You know, this was actually just a response post, but I thought it'd be a good thread starter as well. Why not? So just read a bit and respond however the hell you want.

All religion is evil in practice. Ireland still has Protestants bombing Catholics and Catholics bombing Protestants. Bush is killing Iraqis in the name of God. Hitler was a Christian; I bet you didn't know that. In the Crusades, Jewish people were raped, murdered, Muslims killed, slaughtered. In China, you can only be Atheists or Buddhists or you are persecuted. In the Middle East, Muslims rape their women and then charge the raped victim of "fornication" which is punishable by death. Mohhammad has invaded many different areas and killed several thousand people to exand Islam. Islam has persecuted people in Lebannon and Jordan and killed millions of Christians. In turn, Nixon's troops in Lebannon killed millions of Muslims in Jesus' name. Thirty Years' War, the Crusades, Manifest Destiny... People all murdered, raped, tortured, desecrated, humiliated... all for religion. Every religion is evil, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, Atheism, Greek Religion, Paganism, Wiccanism, Satanism... ALL. All of them fucking religions.

People should just forget everything about religion and live for other people. REligions means nothing. Genocide in Rwanda (now only history) and Darfur means something. Female circumcision in Saudi Arabia means something. 30 million homeless people in United STates, 20% of whom have working jobs, mean something. REligion? It's only religion. Forget about it. Stop believing in stuff that makes you want to harm other people and make you hate other people. Just live and give and take and give some more. That's all you need. Trust me.

That's all you need.

agreed. I'm labeled as a nialist. but hell, atleast i'm living life with my own thoughts. the bible was founded by a drunk viking, jesus walked on water in december. I have quots from the new versions of the bible, that clearly contridict themselves. its hard to believe in a god who lies, and doesn't even have his story straight...
(excuse any mispellings, I'm a bit tired ^^;; )

Your argument is laughable on the following foundations: There has no, nor ever has been, a religious foundation for United States policy in regards to any wars ever fought whatsoever. That someone is Christian and kills someone, does not imply that Christianity is the cause, unless undertaken explicitly for said purpose (the crusaders would be an example of such).

Moreover, upon what moral foundations do you rest your condemnations of some of these practices? And what do you mean "live for other people"?

dont blame god.... for the evils of men...

religions all preqach love and compassion...


dont blame religion for all the fucking assholes who happen to be religious.
and use religion for their own causes... like greed and power.

it has happenned throughout history.


men.. will use anything... to dominate others..

is that gods fault??? no.

all blame lays in the lap of evil men... who as hypocrites... call themselves religious.


hypocracy knows no limits... even for atheists like you.

YOU CAN SAY ALOT OF THINGS ABOUT THE EVILS OF THE RELIGIOUS.

BUT .. NONE OF IT.. COMPARES TO THE EVILS OF THE ATHEISTS, THROUGHTOUT HISTORY..... EVEN TODAY.

-MT

Your argument is laughable on the following foundations: There has no, nor ever has been, a religious foundation for United States policy in regards to any wars ever fought whatsoever where did he state this, he only stated what bush had said himself. That someone is Christian and kills someone, does not imply that Christianity is the cause, dont we learn by example, is'nt religion a direct cause, just in it's teachings. Moreover, upon what moral foundations do you rest your condemnations of some of these practices? so you dont think killing is immoral.
stating things like "kill the unbeliever", "I come with a sword to set father against son", etc etc.And what do you mean "live for other people"?it's called humanism.



YOU CAN SAY ALOT OF THINGS ABOUT THE EVILS OF THE RELIGIOUS.

BUT .. NONE OF IT.. COMPARES TO THE EVILS OF THE ATHEISTS, THROUGHTOUT HISTORY..... EVEN TODAY.

-MTcould you please post links to this history.

the history is well known....


is it the devote godly believer... who rapes? kills? steals??
no... he to scared of gods wrath.

its always some joker who may claim to be religious...

who may even believe in his own mind that he is godly...

but who still... kills.. robs.. rapes... and then goes to church.



atheist come in all colors.... and they hide behind every belief system..

but they dont really care... and have no fear.. no shame.. no guilt.

they.. the unbelieving... have always been the trouble.
even if they say they believe..... hypocracy knows no boundries.

-MT

she did ask you to post evidencial links, not hearsay.
if the history was well known, why would she ask for links.
post up the links to the evidence.

he only stated what bush had said himself.

Let's all guess what that means.

falcon22,

Did you just discover that people kill other people?

Dude, I know people kill people. That's a given. But religion fuels that. What, you think Jesus was killed just because people kill people? No, Jesus went against the Jewish teachings (religion in that time), no one liked that, and since their religion told them to kill the blesphemer (the biggest sin of them all) and they followed their teachings and killed Jesus.

The key thing to note is that though religion does preach love and all that, it also preaches moral standards, which are used to judge other people and their circumstances. Religious people don't look at drug addicts as other human beings bounded by the circumstances they were born in and thus needs forms of rehabilitation, but instead views them as sinners who needs to either change their ways or go to prison as their punishment. REligion makes the religious person feel more superior to others and gives them a firm belief that they will end up in heaven wheareas the people with different opinions around them will end up in hell. With that kind of mindset, religion fuels anger, division, and even to some extent, war.

Christopher Columbus decimated millions of natives here in America for the name of God and conversion. Of course, search for gold and spices and slaves was involved; I don't deny that. But God was used as an excuse, Christianity justified the conquest. When religion is used to justify the deaths and rapes of millions of people, that's when I start to realize, religion is just a piece of shit. And religion also is a waste of time.

Why waste breath arguing, and trying to convert? We should waste more breath trying to destroy racist thoughts in our minds. Life is not a morality play as religions try to make it out to be; life simply is life, and it needs simply be lived, as best as possible.

dont blame god.... for the evils of men...

even for atheists like you.

-MT

Unfortumately for you, I'm not an atheist. I believe in the exiestence of God. I just hate that God with all passion there is. I'm a theist with hate. If I had my own religion, I'd call it Fuck-Godist.

Unfortumately for you, I'm not an atheist. I believe in the exiestence of God. I just hate that God with all passion there is. I'm a theist with hate. If I had my own religion, I'd call it Fuck-Godist.
I think youd be clasiffied as Maltheist :)

dont blame god....
who else would you blame IF god created ALL???

YOU CAN SAY ALOT OF THINGS ABOUT THE EVILS OF THE RELIGIOUS.

BUT .. NONE OF IT.. COMPARES TO THE EVILS OF THE ATHEISTS, THROUGHTOUT HISTORY..... EVEN TODAY.

do tell,...who and where has ever persecuted tortured murdered burned others at the stake like your religious fucks did IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM??
NO ONE EVER ,so stop jiving shyt,bro.

Unfortumately for you, I'm not an atheist. I believe in the exiestence of God. I just hate that God with all passion there is. I'm a theist with hate. If I had my own religion, I'd call it Fuck-Godist.


well... then you have proven yourself to be a complete moron.


you believe in a god... and recognise your debt to him for granting humans life in the first place...

and yet you hate god for this?

it is clear... you hate yourself... and blame god.

-MT

well... then you have proven yourself to be a complete moron.


you believe in a god... and recognise your debt to him for granting humans life in the first place...

and yet you hate god for this?

it is clear... you hate yourself... and blame god.

-MT

Look at human life. Is it worth it? It's one of the most miserable gift (if you would call it that) God has ever given. Life is hell in itself. That's why the richer you get, the more you stuff you get, the more you realize that life just sucks. And who created life?!!! God did.

And yes, I do fucking hate myself. But who created me? God did. Thus, God sucks and God is responsible for everything good AND fucking horrible in this world.

Answer me this: How can you claim that God created everything (including cancer) and yet blame a man's sin for getting that cancer which God has crated? How can you worship and love a God has created that pain, that suffering? Tell me how and maybe I'll see your argument in a new light.

and by the way, we're still on the topic that religion creates everything evil in the world and thus should be either forgotten or abolished.

falcon22

Look at human life. Is it worth it? It's one of the most miserable gift (if you would call it that) God has ever given. Life is hell in itself. That's why the richer you get, the more you stuff you get, the more you realize that life just sucks. And who created life?!!! God did.

Perhaps thats why scripture doesn't advocate material acquisition as the perfection of life

And yes, I do fucking hate myself. But who created me? God did. Thus, God sucks and God is responsible for everything good AND fucking horrible in this world.

