Atheists continuously insist that they have a sense of Morality. Well, yes, a sense. They remember the difference between good and evil. However, there is nothing outside of law and peer pressure that could enforce this sense of morality into any action that could inconvenience an Atheist. They are willing to do good as long as it is conducive to their self interest, but, equally, they are willing to do evil also, if it is in their self interest and if they can keep it hushed up. Cheating on taxes, cheating on tests, cheating on their wives. Competition in the workplace – screwing people over on the excuse that the rules are the same for everybody – not finding a problem with making real life into some kind of a child’s game.

But sometimes they don’t even bother to keep it secret. Here we have America’s and Britain’s advocacy for Torture. They KNOW it is wrong. But it is so darn in their Self Interest to do it. Well, not really in their self interest if they look at all the calculations involved. But for those in the Intelligence Community, all the nasty tools of the Inquisition come out in a celebration of useful Barbarism.

Of course, on the political side, there are a great many Protestants that are actively advocating for Torture, but in their regards, they see it as just one more Sin from which their Salvation exempts them. It needs to be remembered, that in the War against God and Religion, it was not the Atheists who had fired the first shot, but the Protestants, and largely so that they could assert a more all inclusive Salvation when the Catholic Church had been insisting, against Paulist Doctrines, for a broader spectrum of social moralities, which isn’t to say that the Paulist Bishops were willing to apply Paulist Salvation Doctrines to themselves for the benefit of their own corruptions. The Protestants did not need nor want Morality. They substituted Law for Morality, as Law could be selectively applied. The whole point of Democracy is to allow certain powerful individuals to place a Government from whose laws they can be personally exempted or from which they can personally profit.

Decades ago some atheists in the scientific community decided to take cover beneath a rather vague definition of God, more or less defining their ‘God’ as one in the same as the Universe itself… given such a loose definition they could say to the Redneck Inquisitions “I believe in ‘God’ so leave me alone”. Einstein was a famous instance of this – being one of the ‘nice’ scientists who believed in God… just don’t ask any question. But certain philosophers pointed out that a God with no personality and indisposed to be Providential would really be as good as no God at all. So it is with Morality and a God of Salvation. If this God has suddenly decided to suspend Morality by granting a universal dispensation against the imposition of any Moral Criteria, then God becomes Morally Useless, or the Religion of that God becomes morally useless. Yes, Protestants make a great deal of noise about supporting certain social mores with the weight of an imposed Morality, but it seems to be a great deal in the order of old fat ladies who call for sexual restraint – it effectively applies to other people’s actions and never to their own.

Likewise, with Atheists and Protestants in their regards for Torture, in both giving it and receiving it. Many German and Japanese Intelligence Officers and Politicians had been hanged by American and British prosecutors for having had tortured American and British troops. Atheists and Protestants are willing to aim their Moral Sense outward when they themselves can support themselves in the roll of the Victim… when the Self Interest of Morality is on their own side, when the restraints of Morality are intended only to hold back the other guy. It reminds me of how the British and the American’s had a Holocaust going of their own, firebombing civilian population centers in both Europe and Japan… even the first Nuclear Bombs were not aimed against military targets but were set to incinerate women and children. Also, the British and American’s enforced a Food Embargo against Europe, again aimed against the Civilian Populations, and it is a little known fact that nearly every ‘Concentration Camp’ started out as Food Rationing Centers, and those who starved there were not killed by Adolf Hitler but by the American and the British Food Embargos. But the War Crimes Trials did not even bother to discuss these issues. After all, having ordered the deaths of millions of innocent people themselves, would Harry Truman or Winston Churchill really have minded being hung themselves. With so many others dead, why was it special for them to survive, especially in the face of so many outrages against Civilized Standards of Behavior. But here again we are discussing the Moralities of Atheists and Protestants which effectively are not moralities at all.

isnt that a rather silly idea?

why do we have university courses that teach practical ethics in all sorts of fields from medical all the way to the law.

