist is merely one who lacks a belief in god. An "atheist" does nothing, or does everything.. it is not due to his atheism. I posed an example, (Twain), who was a serious atheist. In his case the stories he wrote would not and could not have been written if he was not an atheist but other than that you will find no discovery is ever made by atheism.

Snakelord:

I think we'd agree that the majority of people in times past - whether famous, infamous or unknown had religious beliefs. That I will not dispute, but that is not where you are making the error. The error comes in the form of you claiming that the majority of greatest murderers were atheists by mentioning 2 names while calling any religious murderer a "pussy cat" as if that somehow makes things all better.

Hitler's atrocities were, comparatively, a pussy-cat compared to Stalin and Mao. NOthing even remotely close did Hitler ever do that amounts to the sheer savagery of the Communist regimes. And that is saying a lot, considering we have basically kissed Communism's ass ever since then.

Now, kindly show that the "majority" of greatest murderers were religious. Two is not a majority james, you should know that. (Unless you're using a total of 2/3 murderers in which case 2 is clearly the majority. What number are you using when you say majority? 10 Murderers total, 20? 100?)

Stalin and Mao, as noted, collectively killed more than the majority of anything historically. They are basically titans.

Add to this the scores and scores of lesser Communist Atheists, and you have "the majority of the greatest murderers and fiends" in human history. The sheer magnitude of their wretchedness should speak leaps and bounds for it all.

My apologies. Now kindly explain how 2 people can ever be considered a "majority" unless you're only prepared to take 2 murderers into account?

Their magnitude of murder far surpasses all else, as well as their bureaucracy beneath them doing the murdering under their command.

Officially was every leader of every communist movement a communist? Would it not seem apparent that instead of blaming their lack of belief in a god as the cause of all those deaths, that those deaths came from their society ideals etc? Needless to say, well apparently it is needed, lack of belief in a sky being does not compel a person to go out and kill one person or millions of people for that matter.

I am not blaming Atheism. I am simply pointing out a connection. It's to show that human greatness is most certainly not associated, in the least, with Atheism by itself.

Atheism has nothing to say with regards to how life should be - that people should be equal, what politics work, how to treat your subjects etc.. No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in god - nothing else.

Certainly.

Atheism didn't kill anyone, in the 2 cases you cite - communism did. As I keep having to explain, communism and atheism are not the same thing.

Not all Atheists are Communists. But all orthodox Communists are Atheists.

Yes yes.. *yawn* "pussy cats".. Sort yourself out.

60,000 compared to 100,000,000 is not even a drop in the ocean.

A lack of belief in gods. That's all it is.. Needless to say there are many people of "greatness" that lacked a belief in gods - perhaps even compelled that greateness. The greatness of Twain for instance comes largely from his atheism. 'Letters From Earth', 'Adam's Diary', 'What is Man' etc.. He could never have written such classics had he not have been atheist.

Are not the bulk of his major classics more fictionalized? Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, a Connetecuit Yankee in King Arthur's Court...

[edit] What I unfortunately forgot to mention earlier is that "greatness" is subjective. Whos vision of greatness do we use?

I think a consensus of certain traits could be compiled from a list which associates greatness with a general degree of goodness + achievement.

Tony Blair for instance. I'm sorry but I cannot think of one thing that would even raise Blair above the level of serious scumpot. There is nothing he has done that would make him "great" whatsoever. You also include a couple of people that are merely famous by virtue of killing people - or more to the point, being able to tell others to go out and kill people, (Alexander the Great for instance). Sure, he conquered pretty much everyone, but I personally wouldn't consider that "greatness".

Feel free to discard them. Even so, replace them with tremendous amounts of other personages throughout history.

I had no idea you were such a smart chum.
Please tell us who, when and where science was 'invented'
Ok. Here ya go:

http://www.bridgewater.edu/~atrupe/GEC101/popper.html

Its not jibberish, at least if you're educated enough to know what the theory of relativity (but obviously you're not so I'll explain)

In the theory of relativity, blah, blah, blah...

Hmmm... Since SnakeLord already answered this, I'll just let it go.