Answer me this: How can you claim that God created everything (including cancer) and yet blame a man's sin for getting that cancer which God has crated? How can you worship and love a God has created that pain, that suffering? Tell me how and maybe I'll see your argument in a new light.

seems like you are suffering from tagging eternal spiritual values on temporary material things

You think life is good without material acquision? You're shitting yourself. Let me list all the thigns that make life horrible, just some:

cancer, racism, oppression, slavery (human trafficking still goes on in many parts of the world), rape, AIDS, meningitis, mental retardation, being born transgender and then being discriminated because of that, homelessness, toxic waste, homicide, war, having someone that you love die, heartbreaks, one-way love, divorce, being widowed, earthquake, fraud, identity theft, torture (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo), restraint and totalitarianism (NOrth Korea), discrimination, sexism, cold virus, white collar crime, emotional depression (pills don't help), drug addiction, being born with a dysfunctional body part, blindness, deafness, mental retardation, acid rain, ultraviolet rays, hot climate (killed 100 people in France in 2001), cold climate (that's how so many Russians in history have perished), etc...

Holy shit! And who the fuck created life?!!!

and you say: "seems like you are suffering from tagging eternal spiritual values on temporary material things."

This doesn't answer my question. You don't tell me how you're able to love God for this life he created. And cancer is not a material thing. Cancer just happens. Man can not be blamed for cancer. Yeah, it's a virus that enters you. But who created that cancer virus, you who believes in God? If you believe God created everything in the world, then God created this virus too and thus caused your loved ones to have cancer. Just telling me that I have tagged spiritual value to a material value -- which may be true -- still doesn't answer the question: Why the fuck should I love a God that created something like cancer? Why? Tell me why. cAn't you just do that for me? Huh?

falcon22

You think life is good without material acquision?
material acquisition is good for many things however happiness, which seems to be th issue you are addressing, is not one of them

You're shitting yourself. Let me list all the thigns that make life horrible, just some:

cancer, racism, oppression, slavery (human trafficking still goes on in many parts of the world), rape, AIDS, meningitis, mental retardation, being born transgender and then being discriminated because of that, homelessness, toxic waste, homicide, war, having someone that you love die, heartbreaks, one-way love, divorce, being widowed, earthquake, fraud, identity theft, torture (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo), restraint and totalitarianism (NOrth Korea), discrimination, sexism, cold virus, white collar crime, emotional depression (pills don't help), drug addiction, being born with a dysfunctional body part, blindness, deafness, mental retardation, acid rain, ultraviolet rays, hot climate (killed 100 people in France in 2001), cold climate (that's how so many Russians in history have perished), etc...

Holy shit! And who the fuck created life?!!!

and you say: "seems like you are suffering from tagging eternal spiritual values on temporary material things."

sufferings caused by the environment, sufferings caused by other living entities and sufferings caused by one's own body and mind are inescapable in material existence - this world is like a travellers house and attachment to any of the temporary things does not cause happiness

This doesn't answer my question. You don't tell me how you're able to love God for this life he created.
"the worst is not as long as we can say "this is the worst" - King Lear


And cancer is not a material thing. Cancer just happens. Man can not be blamed for cancer. Yeah, it's a virus that enters you. But who created that cancer virus, you who believes in God? If you believe God created everything in the world, then God created this virus too and thus caused your loved ones to have cancer.

what you say is true - but the pointis that god has two creations - the material realm and the spiritual realm (both of which are eternal) - we however (also being eternal) cannot cut out a comfortable eternal life in the material world - although if we want we can spend an eternity in such material endeavours

Just telling me that I have tagged spiritual value to a material value -- which may be true -- still doesn't answer the question: Why the fuck should I love a God that created something like cancer? Why? Tell me why. cAn't you just do that for me? Huh?
Even without cancer the material world would still be dreadful - many an atheist on this site has even expressed relief at the notion of mortality since an eternity in the same material body in the same material world would probably confer an even greater punishment

As for loving god - love (between any two persons) cannot be legislated or established by logic - it is establsihed by service - so at the moment it seems you're not in a position to render any service to god so perhaps it would be more fitting to discuss why one should render service to god (which can be discussed according to logic etc)

Alright fine. I'll reword the question, you being so technical: Why should I think well of God or even consider giving him some sort of service to him when he's created the spritual and material realm which in the end only amounts to so much suffering? Does that rewording help?

And inescapable my butt. God didn't necessarily have to create cancer in the first place so that no one would even have to think about escaping, am I not right?

Physical life is painful and cruel. You are being tested and your immortal soul is what is up for grabs. God has snuck alot of his beauty into this world as well, but it is easy to be blind to it.
If you believe that when you die, your dead-end of story, then I can understand your confusion, but god promises everlasting life. Look at the biblical Job. God played a number on him. But our life here is short and really meaningless, but holds the key to our destiny.
If a man were to rob me of every possesion I had, kill my family, rape my body, torture then disfigure and cripple me-do you think god would care? I don't. He would care how you responded to this as our life is his gift, not our possesion. He might have a word with the perp, though.
Your distaste for religion may not dam your soul, but God wants you to spread his message and be a testimony to his word.

falcon22

Alright fine. I'll reword the question, you being so technical: Why should I think well of God or even consider giving him some sort of service to him when he's created the spritual and material realm which in the end only amounts to so much suffering? Does that rewording help?

The end of the material world results in suffering - the end of th espiritual world doesn't - even the end of spiritual practices in the material world doesn't -

BG 2.40: In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear.

And inescapable my butt. God didn't necessarily have to create cancer in the first place so that no one would even have to think about escaping, am I not right?

what god didn't create was the living entities attachment to the fruits of their activities (because he created them with independence) - he does however recommend that one not be attached to the fruits, which is what keeps us here in the material atmosphere to begin with

BG 2.47: You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty.

Its not that god didn't have to create cancer - its that we didn't have to necessarily come to the material world in the attempt to enjoy seperate from god

Unfortumately for you, I'm not an atheist. I believe in the exiestence of God. I just hate that God with all passion there is. I'm a theist with hate. If I had my own religion, I'd call it Fuck-Godist.
That's just like in the movie Pitch Black. The muslim pilgrim says something about Riddick not believing in god, and Riddick says "Oh, I believe in god alright, I just hate the motherfucker" or something to that effect.

Religion as a sense of individual spiritual linkage to the cosmos if fine. Organized religion of any kind is the root of - my guess would be 80% - 90% - human suffering whether directly or indirectly.

Religion as a sense of individual spiritual linkage to the cosmos if fine. Organized religion of any kind is the root of - my guess would be 80% - 90% - human suffering whether directly or indirectly.

why is organized religion of "any kind" a source of suffering?

Religion as a sense of individual spiritual linkage to the cosmos if fine. Organized religion of any kind is the root of - my guess would be 80% - 90% - human suffering whether directly or indirectly.

Do you also believe TV increases crime and video games make teenagers more prone to violence? What about the effect of media on promotion of violence? And education? Does education increase awareness of differences between people and lead to increase in technology that facilitates the production of weapons and the ability to kill more and more people?

And the role of science in all of the above?

Do you also believe TV increases crime and video games make teenagers more prone to violence?
Yes.

why is organized religion of "any kind" a source of suffering?
Let me ask you a question. Why does organized religion exist?

Do you also believe TV increases crime and video games make teenagers more prone to violence? What about the effect of media on promotion of violence? And education? Does education increase awareness of differences between people and lead to increase in technology that facilitates the production of weapons and the ability to kill more and more people?
Even with your edits, yes.

see edit

Do you also believe TV increases crime and video games make teenagers more prone to violence? What about the effect of media on promotion of violence? And education? Does education increase awareness of differences between people and lead to increase in technology that facilitates the production of weapons and the ability to kill more and more people?

And the role of science in all of the above?
Even more edits.

Science is just a way of finding out stuff. That's it. The fruits of science are usually left to politicians and profit minded entrepeneurs to use.

Let me ask you a question. Why does organized religion exist?
to manifest the adoption of religious principles (ie acting in ways in the material world according to god's desire) in society at large

Even more edits.

Science is just a way of finding out stuff. That's it. The fruits of science are usually left to politicians and profit minded entrepeneurs to use.

Exactly.

Do you also believe TV increases crime and video games make teenagers more prone to violence? What about the effect of media on promotion of violence? And education? Does education increase awareness of differences between people and lead to increase in technology that facilitates the production of weapons and the ability to kill more and more people?

And the role of science in all of the above?

I don't suspect these tykes were raised on Playstations.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~nahm0002/child/pal-child-abuse-48.jpg

I don't suspect these tykes were raised on Playstations.