There are intire libaries that are filled with litricture on ethics and morality
TRUE ethics rather than that "thou shall not kill unless they are a fag and then tho shall beat them to a bloody pulp"

I didn't read the OP, because it didn't make a point in the first 2 sentences. But anyway, it is a gray matter and not black and white. There is good torture and bad torture.

The problem is not the usage itself, but the application...

Atheists continuously insist that they have a sense of Morality. Well, yes, a sense. They remember the difference between good and evil. However, there is nothing outside of law and peer pressure that could enforce this sense of morality into any action that could inconvenience an Atheist. They are willing to do good as long as it is conducive to their self interest, but, equally, they are willing to do evil also, if it is in their self interest and if they can keep it hushed up. Cheating on taxes, cheating on tests, cheating on their wives. Competition in the workplace – screwing people over on the excuse that the rules are the same for everybody – not finding a problem with making real life into some kind of a child’s game.

But sometimes they don’t even bother to keep it secret. Here we have America’s and Britain’s advocacy for Torture. They KNOW it is wrong. But it is so darn in their Self Interest to do it. Well, not really in their self interest if they look at all the calculations involved. But for those in the Intelligence Community, all the nasty tools of the Inquisition come out in a celebration of useful Barbarism.

Of course, on the political side, there are a great many Protestants that are actively advocating for Torture, but in their regards, they see it as just one more Sin from which their Salvation exempts them. It needs to be remembered, that in the War against God and Religion, it was not the Atheists who had fired the first shot, but the Protestants, and largely so that they could assert a more all inclusive Salvation when the Catholic Church had been insisting, against Paulist Doctrines, for a broader spectrum of social moralities, which isn’t to say that the Paulist Bishops were willing to apply Paulist Salvation Doctrines to themselves for the benefit of their own corruptions. The Protestants did not need nor want Morality. They substituted Law for Morality, as Law could be selectively applied. The whole point of Democracy is to allow certain powerful individuals to place a Government from whose laws they can be personally exempted or from which they can personally profit.

Decades ago some atheists in the scientific community decided to take cover beneath a rather vague definition of God, more or less defining their ‘God’ as one in the same as the Universe itself… given such a loose definition they could say to the Redneck Inquisitions “I believe in ‘God’ so leave me alone”. Einstein was a famous instance of this – being one of the ‘nice’ scientists who believed in God… just don’t ask any question. But certain philosophers pointed out that a God with no personality and indisposed to be Providential would really be as good as no God at all. So it is with Morality and a God of Salvation. If this God has suddenly decided to suspend Morality by granting a universal dispensation against the imposition of any Moral Criteria, then God becomes Morally Useless, or the Religion of that God becomes morally useless. Yes, Protestants make a great deal of noise about supporting certain social mores with the weight of an imposed Morality, but it seems to be a great deal in the order of old fat ladies who call for sexual restraint – it effectively applies to other people’s actions and never to their own.

Likewise, with Atheists and Protestants in their regards for Torture, in both giving it and receiving it. Many German and Japanese Intelligence Officers and Politicians had been hanged by American and British prosecutors for having had tortured American and British troops. Atheists and Protestants are willing to aim their Moral Sense outward when they themselves can support themselves in the roll of the Victim… when the Self Interest of Morality is on their own side, when the restraints of Morality are intended only to hold back the other guy. It reminds me of how the British and the American’s had a Holocaust going of their own, firebombing civilian population centers in both Europe and Japan… even the first Nuclear Bombs were not aimed against military targets but were set to incinerate women and children. Also, the British and American’s enforced a Food Embargo against Europe, again aimed against the Civilian Populations, and it is a little known fact that nearly every ‘Concentration Camp’ started out as Food Rationing Centers, and those who starved there were not killed by Adolf Hitler but by the American and the British Food Embargos. But the War Crimes Trials did not even bother to discuss these issues. After all, having ordered the deaths of millions of innocent people themselves, would Harry Truman or Winston Churchill really have minded being hung themselves. With so many others dead, why was it special for them to survive, especially in the face of so many outrages against Civilized Standards of Behavior. But here again we are discussing the Moralities of Atheists and Protestants which effectively are not moralities at all.