So its politics when scientists do it, but religion when its not a scientist?

Of course, atheism cannot be a cause, especially when an atheist thinks religious nutters should not share a planet with him. And scientists who make chemical bombs are merely advancing the cause of science since they are permitted to be as unethical as they like, as ethics is completely separate from science.

It is scientific curiosity to make bigger and better bombs, investigate the effects of different chemicals on humans, how several poisons work, how neutron bombs can kill all people but leave most buildings standing.

Its all science.
You somehow think that most weapons technology was invented by and manufactured by non-theists? How amusing.

Ok. Here ya go:

http://www.bridgewater.edu/~atrupe/GEC101/popper.html

So is Popper's theory falsifiable?:D

You somehow think that most weapons technology was invented by and manufactured by non-theists? How amusing.



Atom bomb? Atheist

Neutron bomb? Atheist


Sam Cohen is an atheist Jew whose most prized possession is a peace medal given to him by a Roman Catholic pope. He got it for creating the neutron bomb.

``No (expletive deleted) rabbi or Protestant minister wanted anything to do with me,'' grumbled Cohen, now 78 years old and still bitter that most people didn't share the pope's approval of his work.

Teller, Edward (1908- ):
Hungarian born physicist, who studied under Niels Bohr at Copenhagen. Leaving Germany in 1933, Teller was to lecture both at London and at Washington (1935). During the war years he was to join Oppenheimer's theoretical study group at Berkeley, California. Teller was instrumental in the development of the first earthbound thermonuclear explosion.

Just to be clear here, most of the violence in the history of the human race has been perpretrated by people with theistic beliefs. If you doubt this, consider that for all of human history 99.9% of the populace has believed in a god of some kind (as theists love to point out, 95% of the world still believes in a god, so there must be one).

So is Popper's theory falsifiable?:D
What? Huh? It's just to point out for LG that science definitely had a distinct origin. I don't give a fuck about popper.

What? Huh? It's just to point out for LG that science definitely had a distinct origin. I don't give a fuck about popper.

Hilarious!

On the other hand it seems to me that the task which science sets itself [that is, the explanation of the world] and the main ideas which it uses, are taken over without any break from prescientific mythmaking.

Just to be clear here, most of the violence in the history of the human race has been perpretrated by people with theistic beliefs. If you doubt this, consider that for all of human history 99.9% of the populace has believed in a god of some kind (as theists love to point out, 95% of the world still believes in a god, so there must be one).

And yet the maximum murders have been committed by officially atheistic regimes, inspite of the negligible presence of atheists.

What does that tell you?

Atom bomb? Atheist

Neutron bomb? Atheist
Sword? Theist
Chemical explosives? Theist
Bow and arrow? Theist
Cross bow? Theist
Guns? Theist
Cannon? Theist
Fire bombs? Theist
Trebuchet? Theist
Catapult? Theist
Assault warefare? Theist
Seige engines? Theist
Poison darts? Theist
Ships of war? Theist
Napalm-type weapons (e.g. Greek Fire)? Theist
etc...

So its politics when scientists do it, but religion when its not a scientist?

No.. It's politics when politics does it and "belief" when belief does it, (be that the belief of an atheist or religous man). Science makes it, science does not use it.

Of course, atheism cannot be a cause, especially when an atheist who thins religious nutters should not share a planet with him.

I am an atheist - I, like everyone else on the planet, was born an atheist. Unlike some I just stayed that way. Now, I believe that religious belief is the most dangerous of worldly cancers. I believe that all religious people should be shot..

(Having read that kindly pay attention to the few uses of "believe" - this is where you are making the mistake. While an atheist might go around annihilating everyone in sight, it is not atheism, it is personal belief).

And scientists who make chemical bombs are merely advancing the cause of science since they are permitted to be as unethical, as ethics is completely separate from science.

I'm afraid so. Bear in mind though that it's not being "unethical". A nuclear bomb by design does no harm to anyone. It is neither moral nor immoral, it just sits there looking stupid.