And these?

The top five countries profiting from the arms trade are the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China.

to manifest the adoption of religious principles (ie acting in ways in the material world according to god's desire) in society at large
Ah HA! This is exactly the problem. Who knows god's desire? You? The king? The priest? The Prophet? And just whos god are we talking about here?

Society at large has been enslaved by those who know gods desires for the people for most of human history. I would fight you to the death to keep from living in a theocracy. Which is what you get (as history demonstrates) when you let your guard down for even a moment.

Sam, what is your point? Does religion suck hairy balls or not?

Ah HA! This is exactly the problem. Who knows god's desire? You? The king? The priest? The Prophet? And just whos god are we talking about here?

Society at large has been enslaved by those who know gods desires for the people for most of human history. I would fight you to the death to keep from living in a theocracy. Which is what you get (as history demonstrates) when you let your guard down for even a moment.

Right.

And the scientists who design the missiles, cluster bombs, nuclear weapons, for "the pleasure of finding things out"?

What do they believe the people funding this research intend it for?

What did they "find out" in process of building the 20,000 plus nuclear weapons present in the one country that used it (and made presumably after the first or second use of this weapon)?

What was the educational aim of those scientists?

Sam, what is your point? Does religion suck hairy balls or not?

Seems to me if we go by Dawkins theory that politicians are only playing at being religious and accept that most scientists are atheists, it is the atheists who seem bent on the destruction of the world.

superluminal

Ah HA! This is exactly the problem. Who knows god's desire?


You? The king? The priest? The Prophet? And just whos god are we talking about here?

the saintly person with the assistance of scripture

Society at large has been enslaved by those who know gods desires for the people for most of human history.
Seems like people are enslaved by politicians actually - just because someone may claim to know god's desires doesn't mean they aretelling the truth - and just because someone misrepresents god's desires doesn't mean he doesn't have any


I would fight you to the death to keep from living in a theocracy.

Thats fine - I wouldn't fight to keep you in one
:p


Which is what you get (as history demonstrates) when you let your guard down for even a moment.

Its not clear what you are guarding against - "we have seen the enemy and he is us" - yellow kid
:confused:

And these?

An excuse to insert a strawman argument?

You jumped to ludicrous speed and went plaid.

An excuse to insert a strawman argument?

You jumped to ludicrous speed and went plaid.

Four of the five security council countries would not describe themselves as overtly religious. At least the people making the policy decisions would not.

What then drives the arms trade by these countries?

PS do try to keep up.

Right.

And the scientists who design the missiles, cluster bombs, nuclear weapons, for "the pleasure of finding things out"?

What do they believe the people funding this research intend it for?

What did they "find out" in process of building the 20,000 plus nuclear weapons present in the one country that used it (and made presumably after the first or second use of this weapon)?

What was the educational aim of those scientists?
Science is method. Scientists are people. People build weapons for many reasons. You rail against the military activities of the west (really the US of EVIL) yet forget that if we hadn't succeded against nazi germany before they completed their development, it's entirely likely you'd be in a much less happy world.

People (sheeple) will follow their leaders. And people will always use technology to make weapons to better defend themselves and to conquer richer territories. Weapons technology started with the first rock used as in anger.

I imagine you blame the greeks (for originating the idea of the atom) for our current nuclear stockpile.

Ideas are dangerous. Ideas in the hands of people who are certain that god wants them to use their ideas to serve "his" purpose are deadly.

The arms race has nothing to do with anything other than human nature. Science holds out hope of moving beyond this someday. Religion holds hope of nothing more than a better life when you're dead.

Seems to me if we go by Dawkins theory that politicians are only playing at being religious and accept that most scientists are atheists, it is the atheists who seem bent on the destruction of the world.
Sorry you feel this way. Please hop into your time machine and go back to the good 'ol days of pre-science and technology.

Enjoy your short, brutish life.

Science is method. Scientists are people. People build weapons for many reasons. You rail against the military activities of the west (really the US of EVIL) yet forget that if we hadn't succeded against nazi germany before they completed their development, it's entirely likely you'd be in a much less happy world.

People (sheeple) will follow their leaders. And people will always use technology to make weapons to better defend themselves and to conquer richer territories. Weapons technology started with the first rock used as in anger.

I imagine you blame the greeks (for originating the idea of the atom) for our current nuclear stockpile.

Ideas are dangerous. Ideas in the hands of people who are certain that god wants them to use their ideas to serve "his" purpose are deadly.

The arms race has nothing to do with anything other than human nature. Science holds out hope of moving beyond this someday. Religion holds hope of nothing more than a better life when you're dead.

Let me put it another way.

Religion has been around since all known history of humanity.

Are we suffering from a danger of extinction? Have we at any period of ALL that time?

Now look at the technological developments of the last 100 years.

How many people have died as a result of the improvement in technology?

Can we today, make the human race extinct if there is a world war? Why and how?

Four of the five security council countries would not describe themselves as overtly religious. At least the people making the policy decisions would not.

What then drives the arms trade by these countries?

PS do try to keep up.
I think we've put to bed the idea that arms races have anything to do with anything other than basic human nature. Can we please move on?

I think we've put to bed the idea that arms races have anything to do with anything other than basic human nature. Can we please move on?


and religion deals specifically with human nature (ie what to do with it) - hence the noted social manifestations in its absence

Sorry you feel this way. Please hop into your time machine and go back to the good 'ol days of pre-science and technology.

Enjoy your short, brutish life.

My experience in this forum is that atheists have no imagination.

Hence they jump to conclusions about what people are NOT saying and see judgement where there is none.

All I am saying is that if war and violence is a result of ideas, which has proved more effective, religion or science?

Let me put it another way.

Religion has been around since all known history of humanity.

Are we suffering from a danger of extinction? Have we at any period of ALL that time?

Now look at the technological developments of the last 100 years.

How many people have died as a result of the improvement in technology?

Can we today, make the human race extinct if there is a world war? Why and how?
Oh come on! Please hurry to your time machine! How many people have lived longer and healthier lives due to technology? Who is suffering? Those with no access to the benefits of technology due to religio-political bullshit. That's who.

I think we've put to bed the idea that arms races have anything to do with anything other than basic human nature. Can we please move on?

Hey you gotta make allowances for those who can't keep up.

Compassion and caring, etc.

and religion deals specifically with human nature (ie what to do with it) - hence the noted social manifestations in its absence

Correct. And science does NOT.

Oh come on! Please hurry to your time machine! How many people have lived longer and healthier lives due to technology? Who is suffering? Those with no access to the benefits of technology due to religio-political bullshit. That's who.

And this was always so?

Was this not exacerbated by colonialism and exploitation?

(Not to mention the industrial revolution?)

And is the suffering today real?

Or is it artificially created and maintained by those who stand to profit from it?

My experience in this forum is that theists have no imagination.

Hence they jump to conclusions about what people are NOT saying and see judgement where there is none.

All I am saying is that if war and violence is a result of ideas, which has proved more effective, religion or science?
I agree about the theists not having any imagination.

And religion and science are both methods. One proposes that humans need to follow rules put forth by god(s), and the other is just a way of figuring out stuff.

Please add up for me the total worldwide deaths throughout human history committed in then name of religion and in the name of science. Here, I'll give you the second number: zero. You'll be lucky if the first number is under a billion.

Oh come on! Please hurry to your time machine! How many people have lived longer and healthier lives due to technology? Who is suffering? Those with no access to the benefits of technology due to religio-political bullshit. That's who.

Albert Einstein - We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

I agree about the theists not having any imagination.

And religion and science are both methods. One proposes that humans need to follow rules put forth by god(s), and the other is just a way of figuring out stuff.

Please add up for me the total worldwide deaths throughout human history committed in then name of religion and in the name of science. Here, I'll give you the second number: zero. You'll be lucky if the first number is under a billion.

So science is the tool used by atheists to murder theists?

That clarifies it. Its a conspiracy!!!

I agree about the theists not having any imagination.

And religion and science are both methods. One proposes that humans need to follow rules put forth by god(s), and the other is just a way of figuring out stuff.

Please add up for me the total worldwide deaths throughout human history committed in then name of religion and in the name of science. Here, I'll give you the second number: zero. You'll be lucky if the first number is under a billion.

the residents of hiroshima may disagree

Albert Einstein - We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

Duh!:D

Correct. And science does NOT.
How can you be so naieve and yet claim to be following a life in science? Human nature and what to do with it is firmly in the province of science. Scientific ethics and responsible stewardship of the planet are primary concerns of the scientific community.