TUM PODEM EXTULIT HORRIDULUM.

You have an anti-atheism problem,

The two possibilities with the Divine Command Theory, and why they're both unsatisfactory (obvious thanks to the Euthyphro Dilemma):

1. Good things are good because God likes them. But then, good becomes very arbitrary. Anything that God happens to like at the moment can be considered good, and anything that he happens to dislike at the moment can be considered sinful. If tomorrow God liked the concept of humans murdering other humans, then would you be willing to say that murder is good?

2. Other possibility is that God likes good things because they're good. However, that removes the source of goodness from God and places it elsewhere. This makes morality independent of God, and that contradicts the entire notion of morality coming from God.

This dilemma has been around for a long long time and it's easy to see why many wouldn't be satisfied with the Divine Command theory after they've given it a bit of thought. Of course the easy answer would simply to believe that morality came from humanity and humanity alone, but that doesn't seem to jive well with some theists. :shrug:

Like Asguard already mentioned, practical ethics tends to render this divine stuff moot.

True ethics come from 2 sorces in combination

1) the in built capacity for empathy
2) the desire for social cohesian

In combination these lead to ethics, nothing to do with imaginary creatures
As for ethical decision making (ie is it more ethical to take course a or course b) in most people these decisions are made on gut instint based on there own empathy. Some people however CAN use ethical principles (like for instance principle based ethics which is the system i subscribe to as well as most of the nursing proffession) to make there decisions

God and religion was invented to give these principles to a culture that was just developing and didnt have any better system of social cohesian to fall back on. We are grown up enough now to move past the fairy tales

even the first Nuclear Bombs were not aimed against military targets but were set to incinerate women and children.

You can lie all you want to about that but we all know today that there were manufacturing plants in both of those cities and were military targets because of those manufacturing plants that help supply the Japanese war effort. For you to state this blatant lie only shows your ignorance of what the truth is. :(

Asguard, perhaps you should do a little more research. Start with Khmer Rouge.

I sugest you start with a book called "ethics and law for the health proffessional" i will find the author tomorow maybe

It has a really good break down of different systems of ethics:)

Of all of them i try to follow the principle based aproch because 1) its so well suited for the health care industry and 2) it slides well into the rest of life:)

Americans, especially Catholics, approve of torture

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm

Which should not be surprising since the Catholic Church has depended on it at various periods for its marketing.

I sugest you start with a book called "ethics and law for the health proffessional" i will find the author tomorow maybe

It has a really good break down of different systems of ethics:)

Of all of them i try to follow the principle based aproch because 1) its so well suited for the health care industry and 2) it slides well into the rest of life:)

The solution lies in the fact u need to strike a balance between the meterialism and spirituality.

Allah says:
Verily, in the remembrance of Allah hearts find rest.

Allah says:
- Do not strain your eyes in longing for the things that we have given to some groups of them to enjoy, the splendor of the life of this world, through which we test them. But the provision of your Lord is better and more lasting.

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “If there are three of you, do not two of you talk secretly to one another to the exclusion of the third until you mix with other people, because you may hurt his feelings.”

God has said:

“But whoever turns away from the Quran,[1] he will have a hard life, and We will raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment.” (Quran 20:124)

Whoever does right, whether male or female, and is a believer, We will make him live a good life, and We will award them their reward for the best of what they used to do. (Quran, 16:97)

and it is a little known fact that nearly every ‘Concentration Camp’ started out as Food Rationing Centers, and those who starved there were not killed by Adolf Hitler but by the American and the British Food Embargos.
Poor Hitler. He just meant to keep those Jews near the ovens so he could control their food intake, but the Allies forced his hand. And then the Nazis had all these Jews and Gypsies etc. killed to make their deaths less painful. It is a coincidence that a political party with near absolute power that built its platform comparing Jews to rodents - and we know how people deal with rodents - and that moved all these Jews to concentration camps -those that were not gassed in trucks or shot and tossed in mass graves immediately - where they were systematically killed. Poor Hitler. Yes, he hated Jews and with his fellow Nazis, after dehumanizing them for over decade, transported them to where they were all killed by German soldiers, but it is really the Allies fault.