My computer is relatively harmless. By itself it does sweet bugger all. Morals do not come into the equation. If I really wanted to I could hack your computer. I could steal all your personal information, delete all your files etc etc...

The computer is not evil. Bill Gates, (its debateable), is not evil because of his computer programming. The "evil" comes in the form of those that use it.

It is scientific curiosity to make bigger and better bombs, investigate the effects of different chemicals on humans, how several poisons work, how neutron bombs can kill all people but leave most buildings standing.

Absolutely. The door swings both ways and you have to understand that not everything is going to sit well with your own personal morality but that does not hinder science and nor should it. The minute science stops to consider personal ideals everything stops. There would be no viagra, no make-up, (animal testing is bad), no anything...

From our perspective it seems so easy. Yes, I am dreadfully sorry that VX gas exists, I hate to see people succumb to the devastation of a nuclear weapon attack.. but once again that is not science. Science will show what is, nothing more... The usage of those things is left to all those "people of greatness" that James alludes to.

Sword? Theist
Chemical explosives? Theist
Bow and arrow? Theist
Cross bow? Theist
Guns? Theist
Cannon? Theist
Fire bombs? Theist
Trebuchet? Theist
Catapult? Theist
Assault warefare? Theist
Seige engines? Theist
Poison darts? Theist
Ships of war? Theist
Napalm-type weapons (e.g. Greek Fire)? Theist
etc...

Bet they were all undercover atheists.

Anyway none of these compare with the devastation that could be wrought by the atheists' bombs

And yet the maximum murders have been committed by officially atheistic regimes, inspite of the negligible presence of atheists.

What does that tell you?
Nothing.

I disagree with your statistics. You are stuck in the 20th century. Add up all of the "murders" committed in human history, and you will find, by necessity, that they were committed by theists.

Besides, we conscientious atheists (of which 99.9% of us are) abhor violence. The leaders you are talking about were psychopaths, theistic or not. The violence done by normal theists throughout history, under the guidance of some god, is stunning.

Here is my issue with this, and it's blatant error..

It is biblically said that 1 day to god is a thousand years to man. In saying this, what god perceives as 6 days, (creation), to us actually took 6,000 years. In saying this we end up with a serious problem.

Accroding to the same biblical writers that explained that the 6 day creation was actually 6,000 years,the flood lasted for 40 days. What they are therefore saying is that the flood from a human perspective actually lasted for 40,000 years. the water itself lasted for well over 100 years.. What these biblical writers are professing is that the water resided on earth for well over 100,000 years. These same biblical writers state that Adam lived for over 900 years... What they are stating from a human perspective is that Adam actually lived for just short of a million years.

I'm sorry, you cannot have it both ways.
Well you're right, the Bible does say the Earth is about 6,000 years old. However, I was not addressing that, I was addressing the original post which states "Isn't it possible that God created the world (in six days) already in a stage that scientists would define at an "age of Millions of years?", I was simply answering that yes it is possible....


Seems like it's now time to make it straight for you as well...

An "atheist" is someone who lacks belief in gods.. Period. A scientist who discovers something might be an athiest or he might be the most religiously devout person on the earth, it is entirely inconsequential to anything - because an atheist is merely one who lacks a belief in god. An "atheist" does nothing, or does everything.. it is not due to his atheism. I posed an example, (Twain), who was a serious atheist. In his case the stories he wrote would not and could not have been written if he was not an atheist but other than that you will find no discovery is ever made by atheism.
Right, so you seem to be agreeing with me....atheism or theism has little or nothing to do with scientists and their discoveries.....superliminal on the other hand disagrees...he attributes these things to atheism...yet he would quickly say that Stalin killing millions has nothing to do with atheism...

From our perspective it seems so easy. Yes, I am dreadfully sorry that VX gas exists, I hate to see people succumb to the devastation of a nuclear weapon attack.. but once again that is not science. Science will show what is, nothing more... The usage of those things is left to all those "people of greatness" that James alludes to.

All this conveniently forgets that the primary purpose of a weapon is to kill.

Would you be willing to keep a neutron bomb in your house? Seeing as its harmless all by itself?