I think you're confusing scientists with politicians and religious zealots.

How can you be so naieve and yet claim to be following a life in science? Human nature and what to do with it is firmly in the province of science. Scientific ethics and responsible stewardship of the planet are primary concerns of the scientific community.

I think you're confusing scientists with politicians and religious zealots.

I'm sorry. I had no idea the politicians and religious zealots were designing and manufacturing the missiles and WMDs.

Ethical scientists would obviously have nothing to do with inventions that they know would maim and murder women and children as indiscriminately as soldiers.

the residents of hiroshima may disagree
Don't be an idiot. Do I really have to explain what "in the name of" means?

I'm sorry. I had no idea the politicians and religious zealots were designing and manufacturing the missiles and WMDs.
And I had no idea that the scientific community was defined by the scientists who work on weapons programs.

It's just like you muslim terrorists and fanatics to go to extremes.

(for the learning disabled, this is a form of ironic reflection on the use of a stereotype).

And I had no idea that the scientific community was defined by the scientists who work on weapons programs.

It's just like you muslim terrorists and fanatics to go to extremes.

(for the learning disabled, this is a form of ironic reflection on the use of a stereotype).

Do you mean to say that religion is NOT defined by extremists or that scientists ARE defined by those who build weapons?

Don't be an idiot. Do I really have to explain what "in the name of" means?

actually it is advocated by some modern historians that there was no need for the states to drop the bombs in japan at such a late stage during the war - some say they did it for reasons of display of political prowess - some say they did it because they were curious to examine this scientific invention

actually the ethics of science is becoming an increasingly discussed issue even amongst scientists - why?

Ethical scientists would obviously have nothing to do with inventions that they know would maim and murder women and children as indiscriminately as soldiers.
Yes. And ethical religious and political leaders would never comission the development of such weapons to implement genocide and terrorism.

Do you mean to say that religion is NOT defined by extremists or that scientists ARE defined by those who build weapons?
Clearly the former. I never claimed otherwise.

Yes. And ethical religious and political leaders would never comission the development of such weapons to implement genocide and terrorism.

so why condemn religion if its proper application leads to a strengthening of ethical charcater?

Yes. And ethical religious and political leaders would never comission the development of such weapons to implement genocide and terrorism.

So scientists are designing weapons out of fear and due to coercion?

They are afraid of the politicians and religious leaders more than they are afraid of the consequences of their weapons? They would rather defend their own skins than those of innocent women and children???? (since most of them KNOW that there is no afterlife, and this is all there is?):eek:

My experience in this forum is that atheists have no imagination.

We do, we simply don't let it rule our lives or use it in debate.

We do, we simply don't let it rule our lives or use it in debate.

Boy are you slow today or what? :cool:

actually it is advocated by some modern historians that there was no need for the states to drop the bombs in japan at such a late stage during the war - some say they did it for reasons of display of political prowess - some say they did it because they were curious to examine this scientific invention

actually the ethics of science is becoming an increasingly discussed issue even amongst scientists - why?
Did you read your own post? Scientists were almost unanimous in their desire to NOT have the bombs dropped.
Truman was reported to have said of Oppenheimers claim of responsibility for the deaths of the victims "Who the hell does he think he is? I ordered the goddamned thing to be dropped".

Did you read your own post? Scientists were almost unanimous in their desire to NOT have the bombs dropped.
Truman was reported to have said of Oppenheimers claim of responsibility for the deaths of the victims "Who the hell does he think he is? I ordered the goddamned thing to be dropped".

What about the 20,000 bombs built later?

More curiosity?

edit:

Hell this is a LOT of scientific curiosity.

US: Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500

http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/50.htm

so why condemn religion if its proper application leads to a strengthening of ethical charcater?
If it ever, in practice, does this as a rule and society shows true progress toward tolerance, prosperity, and happiness, let me know.

If it ever, in practice, does this as a rule and society shows true progress toward tolerance, prosperity, and happiness, let me know.

Me too (in absence of religion).

What about the 20,000 bombs built later?

More curiosity?

edit:

Hell this is a LOT of scientific curiosity.
Please, sam, I'm dissapointed. The true science part was over when the concept of critical mass and nuclear chain reaction was demonstrated in a basement at the university of Chicago. The original atomic bombs and all of the subsequent thousands of them were a politically motivated exercise in engineering and manufacturing. If anything, blame the engineers. I worked on DOD weapons projects for the first nine years of my carreer.

Please, sam, I'm dissapointed. The true science part was over when the concept of critical mass and nuclear chain reaction was demonstrated in a basement at the university of Chicago. The original atomic bombs and all of the subsequent thousands of them were a politically motivated exercise in engineering and manufacturing. If anything, blame the engineers. I worked on DOD weapons projects for the first nine years of my carreer.

Are engineers religious?:)

And is engineering NOT science?

If it ever, in practice, does this as a rule and society shows true progress toward tolerance, prosperity, and happiness, let me know.

Even many atheists acknowledge that the primary establishment of religious norms enabled the development of trade and agriculture which in turn gave rise to abundance and which enables for pursuit of knowledge, philosophy and science since such things require money and a civil atmosphere to take place - in other words the fact that you have the luxury to debate on a net forum and not worry where your next meal is coming from indicates the contribution of religious principles

Are engineers religious?:)
Amazingly, many are. More than I ever would have guessed.

And is engineering NOT science?
Sometimes, yes. My degree is in Electrical Engineering Science. But there is a basic difference between fundamental discovery science and applications science. Scientists discover the fundamentals, and engineers refine the ideas into practical realities. There is much crossover between the two, but that's the basic division of labour.

Amazingly, many are. More than I ever would have guessed.


Sometimes, yes. My degree is in Electrical Engineering Science. But there is a basic difference between fundamental discovery science and applications science. Scientists discover the fundamentals, and engineers refine the ideas into practical realities. There is much crossover between the two, but that's the basic division of labour.

So if I learn philosophy and arts, I can become an engineer?:confused:

Even many atheists acknowledge that the primary establishment of religious norms enabled the development of trade and agriculture which in turn gave rise to abundance and which enables for pursuit of knowledge, philosophy and science since such things require money and a civil atmosphere to take place - in other words the fact that you have the luxury to debate on a net forum and not worry where your next meal is coming from indicates the contribution of religious principles
I find it hard to disagree with this.

So if I learn philosophy and arts, I can become an engineer?:confused:
I must be slow. What are you talking about?

I find it hard to disagree with this.

so how do you reconcile your conclusion with your initial response ....

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so why condemn religion if its proper application leads to a strengthening of ethical charcater? ”

If it ever, in practice, does this as a rule and society shows true progress toward tolerance, prosperity, and happiness, let me know.

I must be slow. What are you talking about?

at a guess - that engineering is science - at the very least you study science to become an engineer.

You certainly don't study philosophy and art - or religion for that matter

so how do you reconcile your conclusion with your initial response ....

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so why condemn religion if its proper application leads to a strengthening of ethical charcater? ”

If it ever, in practice, does this as a rule and society shows true progress toward tolerance, prosperity, and happiness, let me know.
I'm too tired right now to answer this in any way that may not lead to self incrimination.

I'm too tired right now to answer this in any way that may not lead to self incrimination.

you seem to agree that religion has contributed towards prosperity yet mainatin there is an absence of evidence for it too - seems equivocal to me

at a guess - that engineering is science - at the very least you study science to become an engineer.

You certainly don't study philosophy and art - or religion for that matter
Well, as part of our formal training we are required to take electives in the humanities and areas outside of our major. I took courses in music appreciation, applied cognition, early american archtechture, astronomy.

Many engineers are interested in a wide variety of stuff.

you seem to agree that religion has contributed towards prosperity yet mainatin there is an absence of evidence for it too - seems equivocal to me
Yes it does, dosen't it?

I must be slow. What are you talking about?

Nothing, seems weird to me that you differentiate between those who practice basic sciences from those who practice applied.

Is biomedical engineering not science? And what about those who make biological and chemical weapons? Is that science? And those who design deadly strains of viruses and diseases as weapons? Are they in science or not?

Don't scientists have to justify their basic research by showing a practical application for it? Can anyone actually do science just for fun?

Well, as part of our formal training we are required to take electives in the humanities and areas outside of our major. I took courses in music appreciation, applied cognition, early american archtechture, astronomy.

Many engineers are interested in a wide variety of stuff.

You say electives. Are these electives on their own sufficient to qualify you as an engineer?