There is a reason this is a little known fact. It is because it is a poorly substantiated hallucination.

old fat ladies who call for sexual restraint – it effectively applies to other people’s actions and never to their own.
.

Sure get some sexism in while you're at it. As everyone knows restrictive sexual morals have come from men, from Popes and Imams, priests and pastors. And male police and mostly male mobs have enforced this with violence. But blame your problems on 'old fat ladies' if it makes the source of the problem seem to be far away from you. Who am I to get in the way of your condemning finger and purity?

Self interest is an over riding concern in most humans, atheism just makes it easier and guiltless. I'd say you would find people who support torture for various reasons in all kinds of groups.

Self interest is an over riding concern in most humans, atheism just makes it easier and guiltless. I'd say you would find people who support torture for various reasons in all kinds of groups.

The first sentence is a hypothesis that sounds logical and may or may not be. Oddly enough most of the atheists I know seem as prone to feeling guilty as anyone else.

And religious people have generally managed to even include torture in their standard practices.

Possibly atheists feel less guilt, so they have less obstacles to torture. I don't know. Possibly religious people can feel more justified by their religions to be violent - torture being a subset of violence. I don't know about this either.

The people promoting torture in the US are overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christians. Catholics have an historical affinity for torture. I don't see how they are any more moral than an atheist, who is good simply to be good, not to avoid torture.

I'm an atheist, and I don't cheat on my taxes, I don't screw people over at work, I am compassionate and good towards my fellow man, because I know we are all we have. There's no divinity out there to look out for our society, it's just you and me.

S.A.M. i find that highly offencive. Just because someone is an athiast doesnt remove there conciouse. Guilt is not a thesit exclusive emotion and nither is empathy. In fact i would say ATHIASTS are more likly to actually empathise with someone than theists based on the fact that an athiast can actually see things from a gay persons perspective where as a THEIST just sees an imaginary 2 headed monster

S.A.M. i find that highly offencive. Just because someone is an athiast doesnt remove there conciouse. Guilt is not a thesit exclusive emotion and nither is empathy. In fact i would say ATHIASTS are more likly to actually empathise with someone than theists based on the fact that an athiast can actually see things from a gay persons perspective where as a THEIST just sees an imaginary 2 headed monster

Well if we are judging all theists by the fundies, I am judging all atheists by the militants. :cool:

The people promoting torture in the US are overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christians. Catholics have an historical affinity for torture. I don't see how they are any more moral than an atheist, who is good simply to be good, not to avoid torture.

I'm an atheist, and I don't cheat on my taxes, I don't screw people over at work, I am compassionate and good towards my fellow man, because I know we are all we have. There's no divinity out there to look out for our society, it's just you and me.

thats my feeling exactly,and Im atheist,whats it with these religious nuts making atheists into some kind of monsters without compassion? :shrug:

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

thats my feeling exactly,and Im atheist,whats it with these religious nuts making atheists into some kind of monsters without compassion? :shrug:



Probably the last 60 years of mayhem

Atheists continuously insist that they have a sense of Morality. Well, yes, a sense. They remember the difference between good and evil. However, there is nothing outside of law and peer pressure that could enforce this sense of morality into any action that could inconvenience an Atheist.Bullshit. Since atheists are not deceived and distracted by fairytales about an afterlife and imaginary beings rewarding us for good intentions, we know that the only thing that keeps us from descending into the abysmal life of our Mesolithic ancestors is civilization. Civilization works only because we make it work and we make it work by following the rules we've spent twelve thousand years developing. Not because somebody will punish us for violating them, but because we are pack-social animals by instinct and we want the pack to thrive. We all have our weak moments of anger and selfishness and irresponsibility (and perhaps intoxication), but most people, most of the time, do what it takes to keep civilization running more or less smoothly, because it is in their own self-interest and in the interest of their pack-mates.