Bet they were all undercover atheists.

Anyway none of these compare with the devastation that could be wrought by the atheists' bombs
The "atheists's bombs"!!! That's freaking hilarious sam! You should minor in stand-up comedy.

You really think that atom bombs were developed as atheistic weapons of evil? Atom bombs are just another weapons technology that grew out of the investigations into the nature of matter that the greeks initiated. The vast majority of the people on these projects were theists and "patriots". Unless you think that oppenheimer singlehandedly developed the A-bomb in his basement? :rolleyes:

All this conveniently forgets that the primary purpose of a weapon is to kill...
...non-believers, as history proves.

...non-believers, as history proves.

Must have been a lot of nonbelievers in communism then.

superliminal on the other hand disagrees...he attributes these things to atheism...yet he would quickly say that Stalin killing millions has nothing to do with atheism...
That's right. I will say whatever best supports my position. Oops. That's been patented by theists. I'll have to come up with another approach...:p

Plus, my user name is superlUminal, not superlIminal, dipshit.

The "atheists's bombs"!!! That's freaking hilarious sam! You should minor in stand-up comedy.

You really think that atom bombs were developed as atheistic weapons of evil? Atom bombs are just another weapons technology that grew out of the investigations into the nature of matter that the greeks initiated. The vast majority of the people on these projects were theists and "patriots". Unless you think that oppenheimer singlehandedly developed the A-bomb in his basement? :rolleyes:


with its scientific research directed by the American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.

I'm sure that was very comforting to the Japanese victims.

Must have been a lot of nonbelievers in communism then.
Oh, right. All violence began with 20th century atheistic regimes. I forgot. Sorry.

Oh, right. All violence began with 20th century atheistic regimes. I forgot. Sorry.

Actually it began with atheist neoliths who first bashed in the heads of their spiritual neighbors. Very violent, some of these atheists.

I'm sure that was very comforting to the Japanese victims.
No, but it was comforting to the potentially millions of japanese and allied victims that didn't die, that the projected invasion of Japan would have involved.

Wake up sam.

That's right. I will say whatever best supports my position. Oops. That's been patented by theists. I'll have to come up with another approach...:p

Plus, my user name is superlUminal, not superlIminal, dipshit.

Right so you agree too, you just say whatever supports atheism to uphold your atheistic faith......if an atheist kills millions, its not because of atheism....if a scientist who is an atheist discovers something, it must be because atheism...the worse part is you don't even see the logical contradiction...

Actually it began with atheist neoliths who first bashed in the heads of their spiritual neighbors. Very violent, some of these atheists.
Orgub the neanderthal atheist beats his theistic neighbor Shmuba on the head? Never...

No, but it was comforting to the potentially millions of japanese and allied victims that didn't die, that the projected invasion of Japan would have involved.

Wake up sam.

Do they know how they were saved by the bomb? Have they given their thanks yet, the ungrateful b*stards?

Right so you agree too, you just say whatever supports atheism to uphold your atheistic faith......if an atheist kills millions, its not because of atheism....if a scientist who is an atheist discovers something, it must be because atheism...the worse part is you don't even see the logical contradiction...
I see all. I am an atheist after all...

I'm just trying to keep pace with the latest developments in theistic apologetics and argumentation.

Orgub the neanderthal atheist beats his theistic neighbor Shmuba on the head? Never...

I have proof
http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/Research/Italy/holesma.gif


http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/Research/Italy/

Do they know how they were saved by the bomb? Have they given their thanks yet, the ungrateful b*stards?
Most enlightend people have, yes. They realize the extent of the horror that was averted due to the use of the first (and only) two atomic weapons used in war.

Most enlightend people have, yes. They realize the extent of the horror that was averted due to the use of the first (and only) two atomic weapons used in war.

Let me guess. Were any of them Japanese?

Would you favor a similar tactic to be used on the US if the rest of the world got fed up of its interfering ways?

To save the world?

What a load of BS :rolleyes:

I have proof
http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/Research/Italy/holesma.gif


http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/Research/Italy/
Umm... this was an attempt at surgery sam, not a battle wound.