Well, as part of our formal training we are required to take electives in the humanities and areas outside of our major. I took courses in music appreciation, applied cognition, early american archtechture, astronomy.

Many engineers are interested in a wide variety of stuff.

Let me guess - when the time came for examinations you were really stressed about your electives

Yes it does, dosen't it?

so either you mean there is an absence in particular time place and circumstances or it is time to go to bed

Nothing, seems weird to me that you differentiate between those who practice basic sciences from those who practice applied.
All academics make this distinction. It's completely normal. That's why we have the words scientist and engineer.

Is biomedical engineering not science? And what about those who make biological and chemical weapons? Is that science? And those who use viruses and diseases like anthrax as weapons? Are they in science or not?
Engineers use scientific methods but their goals are different.

Don't scientists have to justify their basic research by showing a practical application for it?
Of course not! Never have. Think about particle physics, astronomy, you know, the fundamental sciences.

Can anyone actually do science just for fun?
Yes! And get paid too! Really!

What I find really anomalous is that atheists claim that the absence of evidence about God does not prove his presence; yet they use the same argument to try and prove that atheism is better than theism.

so either you mean there is an absence in particular time place and circumstances or it is time to go to bed
Time for bed.

Let me guess - when the time came for examinations you were really stressed about your electives
Umm... yes.

Nighty night *stumbles to bed*

All academics make this distinction. It's completely normal. That's why we have the words scientist and engineer.


Engineers use scientific methods but their goals are different.


Of course not! Never have. Think about particle physics, astronomy, you know, the fundamental sciences.


Yes! And get paid too! Really!

So those who design spaceships, rockets and missions in outer space are not scientists?

And does particle physics have anything to do with particle accelerators? Or is that not science either?

Boy look at all these fun-loving people:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2006/05/sad-state-of-us-particle-physics.html
http://qd.typepad.com/bigidea/2005/10/the_motivation_.html

All academics make this distinction. It's completely normal. That's why we have the words scientist and engineer.


Engineers use scientific methods but their goals are different.


Of course not! Never have. Think about particle physics, astronomy, you know, the fundamental sciences.


Yes! And get paid too! Really!
I think particle physicists also contributed to devleoping laser cooling atom technology

What I find really anomalous is that atheists claim that the absence of evidence about God does not prove his presence; yet they use the same argument to try and prove that atheism is better than theism.

This is the only suffering in life - when you pull the head the tail gets stuck and when you pull the tail the head gets stuck
:confused:

This is the only suffering in life - when you pull the head the tail gets stuck and when you pull the tail the head gets stuck
:confused:

And the solution? :)

And the solution? :)

patience I guess

:(

patience I guess

:(

and High ideals. :D

and High ideals. :D
yep - thats the general drift

Dude, I know people kill people. That's a given. But religion fuels that. What, you think Jesus was killed just because people kill people? No, Jesus went against the Jewish teachings (religion in that time), no one liked that, and since their religion told them to kill the blesphemer (the biggest sin of them all) and they followed their teachings and killed Jesus.

The key thing to note is that though religion does preach love and all that, it also preaches moral standards, which are used to judge other people and their circumstances. Religious people don't look at drug addicts as other human beings bounded by the circumstances they were born in and thus needs forms of rehabilitation, but instead views them as sinners who needs to either change their ways or go to prison as their punishment. REligion makes the religious person feel more superior to others and gives them a firm belief that they will end up in heaven wheareas the people with different opinions around them will end up in hell. With that kind of mindset, religion fuels anger, division, and even to some extent, war.

Christopher Columbus decimated millions of natives here in America for the name of God and conversion. Of course, search for gold and spices and slaves was involved; I don't deny that. But God was used as an excuse, Christianity justified the conquest. When religion is used to justify the deaths and rapes of millions of people, that's when I start to realize, religion is just a piece of shit. And religion also is a waste of time.

Why waste breath arguing, and trying to convert? We should waste more breath trying to destroy racist thoughts in our minds. Life is not a morality play as religions try to make it out to be; life simply is life, and it needs simply be lived, as best as possible.

It is easy to see why religion get's blamed for war's and violence but alot of details are left out, forgotten or changed in these old stories.

TBH I believe that in most cases money and power were the real factor, if we knew the behind the scenes action taking place...sure hundred's of years later we can glorify or vilify but that just romanticizes thing's.

I have no doubt that at it's core religion is positive, you can of course proclaim atheism but your merely supressing natural inclinations.

What I find really anomalous is that atheists claim that the absence of evidence about God does not prove his presence; yet they use the same argument to try and prove that atheism is better than theism.

You can be true to a god delusion or true to yourself, take your pick and decide which is better.

You can be true to a god delusion or true to yourself, take your pick and decide which is better.

Serial killers are also true to themselves.

Random morality that is arbitrarily determined is not always the more attractive option.

How was religion progressive regarding slavery in United States? What about regarding expulsion of Native Americans to reservations? What about those who were executed in Puritan societies for adultery and for professing other faiths? What about those Mormons who were killed and pushed to Utah? How was it progressive then?

As for science, science is not a religion. I don't believe that just because atoms can be split, that if someone else doesn't believe that, I try to convert them into beliving that, and if they don't, I try to wage war against the infidel who doesn't believe in science!

Science surely created weapons and things of horror, but did scientific principles ever preach about using them? No, it was people who controlled the fruits of science.

Let's look at it the other way. What are the fruits of religion? Did the leaders manipulate the fruits of religion or the principle of religion? Ah ha. They used the principles saying that it was God's will to kill those infidels. After all, most religions prescribe certain punishments for certain acts. Those punishments and those judgmental standards are what makes religion dangerous and what makes science merely a tool.

How was religion progressive regarding slavery in United States? What about regarding expulsion of Native Americans to reservations? What about those who were executed in Puritan societies for adultery and for professing other faiths? What about those Mormons who were killed and pushed to Utah? How was it progressive then?

As for science, science is not a religion. I don't believe that just because atoms can be split, that if someone else doesn't believe that, I try to convert them into beliving that, and if they don't, I try to wage war against the infidel who doesn't believe in science!

Science surely created weapons and things of horror, but did scientific principles ever preach about using them? No, it was people who controlled the fruits of science.

Let's look at it the other way. What are the fruits of religion? Did the leaders manipulate the fruits of religion or the principle of religion? Ah ha. They used the principles saying that it was God's will to kill those infidels. After all, most religions prescribe certain punishments for certain acts. Those punishments and those judgmental standards are what makes religion dangerous and what makes science merely a tool.

So the scientists are being guided by religious principles when they build weapons of mass destruction.

Serial killers are also true to themselves.

Is that a fact or another strawman argument?

"Jeffrey Dahmer was one of the most infamous and notorious serial killers in American history. Dahmer was born into a family of devout members of the Stone-Campbell denomination known as the "church of Christ" or "Churches of Christ." Some people have speculated that Dahmer's Biblical religious background may have contributed to a negative view of homosexuals, which in turn contributed to a negative self-image and a hatred of himself and other homosexuals, which in turn led him to become a serial killer."

http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Jeffrey_Dahmer.html

Random morality that is arbitrarily determined is not always the more attractive option.

You'd first need to find evidence for such a claim and build a case. I've not seen such a case. And so far, the evidence is not in your favor.

So the scientists are being guided by religious principles when they build weapons of mass destruction.

well thats what Al Queda is trying to do now...

So the scientists are being guided by religious principles when they build weapons of mass destruction.

Who are the ones giving the command to detonate those weapons, the scientists?

Who are the ones giving the command to detonate those weapons, the scientists?

Can you hear yourself? Listen closely and tell me what your question implies.

Still no answer on how religion has been progressive regarding those things I mentioned. You can't answer it, can you?

well thats what Al Queda is trying to do now...

So why are they hiding in caves?

Don't they have faith in God?;)

Why did Isiah hide in a cave?

Didn't he have faith in God? Study your religion before saying stuff like that.

So why are they hiding in caves?

Don't they have faith in God?;)

Al Quida has faith in Allah and Al Quida is active and does not hide in caves, Allah tells Al Quida which place is most safe for them and were the main leader is to be protected as a spiritual advisor.

Why did Isiah hide in a cave?

Didn't he have faith in God? Study your religion before saying stuff like that.

You need a sense of humor. Now.

Still no answer on how religion has been progressive regarding those things I mentioned. You can't answer it, can you?

You seem to think that religion is a panacea for ills.

Religion is a moral framework.

If people were perfect, there would be no need for accountability.

Who are the ones giving the command to detonate those weapons, the scientists?

Can you hear yourself? Listen closely and tell me what your question implies.

No Sam, can you hear yourself? You've just copped out of an argument by using the quote "Can you hear yourself?" You've provided no counter argument, no evidence, no exmpale, but simply a cop out.

If you soooo know what that question implies, why don't you tell us instead of telling him if he can hear himself? Or do you want me to do that for you?

Fine.

He's implying that it's not the principles of science (i.e. phsyics, biology, astrology) that forces people to use the WMD but in fact, it is the people in power who have the access to those weapons who control its use and its detonation. Scientists who make those shouldn't be considered as principle scientists anymore but rather as factory workers who merely obey the power structure for their benefit. So there, it's not the principles of science that's manufacturing WMD but those in power who wants to use WMD as tools to threaten other world powers and to initimate other world powers.

That's what his question implies. Did that help?

Is that a fact or another strawman argument?

"Jeffrey Dahmer was one of the most infamous and notorious serial killers in American history. Dahmer was born into a family of devout members of the Stone-Campbell denomination known as the "church of Christ" or "Churches of Christ." Some people have speculated that Dahmer's Biblical religious background may have contributed to a negative view of homosexuals, which in turn contributed to a negative self-image and a hatred of himself and other homosexuals, which in turn led him to become a serial killer."

http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Jeffrey_Dahmer.html



You'd first need to find evidence for such a claim and build a case. I've not seen such a case. And so far, the evidence is not in your favor.

So if a (possibly mentally deranged) serial killer happens to be a theist, religion is to blame.

But if a nuclear weapon making(educated, rational, moral, compassionate, caring) scientist happens to be an atheist, it is scientific curiosity.

Yes, I'm getting the hang of your logic.

You seem to think that religion is a panacea for ills.

Religion is a moral framework.

If people were perfect, there would be no need for accountability.

Yes, a moral framework that seem to have tendency to make people be judgmental and make them have predilection to put religion down someone's throat.

And if this moral framework advocated stoning homosexuals and adulterers to death, would you really consider that moral?

Confuicisionism is a moral framework, but it's not considered a religion. Philosophy is a moral framework but not religion.

REligion may be a moral framework, but there are things added with that framework that causes justification for such things as slavery, explusion, executions, and even genocide.

You need a sense of humor. Now.

Where the fuck is yours?

Where the fuck is yours?

be nicer to the lady.

He's implying that it's not the principles of science (i.e. phsyics, biology, astrology) that forces people to use the WMD but in fact, it is the people in power who have the access to those weapons who control its use and its detonation. Scientists who make those shouldn't be considered as principle scientists anymore but rather as factory workers who merely obey the power structure for their benefit. So there, it's not the principles of science that's manufacturing WMD but those in power who wants to use WMD as tools to threaten other world powers and to initimate other world powers.

That's what his question implies. Did that help?

Wonderful!!
Now apply the same logic to religion and extremists and MAYBE you'll get what I was intimating.

So why are they hiding in caves?

Don't they have faith in God?

Why aren't you living in a cave? Your god would demand it. Your blasphemous behaviour of living in comfort and using a computer and internet connection should have you stoned. Don't YOU have faith in your god?

See, anyone can use strawmen arguments. :p

Wonderful!!
Now apply the same logic to religion and extremists and MAYBE you'll get what I was intimating.

I wouldn't really say that slaveowners or those who pushed natives to reseravations were EXTREMISTS.

be nicer to the lady.

Thanks I always find it funny how people cannot see the difference between what they practise and what they preach and yet presume to judge others .:D

Thanks I always find it funny how people cannot see the difference between what they practise and what they preach and yet presume to judge others .:D

I never preached anything regarding what you assume I'm preaching. And it's true. Where the fuck is your sense of humor? Did the "Satan" rape it out of your or something?

i find the whole thread offensive already..."sucks...hairy...balls" the mods sure are liberal.

Why aren't you living in a cave? Your god would demand it. Your blasphemous behaviour of living in comfort and using a computer and internet connection should have you stoned. Don't YOU have faith in your god?

See, anyone can use strawmen arguments. :p

Your strawman does not have a foot to stand on, my dear.

It was reported that Abul-Ahwas al-Jashamee said: The Prophet
(sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) saw me wearing old, tattered clothes, and asked me, "Do you have any wealth?" I said, "Yes." He said, "What kind of wealth?" I said, "All that Allaah has given me of camels and sheep." He said, "Then show the generous blessings that He has given you." [4] Allaah, may He be glorified, loves the effects of His blessings to His slave to be made manifest, for this is part of the beauty that He loves, and that is part of the gratitude for His blessings which forms an inner beauty (beauty of character). Allaah loves to see the external beauty of His slaves which reflects His blessings on them, and the inner beauty of their gratitude to Him for those blessings. Because He loves beauty, He sends down on His slaves clothes and adornments with which they may make their outward appearance beautiful and He gives them taqwaa which makes their inner characters beautiful.

So if a (possibly mentally deranged) serial killer happens to be a theist, religion is to blame.

Ah, so now you're admitting they are "possibly" mentally deranged, funny how you love to move the goalposts to suit your argument.

And in the case of serial killers, of the four types identified, two use the voices in their heads as their motive, ie. god made them do it.

But if a nuclear weapon making(educated, rational, moral, compassionate, caring) scientist happens to be an atheist, it is scientific curiosity.

Yes, I'm getting the hang of your logic.

Again, who is detonating the weapon and for what purpose?

Funny how YOU started a thread on 'killer asteroids.' Ain't that rich... :D

I never preached anything regarding what you assume I'm preaching. And it's true. Where the fuck is your sense of humor? Did the "Satan" rape it out of your or something?

Dont worry. You cannot see me now, but I have hiccups, I'm laughing so much!!!

well, it's better than "Religion just sodomizes your intellectual/philantropical ass"

Dont worry. You cannot see me now, but I have hiccups, I'm laughing so much!!!

Yeah, see? That's not funny. I'm fucking yawning.

Your strawman does not have a foot to stand on, my dear.

Then, why would you assume any of yours would?

In Soviet Russia, I laugh with you.

God bless the U.S.A!!!

In Soviet Russia, I laugh with you.

God bless the U.S.A!!!

God bless Soviet Union and Russian Federation!!

http://www.russianlegacy.com/catalog/images/hats/SH022.jpg

Because He loves beauty, He sends down on His slaves clothes and adornments with which they may make their outward appearance beautiful and He gives them taqwaa which makes their inner characters beautiful.

Too funny, sam. Are you a slave? Why hasn't your god been feeding the 17,000+ children who die of starvation every day? You can't eat clothes and adornments, ya know...

Ah, so now you're admitting they are "possibly" mentally deranged, funny how you love to move the goalposts to suit your argument.

And in the case of serial killers, of the four types identified, two use the voices in their heads as their motive, ie. god made them do it.

Again, who is detonating the weapon and for what purpose?

Funny how YOU started a thread on 'killer asteroids.' Ain't that rich... :D


What is the purpose of a weapon?

Is it not to kill people? And soldiers are detonating them, who are paid for their jobs (just like the scientists)

And why?

To preserve freedom, resources and security , all the things that educated rational and free thinking people hold dear.

Is that not why so many are opposed to gun control?

Too funny, sam. Are you a slave? Why hasn't your god been feeding the 17,000+ children who die of starvation every day? You can't eat clothes and adornments, ya know...

Deja vu.

Then, why would you assume any of yours would?

If you could actually argue a point instead of trolling.

At least supe is honest.

I'm not wasting time with you anymore.

What is the purpose of a weapon?

Is it not to kill people? And soldiers are detonating them, who are paid for their jobs (just like the scientists)

And why?

Theist leaders who make those decisions.

To preserve freedom, resources and security , all the things that educated rational and free thinking people hold dear.

Is that not why so many are opposed to gun control?

You'll find, if of course you actually wanted to know, that countries with the highest theist demographics have the most problems with guns.

If you could actually argue a point instead of trolling.

At least supe is honest.

I'm not wasting time with you anymore.

So, the fact that each and everytime you attempt to prop up your weak arguments with strawmen tactics, and one is not able to argue strawmen tactics, they are automatically considered to be trolling?

Each time you use strawmen tactics is a waste of time, our time, not yours.

Theist leaders who make those decisions.

You'll find, if of course you actually wanted to know, that countries with the highest theist demographics have the most problems with guns.

more TDM. Yawn.