Oh! It's a joke! I get it now. :o

Umm... this was an attempt at surgery sam, not a battle wound.

Oh! It's a joke! I get it now. :o

You could read the link and get the bigger picture.

Let me guess. Were any of them Japanese?

Would you favor a similar tactic to be used on the US if the rest of the world got fed up of its interfering ways?

To save the world?
Nice attempt at a strawman there, but I won't go for it.

Japan was not "interfering". They were bent on expanding their empire through violence. We (the US of AWESOMENESS) are attempting to rid the world of terrorists and spread democracy, the best way yet discovered to ensure the maximum prosperity for individuals. *blows a big raspberry at sam*

You could read the link and get the bigger picture.
I did. Your picture is still a trepanation.

Nice attempt at a strawman there, but I won't go for it.

Japan was not "interfering". They were bent on expanding their empire through violence. We (the US of AWESOMENESS) are attempting to rid the world of terrorists and spread democracy, the best way yet discovered to ensure the maximum prosperity for individuals. *blows a big raspberry at sam*

I wonder if you even see the irony there.

I wonder if you even see the irony there.
Irony? What irony? All I said was that we're right because we're the US of AMAZINGNESS while the Japanese were evil. What's the problem?

Look. Hundreds of years from now, when the world is living in democratic bliss and sipping coffee at Starbucks(TM) we'll all look back and have a laugh at how silly the world was.

كم هو ثمنه؟ coffee?

Look. Hundreds of years from now, when the world is living in democratic bliss and sipping coffee at Starbucks(TM) we'll all look back and have a laugh at how silly the world was.

I see self delusion is guaranteed in fundamentalists, even irreligious ones.

Hitler's atrocities were, comparatively, a pussy-cat compared to Stalin and Mao. NOthing even remotely close did Hitler ever do that amounts to the sheer savagery of the Communist regimes.

The case in point is your usage of "the majority". I shall bring it up in detail on your next quote..

and you have "the majority of the greatest murderers and fiends" in human history.

As I tried to explain earlier, you would have to assign a number. If we were to say that the "majority" is worked out from 1,000 of the top killers in history you would find that your two examples are lacking. Sure, perhaps they were more successful in their specific style of murder, but you would be in no position to consider them, (with regards to their atheism), "the majority".

You have already stated that the "majority" of people in history were religious while trying to claim that when it comes to murder, the majority were atheist. I have no qualms with you denigrating atheists, I'd just like you to support that claim, and even you know you can't. You can "he was a pussy cat" all you like, it's irrelevant.

Their magnitude of murder far surpasses all else

Ah, so you didn't mean "the majority of the greatest murderers and fiends" at all. There are two conclusions.. You either meant "the majority" while using the top 2 as the only basis or you just meant there's a couple of people that killed more than "the majority" and happened to be atheists.

Let me clarify it for you..

To find a "majority" you need to assign a value. For the sake of this discussion we will say the top 100 mass muderers of all time..

1) yhwh
2) Stalin
3) Mao, (amusingly enough considered a "man of greatness" by many)
4) etc etc etc...

Now.. to be able to assign "majority" in this instance you would need at least 51 of those 100 to be atheists. Upon doing so you could state that "the majority of greatest murderers and fiends were atheist". Without assigning an initial value you're just wasting pixels.

I am not blaming Atheism. I am simply pointing out a connection.

That connection will always be there if you only use 2 names. try 100 and then we actually have something to work with. Right now I will not deny that those with the desire to kill that were atheist were better at the job than theists, but that does not equal "majority".

It's to show that human greatness is most certainly not associated, in the least, with Atheism by itself.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, nothing more. Theism is a belief in a god or gods, nothing more. Human greatness is most certainly not associated with either by that token. There are great humans that were atheists and great humans that were thiests - it is inconsequential.

Not all Atheists are Communists. But all orthodox Communists are Atheists.

Not everything yellow is a banana, but all bananas are yellow, (alright stfu they're technically green to begin with). Yellow is not the same thing as a banana.