Each time you use strawmen tactics is a waste of time, our time, not yours.


And each time you troll is a waste of my time as well.

So lets not waste OUR time anymore, shall we?

Have fun.

You only seem to say "yawn" when You can't find a way to counter the argument. Cop-out. I thought religious people had more balls than that. I mean, after all, don't you suck them? Hairy ones too?

this "hairy-ball" discussion...what is its purpose currently?

You only seem to say "yawn" when You can't find a way to counter the argument. Cop-out. I thought religious people had more balls than that. I mean, after all, don't you suck them? Hairy ones too?

I'm too old for such juvenile tactics.

I stopped playing chicken years ago.:p

And each time you troll is a waste of my time as well.

So lets not waste OUR time anymore, shall we?

Have fun.

So, essentially, what you're demanding, is that I not point out the flaws in your weak arguments, and that your strawmen tactics be allowed to flourish while my comments be censored as trolling?

Originally Posted by falcon22
You only seem to say "yawn" when You can't find a way to counter the argument. Cop-out.

I'm too old for such juvenile tactics.

I stopped playing chicken years ago.

Strawmen arguments ARE juvenile tactics, sam, pointing them out is not.

So, essentially, what you're demanding, is that I not point out the flaws in your weak arguments, and that your strawmen tactics be allowed to flourish while my comments be censored as trolling?

This, as it usually does with you, is fast becoming a pointless waste of effort.

http://www.firth.com/images/nanny/frog_jumping.gif

yeah...this is a "hairy ball" discussion.

What is this useless excuse for a thread about???

This, as it usually does with you, is fast becoming a pointless waste of effort.

Of course it is, having someone point out the flaws in your weak arguments must be a pointless waste of effort, especially when you never learn.

Sam,

1) Is it responsible to develop a weapon to counter those who would develop the same weapon to use against you?

2) Once the principles of projectile flight and the elastic properties of certain woods are discovered, how would you propose to prevent the development and proliferation of the bow and arrow?

As to your scientist vs engineer questions, we both engege in what is called "science". We distinguish between scientists and engineers based on the thrust of their activities. As I said, there is much overlap between the two. I'm not sure what you don't understand about this.

Comparing religion and science as methods is the proverbial apples and oranges comparison. One relies on doctrine and authority, the other relies on evidence and experiment. Which, of course, you already know.

Religion sucks hairy balls and then some for the primary reason that there is no way to validate or invalidate the doctrine or authority that guides it in a fair and objective way. This is the very reason that the deist founding fathers of the US of ABOMBS seperated the sacred and the secular.

Religion, for most, is a way to orient their personal relationship with the cosmos. It sucks hairy balls as a way to equitably run a society.

Sam,

1) Is it responsible to develop a weapon to counter those who would develop the same weapon to use against you?

2) Once the principles of projectile flight and the elastic properties of certain woods are discovered, how would you propose to prevent the development and proliferation of the bow and arrow?

As to your scientist vs engineer questions, we both engege in what is called "science". We distinguish between scientists and engineers based on the thrust of their activities. As I said, there is much overlap between the two. I'm not sure what you don't understand about this.

Comparing religion and science as methods is the proverbial apples and oranges comparison. One relies on doctrine and authority, the other relies on evidence and experiment. Which, of course, you already know.

Religion sucks hairy balls and then some for the primary reason that there is no way to validate or invalidate the doctrine or authority that guides it in a fair and objective way. This is the very reason that the deist founding fathers of the US of ABOMBS seperated the sacred and the secular.

Religion, for most, is a way to orient their personal relationship with the cosmos. It sucks hairy balls as a way to equitably run a society.


Supe, religion is as much a tool in the hands of the powerful as science is.

We already discussed the violence under communist governments. Idealogy of any kind is a tool.

Do you, in the future see a society sans ideology?

If you live in an atheist community, will you throw away your guns?

edit: scientist vs engineer.

The differentiation is functional, their relationship is symbiotic.

Scientists need tools to develop their theories and engineers need scientists to base their work on. But both study science and practise the principles of science, following the same laws of nature.

Supe, religion is as much a tool in the hands of the powerful as science is.

We already discussed the violence under communist governments. Idealogy of any kind is a tool.

Do you, in the future see a society sans ideology?

If you live in an atheist community, will you throw away your guns?
Not so fast. Answer my questions first.

Not so fast. Answer my questions first.

I did.

People use sciencific principles to develop weapons to defend themselves, some people also use these weapons for murdering those they perceive as a threat or for self interest.

People use religious principles to define moral and social behaviour to ensure a functional cohesive community. Some people also use these principles against those they perceive as a threat or for self interest.

Supe, religion is as much a tool in the hands of the powerful as science is.
Yes.

We already discussed the violence under communist governments. Idealogy of any kind is a tool.
Yes.

Do you, in the future see a society sans ideology?
No.

If you live in an atheist community, will you throw away your guns?
I'm not sure what atheism has to do with that. I'll throw away my gun when people stop attacking and killing other people. Or when guns are erradicated in total. Then I'll have a broadsword until the former condition is met. And so on.

Try this: As an ideology, atheism replaces reliance on authority of any kind and espouses a rational and objectively demonstrable accounting of why a given course of action is a good one.

I'm not sure what atheism has to do with that. I'll throw away my gun when people stop attacking and killing other people. Or when guns are erradicated in total. Then I'll have a broadsword until the former condition is met. And so on.

Exactly

Try this: As an ideology, atheism replaces reliance on authority of any kind and espouses a rational and objectively demonstrable accounting of why a given course of action is a good one.


I have heard of religious groups who refuse to fight in armies as it violates their religious principles.

Do you know of any atheists who do that? (Are there atheists in the army?)

I may be unaware of this, is there any scientific group in the world (presumably atheist) that is campaigning for nuclear disarmament and trying to stop the further development of weapons of mass destruction?

I know of many religious groups who are campaigning for this.

Exactly




I have heard of religious groups who refuse to fight in armies as it violates their religious principles.

Do you know of any atheists who do that? (Are there atheists in the army?)

I may be unaware of this, is there any scientific group in the world (presumably atheist) that is campaigning for nuclear disarmament and trying to stop the further development of weapons of mass destruction?

I know of many religious groups who are campaigning for this.
Wow sam. You really have a blind spot for this.
http://www.ucsusa.org/

There are many others. Try an unbiased google search. Scientists are probably the most ethical group on the planet presicely because they know the power they wield.

And yes. Many consciencious objectors are non-religious. Atheists practice a form of humanism that elevates the human being for it's own sake, not because some god declared us to be worthy.

And yes. Many consciencious objectors are non-religious. Atheists practice a form of humanism that elevates the human being for it's own sake, not because some god declared us to be worthy.

How do they practise this form of humanism? And where?

Wow sam. You really have a blind spot for this.
http://www.ucsusa.org/

There are many others. Try an unbiased google search. Scientists are probably the most ethical group on the planet presicely because they know the power they wield.

All of them?

http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/weapons/dn9978-glossary-weapons-technology.html;jsessionid=CAOBDNKHIEBM

http://www.sciam.com/special/toc.cfm?issueid=1

Re: my previous post

Technological escalation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_technology

Motives for technological escalation go far deeper than simple desire to triumph in the " necessary evil" of conflict between states. For one thing the massive military spending of the 20th century led to what many called "war profiteering" — supply of war materiel to nation-states for profit. Although some, like the Krupps of Germany, lost a great deal, others, like the Messerschmitts or Daimlers, did very well — the latter remains a prominent name in automotives today.

Another convergence is the role of media, especially radio and television, not only in propaganda but also directly in warfare: signals warfare in particular has become a major field, and led to the modern specialized study of information warfare and of civilian persuasion technology. It is often observed that this has shaped the modern discourse on advertising, and the invention of technologies (such as video games) for entertainment that are also of use in military training. So another motive of technological escalation is the provision of new toys, and training devices, that can feed a military-industrial complex.

Importantly, a key motive in all competition in all mammal species, especially among males, is simple showing off. Such abstracted arms races as the space race, for instance, show that there need not be any direct gain or material motive involved to cause vast sums of skill and energy to go into goals that are, ultimately, symbolic.

However, some claim that the space race had by far more spinoff value in the commercial sector per dollar than any money ever invested directly in the military in the 20th century — often estimated as much as seven times greater. In part this is due to the increased demand for extreme environment clothing and life support technologies required for investigating hostile environments for science and for oil exploration.