A murderous banana is not murderous due to it being yellow.

60,000 compared to 100,000,000 is not even a drop in the ocean.

But it also is not "majority" unless you intend to use just 2 names in the list.

Are not the bulk of his major classics more fictionalized? Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, a Connetecuit Yankee in King Arthur's Court...

It's an unfortunate side effect of schooling. Misunderstanding led to many viewing Huck/Sawyer as childrens stories and they were taught as such. Yankee is largely unknown, (in this part of the world), but certainly not as much so as the one's I highlighted. However, the point in that instance was to show that atheism, (in that respect), was imperative for their creation.

I think a consensus of certain traits could be compiled from a list which associates greatness with a general degree of goodness + achievement.

I will run proper figures later, but from early estimates it seems that a good 50% of your list of "people of greatness" revolves around those that had a penchant for killing. Rameses, Alexander, Joan of Arc, Blair, Khan, Napolean, Nelson etc etc etc.

So I ask you this.. How many must a person kill to be considered great, and at what number does that greatness stop being so great? (Amusing because many consider Mao a "person of greatness".. guess the number is irrlevant).

Feel free to discard them. Even so, replace them with tremendous amounts of other personages throughout history.

I suppose it's just me but I could come up with very few names, (be they religious or otherwise). I would probably be far more impressed by those people whos names we shall never know.

All this conveniently forgets that the primary purpose of a weapon is to kill.

It's debateable. To many the primary purpose of a weapon is to prevent killing. Countries rarely decide to launch a war against those that have nukes. you are less likely to launch an attack on a guy that is holding a gun. The door swings both ways.

But you're still missing the point.. It might or might not be convenient what the primary purpose of a weapon is.. It's irrelevant. Split the atom.. Hell science could inadvertently obliterate the universe.. We'll discuss the moral implications of that in some other classroom.

Would you be willing to keep a neutron bomb in your house?

Certainly. Would stop those religious whackjobs from knocking on my door every week. "How soon would you like to meet god?"

See, weapons are as much a preventative measure as they are a destructive measure.

It's debateable. To many the primary purpose of a weapon is to prevent killing. Countries rarely decide to launch a war against those that have nukes. you are less likely to launch an attack on a guy that is holding a gun. The door swings both ways.

But you're still missing the point.. It might or might not be convenient what the primary purpose of a weapon is.. It's irrelevant. Split the atom.. Hell science could inadvertently obliterate the universe.. We'll discuss the moral implications of that in some other classroom.

Certainly. Would stop those religious whackjobs from knocking on my door every week. "How soon would you like to meet god?"

See, weapons are as much a preventative measure as they are a destructive measure.

Ah one of those pro-gun people.

Should've guessed.

Ah one of those pro-gun people.

Should've guessed.

Actually no. I dislike guns, have an even greater dislike for knives and consider myself one of the calmer humans on this planet. I'm not into weapons to be perfectly honest - not because I'm specifically pacifistic or anything, I'm just a chilled kinda guy..

However, for the gazillionth time.. My personal views and opinions concerning weapons are of no relevance or consequence to science.

You said "should've guessed". What you probably meant to say was "shouldn't have guessed, should've asked".

Actually no. I dislike guns, have an even greater dislike for knives and consider myself one of the calmer humans on this planet. I'm not into weapons to be perfectly honest - not because I'm specifically pacifistic or anything, I'm just a chilled kinda guy..

However, for the gazillionth time.. My personal views and opinions concerning weapons are of no relevance or consequence to science.

You said "should've guessed". What you probably meant to say was "shouldn't have guessed, should've asked".

Ah do as I say, not as I do.:rolleyes:

Ah do as I say, not as I do.

To be honest with you I fail to see the value or relevance of your statement to anything other than a sideswipe to help you avoid the issue.

Smiley faces wont get you out of it, I'd advise you to try something else.

Just a question sam.

Are you a pro-survival type? I mean, would you try to protect yourself from someone trying to kill you?

Just curious.

Just a question sam.

Are you a pro-survival type? I mean, would you try to protect yourself from someone trying to kill you?

Just curious.

Sure, but I'd probably use a frying pan rather than a gun. It'd be more handy anyhow.

Sure, but I'd probably use a frying pan rather than a gun. It'd be more handy anyhow.
Ah. I see. Thanks.

What? Huh? It's just to point out for LG that science definitely had a distinct origin. I don't give a fuck about popper.

trouble is it is not distinct - he has an idea where and when science was invented, but since you couldn't care less about it, it s not clear where your conviction that science was "invented" arises from ..... (In other words your stance appears to be "who knows who, who knows where, who knows why and who knows when ?????? But it happened okay - trust me.")

trouble is it is not distinct - he has an idea where and when science was invented, but since you couldn't care less about it, it s not clear where your conviction that science was "invented" arises from ..... (In other words your stance appears to be "who knows who, who knows where, who knows why and who knows when ?????? But it happened okay - trust me.")
LG,

The greeks are generally attributed with the origin of scientific thought. You have a computer, right? :D :m: You probably have a library nearby too. You can google this well known fact or go to the library and research it.

Why not stop making silly statements until you've looked into it a bit?

LG,

The greeks are generally attributed with the origin of scientific thought. You have a computer, right? :D :m: You probably have a library nearby too. You can google this well known fact or go to the library and research it.

Why not stop making silly statements until you've looked into it a bit?

Why should we believe the information about the Greeks?

Why should we believe the information about the Greeks?

Ummm, errr... I dunno?

http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNotes/history_originsOfThought.html

Ummm, errr... I dunno?

http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNotes/history_originsOfThought.html

On the basis of established authority? Are you using LG's tactics on me?:bugeye:

On the basis of established authority? Are you using LG's tactics on me?:bugeye:
Ummm... What? You want me to go back in time and compile video evidence?

BTW, LG tends to ignore established authority.

On the basis of established authority? Are you using LG's tactics on me?:bugeye:

No he's not

there is no one making claims of the direct perception of the invention of science, nor claims of the process that enables the direct perception of the history of science

Just some people with some (apparently) good ideas on the subject

No he's not

there is no one making claims of the direct perception of the invention of science, nor claims of the process that enables the direct perception of the history of science

Just some people with some (apparently) good ideas on the subject

You have the philosophers disease, don't you?

A philosopher's disease. To make the average person confused, that is - to make everything into a mystery. Not all things are riddles, but a philosopher tries to make them so, and in so doing becomes an ideologist for the system. The main features of this system are clear...and we know what is needed.

religion!=science

When it is claimed that a supernatural being exists for certain, in much the same way it is claimed the Earth revolves around the sun, it is then subject to scientific scrutiny. And even if you personally don't do this, others do.

As for the thread, I'm guessing that "evolutionism" has something to do with evolution. Perhaps it's a creationist's misspelling. So I'll proceed with that assumption.

At least some parts of the Bible allow for evolution:

Genesis 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201&version=9), King James Version

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[...]

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

[...]

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Notice that these passages say these things were brought forth by the Earth. I'd say this is a creative and mystical way of saying these things evolved to their then-present state.

Of course, these passages are next to ones that said God created these things. So ultimately, there is a contradiction. Did God create, or did the Earth bring forth?

Such is rigid religious doctrine.

You have the philosophers disease, don't you?

and to start talking about the 'invention' of science is something that can be approached as easily as one approaches a Mcdonald's drive thru?
:eek:

I'd probably use a frying pan rather than a gun

And thus who would be responsible for using the frying pan as an assault weapon? You can hardly blame Mr Tefal. By the very same notion you could not blame science for making anything that others use.

And thus who would be responsible for using the frying pan as an assault weapon? You can hardly blame Mr Tefal. By the very same notion you could not blame science for making anything that others use.

If you can't see a difference between a frying pan and a neutron bomb, you have your head too far up your ass.
I doubt I could fry an egg with a neutron bomb, now, could I?

By the same token, I doubt the guy who designed the frying pan conisdered its ability to kill all people and leave the buildings standing.

Buy a gun, keep it in your house, preferably where its accessible to all.
Repeat with frying pan.