These motives (commercial spinoffs, showing off by wasting resources, control of opinion of an elite class of technologists users and scientists whom one will need in warfare, and simple profit) combine in most cases to render technological escalation all but inevitable once a conflict has begun between two technological and industrial civilizations. For these and other reasons, Marxian economics focuses on the inevitability of wars under capitalism.

By contrast, theorists of green economics tend to subscribe to the view from feminism that it is the "showing off" and the need to waste resources to prove one's competence and sexiness, that dominate the logic of technological escalation of warfare.

One interpretation is that capitalism permits inferior beings qualified only for deception to lay access to media with which they can lay claim to the achievements of the superior beings who actually create the technology and do the science. Another interpretation is that the ability to grab attention being in fact the point of the whole exercise, superiority must itself be measured by ability to control the media and claim credit for things done by others — a form of fraud-based kleptocracy. Thus the issue is a deeper one of sexual cognition — females pay attention to males in proportion to their ability to waste great amounts of resources, and males compete with other males to gain power to do so.

Proponents claim it would be hard to imagine a theory that is more strongly rooted in biology than this, and more difficult to convincingly and fully refute, and that the theory is not much criticized because there is no way to gain status from criticizing something so clearly and obviously true.

How do they practise this form of humanism? And where?
In our daily lives. Everywhere.

All of them?

http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/weapons/dn9978-glossary-weapons-technology.html;jsessionid=CAOBDNKHIEBM

http://www.sciam.com/special/toc.cfm?issueid=1
As a group. You just want a fight. Bite it.

Re: my previous post

Technological escalation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_technology

Motives for technological escalation go far deeper than simple desire to triumph in the " necessary evil" of conflict between states. For one thing the massive military spending of the 20th century led to what many called "war profiteering" — supply of war materiel to nation-states for profit. Although some, like the Krupps of Germany, lost a great deal, others, like the Messerschmitts or Daimlers, did very well — the latter remains a prominent name in automotives today.

Another convergence is the role of media, especially radio and television, not only in propaganda but also directly in warfare: signals warfare in particular has become a major field, and led to the modern specialized study of information warfare and of civilian persuasion technology. It is often observed that this has shaped the modern discourse on advertising, and the invention of technologies (such as video games) for entertainment that are also of use in military training. So another motive of technological escalation is the provision of new toys, and training devices, that can feed a military-industrial complex.

Importantly, a key motive in all competition in all mammal species, especially among males, is simple showing off. Such abstracted arms races as the space race, for instance, show that there need not be any direct gain or material motive involved to cause vast sums of skill and energy to go into goals that are, ultimately, symbolic.

However, some claim that the space race had by far more spinoff value in the commercial sector per dollar than any money ever invested directly in the military in the 20th century — often estimated as much as seven times greater. In part this is due to the increased demand for extreme environment clothing and life support technologies required for investigating hostile environments for science and for oil exploration.

These motives (commercial spinoffs, showing off by wasting resources, control of opinion of an elite class of technologists users and scientists whom one will need in warfare, and simple profit) combine in most cases to render technological escalation all but inevitable once a conflict has begun between two technological and industrial civilizations. For these and other reasons, Marxian economics focuses on the inevitability of wars under capitalism.

By contrast, theorists of green economics tend to subscribe to the view from feminism that it is the "showing off" and the need to waste resources to prove one's competence and sexiness, that dominate the logic of technological escalation of warfare.

One interpretation is that capitalism permits inferior beings qualified only for deception to lay access to media with which they can lay claim to the achievements of the superior beings who actually create the technology and do the science. Another interpretation is that the ability to grab attention being in fact the point of the whole exercise, superiority must itself be measured by ability to control the media and claim credit for things done by others — a form of fraud-based kleptocracy. Thus the issue is a deeper one of sexual cognition — females pay attention to males in proportion to their ability to waste great amounts of resources, and males compete with other males to gain power to do so.

Proponents claim it would be hard to imagine a theory that is more strongly rooted in biology than this, and more difficult to convincingly and fully refute, and that the theory is not much criticized because there is no way to gain status from criticizing something so clearly and obviously true.
Right. Nice. And who's behavior does this describe? Politicians?

Right. Nice. And who's behavior does this describe? Politicians?

People.

You may think atheism is a new idea. Its as new as homosexuality.

Sam, you really should quit your Phd studies and move back to India. For the sake of your immortal soul.

In our daily lives. Everywhere.

And the results? What are they?

As a group. You just want a fight. Bite it.

Nope, I'm asking.

Sam, you really should quit your Phd studies and move back to India. For the sake of your immortal soul.

Why? (Really?)

People.

You may think atheism is a new idea. Its as new as homosexuality.
Right. Many of the great minds throughout history have been atheists. Keep on patronizing. It very sexy.

So, people are shits. People have run the paradigm of religious methodology for millenia. The atheistic paradigm has had, by comparison, zero practical application. The closest thing is the US of SATAN with it's strict prohibition of religion in government. Because the founders knew how bad an idea mixing the two was.

I'd say that your religious paradigm for guiding human nature has otherwise failed miserably and continues to do so.

And the results? What are they?



Nope, I'm asking.
When you post links with your pointed questions, you're not asking.

And the results? What are they?
Well, since the religio-political shits have dominated the paradigm basically forever, we don't have any large scale results. In the lives of the individuals I know? They beat the ignorant (religious) masses hands down for compassion, rationality, and social conscience.

Why? (Really?)
You seem destined to use your knowledge of nutritional physiology to the detriment of mankind by inventing a metabolic poison that will selectively kill off scientists and engineers. This will surely land you in hell. Or wherever it is bad muslims go.

Right. Many of the great minds throughout history have been atheists. Keep on patronizing. It very sexy.

Whats with the attitude? And who is patronising here?

You're the one with the evolutionary theories and the memes.
So why did it never catch on?


So, people are shits. People have run the paradigm of religious methodology for millenia. The atheistic paradigm has had, by comparison, zero practical application. The closest thing is the US of SATAN with it's strict prohibition of religion in government. Because the founders knew how bad an idea mixing the two was.


So what happened?


I'd say that your religious paradigm for guiding human nature has otherwise failed miserably and continues to do so.

And where has an atheist paradigm succeeded?

And how exactly, is it going to be established?

You seem destined to use your knowledge of nutritional physiology to the detriment of mankind by inventing a metabolic poison that will selectively kill off scientists and engineers. This will surely land you in hell. Or wherever it is bad muslims go.

Fine be pissy. I'm gone. I'm going back to India in December. You can breathe easy again.

Whats with the attitude? And who is patronising here?
You. With you own attitude.

You're the one with the evolutionary theories and the memes.
So why did it never catch on?
What? Rationality? It takes work and the loss of childish fear to abandon comfy fairy tales. Tough for many people.

So what happened?
Are we suprised that noble ideas get subsumed into the gut of ignorance?

And where has an atheist paradigm succeeded?
Please read my other posts.

And how exactly, is it going to be established?
If I only knew...

Fine be pissy. I'm gone. I'm going back to India in December. You can breathe easy again.

you seem to be getting very worked up sam

are you a chick?

and hot!!:D

you seem to be getting very worked up sam

Maybe a little.:)

Hey some of you nerd's on this forum should really start getting the title of the threads right!!!
..and I mean that in a nice way!:D

and hot!!:D

How do you know this!

How do you know this!

member's picture thread posting and aura of beauty resonating from her responses.

member's picture thread posting and aura of beauty resonating from her responses.

Where is this post? she told me she was fat and ugly. I hate to burst your bubble but beautifull chick's dont sit around posting on forum's 24\7.....do they:rolleyes:

Where is this post? she told me she was fat and ugly. I hate to burst your bubble but beautifull chick's dont sit around posting on forum's 24\7.....do they:rolleyes:

yea i guess u are right. but at least she is nice and I seem to really like her. or maybe she got that mobile min-laptop with satellite internet connection, the small nanofiber desktop is projected unto the glasses, she is wearing, surface. Voice is embedded with voice recognition software and specific voice commands that are linked to movement of a mouse...thus she can do everything on the go!. She can do spins, hip-hop style while answering SF thread q's.

Where is this post? she told me she was fat and ugly. I hate to burst your bubble but beautifull chick's dont sit around posting on forum's 24\7.....do they:rolleyes:

Absolutely. I always knew you were a smart one.:)

PS I've removed the picture ages ago, so don't bother looking.

Are you at least female then?

PS I've removed the picture ages ago, so don't bother looking.

DARN!

or she might be just a computer response software that creates an illusion that of a human..