Tell me the difference.

If you can't see a difference between a frying pan and a neutron bomb, you have your head too far up your ass.


If you can't see the difference between making something and using something then.. bah, I wont get into petty insults - it's a sign of a weak or non-existant argument.

In case you missed it:

Buy a gun, keep it in your house, preferably where its accessible to all.
Repeat with frying pan.

Tell me the difference.

Buy a gun, keep it in your house, preferably where its accessible to all.
Repeat with frying pan.

Tell me the difference.

The person that uses the former wants to harm, the person that uses the latter wants to cook, (unless he uses that frying pan to whack someone round the head when it would seem he too wants to harm).

Most people do not buy guns to use, but as a last defence.

The person that uses the former wants to harm, the person that uses the latter wants to cook, (unless he uses that frying pan to whack someone round the head when it would seem he too wants to harm).

So if I decide to sit down and make a neutron bomb at home for defending myself, everyone would be okay with it?

Or any kind of bomb?

So if I decide to sit down and make a neutron bomb at home for defending myself, everyone would be okay with it?

Or any kind of bomb?

Defending from what? A mouse in the corner? Isn't that overkill?

Defending from what? A mouse in the corner? Isn't that overkill?

You believe I'm afraid of mice?

I can take them apart in less than 10 minutes.:p

I would say anyone who designs a bomb to kill hundreds of thousands of people has pretty much no idea of the notion of overkill, wouldn't you?

So if I decide to sit down and make a neutron bomb at home for defending myself, everyone would be okay with it?

Or any kind of bomb?

Probably not, the religious seem quite inclined to use these things. However, depending upon where you live people would be ok with you keeping a gun at home. Here in the UK people can't do that, (without specific licences), but in the vastly religious nation known as USA people owning guns is commonplace - hell, the right to do so is part of the constitution.

Guns can be used for many things: They can be used to fight wars, to hunt animals, to start swimming races, to have fun at amusement arcades or to hold up banks or murder people. If you decide not to make anything on the basis that it can be used for bad reasons this would be a pretty empty planet.

Probably not, the religious seem quite inclined to use these things. However, depending upon where you live people would be ok with you keeping a gun at home. Here in the UK people can't do that, (without specific licences), but in the vastly religious nation known as USA people owning guns is commonplace - hell, the right to do so is part of the constitution.

Guns can be used for many things: They can be used to fight wars, to hunt animals, to start swimming races, to have fun at amusement arcades or to hold up banks or murder people. If you decide not to make anything on the basis that it can be used for bad reasons this would be a pretty empty planet.

What about bombs?

What about bombs?

Explosives can be used for many things.. Stunning fish, demolishing buildings when the space is to be used for something else, to give people joy on November 5th/July 4th etc, or to blow people up and destroy life.

----

Enrico Fermi of Italy—Nobel Prize winner and famous for creating the world's first nuclear chain reaction. Arthur Holly Compton of the United States—Nobel Prize winner famous for his discoveries about electrons and cosmic rays. Niels Bohr of Denmark—Nobel Prize winner famous for his insights into the structure of atoms. Otto Hahn of Germany—Nobel Prize winner famous for his discovery of nuclear fission.

The list continues: Einstein of Germany, Curie and Joliot of France, Meitner and Frisch of Austria, Wheeler and Alvarez of the United States. Most of them winners of the Nobel Prize; all of them superb scientists. An international community, joined in an effort to answer an ancient question—how does matter behave? A community that in 1939 came to focus on one narrow question—what happens to a uranium atom when a neutron hits it?

News Article: "The most wonderful and mysterious force in the universe—the atom's power—will be inconceivable. It could revolutionize the illumination system of the world. It could make war impossible. It is even possible that an instrument might be invented which at the touch of a key would blow up the whole earth and bring about the end of the world."
(aip)

Again; science finds out what is possible. The morality concerning that which is made belongs in a different classroom.

The morality concerning that which is made belongs in a different classroom.

Yeah tell that to the victims.

Yeah tell that to the victims.

Ok! sam start here:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/