One of those rules is that we don't use violence against each other because if we did, we'd all have to divert so much of our attention and other resources to protecting ourselves against each other that civilization would grind to a halt.

We're allowed to use violence in self-defense against someone else who lost his connection to civilization and initiated violence first, but that's a last resort.

Wars start because deep down inside we are indeed still a pack-social species rather than herd-social. We've learned to override that instinct and build ever-larger packs, learning to live in harmony and cooperation with strangers. But every now and then our pack-social instinct overcomes us.

The reason I'm taking this odd twist of reasoning is that the O.P. obviously was intended to indict atheism as a force that works to the detriment of civilization, when in fact it is religion that does so. Particularly the monotheistic religions of Abraham. These religions reinforce mankind's tribal instinct. Regardless of the messages of peace and brotherhood and tolerance attributed to their prophets, in practice the followers of Christianity, Judaism and Islam invariably divide the world into "us" and "them" along religious lines. Frequently they can't even maintain a sense of community within their own sect, but divide into "Catholic" and "Protestant" tribes or "Orthodox" and "Reform" tribes or "Sunni" and "Shiite" tribes which then set about murdering each other (or in the case of the Jews tossing rocks at ambulances that have the nerve to operate on the Sabbath).

So if you want to talk about torture, it's Christians torturing Muslims. It's okay! They're from the enemy tribe!. . . . and it is a little known fact that nearly every ‘Concentration Camp’ started out as Food Rationing Centers, and those who starved there were not killed by Adolf Hitler but by the American and the British Food Embargos.Leo, that is not just an extraordinary assertion but an outrageous and hateful one. It is a textbook example of trolling, which is a violation of the rules of SciForums. If you ever say anything this mean-spirited again I will personally initiate the process of banning you permanently. If you wish to defend yourself against this accusation then, in accordance with the scientific method, you are hereby challenged to provide EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE for this extraordinary claim. Not just some crap from a racist crackpot Holocaust-denialism website but some REAL SCIENCE. Pending that satisfaction of the requirements of science, you may not pursue this line of discourse on this thread or any other, or it will be treated as trolling.You can lie all you want to about that but we all know today that there were manufacturing plants in both of those cities and were military targets because of those manufacturing plants that help supply the Japanese war effort. For you to state this blatant lie only shows your ignorance of what the truth is.Well hang on there dude. Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had factories that supplied the war effort, but they were not prime military targets. The Americans realized that the Japanese sense of honor would never allow them to surrender, that we would have to invade the country and occupy it and they would still keep fighting until the last six-year-old girl was gunned down while charging a battalion of Marines with her dead daddy's samurai sword. This would result in something like seventy million Japanese casualties, several million American casualties, and the obliteration of an ancient culture. We decided that we had to prove to the Japanese that they were fighting an enemy without honor, so we vaporized a couple of hundred thousand civilians who had no reason to expect an attack and never got to look at their enemy's face. It worked. A shaken Japan quickly surrendered to the Western devil with no honor. I'm not saying this because I agree with the American reasoning, I think smarter leaders could have figured out a better way. But this was the reasoning. It was not a military decision, it was psychological. It was in fact terrorism: we "terrorized" the Japanese people into supporting a policy they did not approve of, by killing their civilians. That is exactly what terrorism is. One of the most unfortunate things about the nuclear attacks on Japan is that they succeeded. Every terrorist dirtbag on earth knows that American terrorism against Japan worked, so they think there's a chance that their terrorist attacks will accomplish their goals.

The Law Of Unintended Consequences. It bites you in the butt every single time.Self interest is an over riding concern in most humans, atheism just makes it easier and guiltless.You discount the pack-social instinct. Everyone has loved ones. Everyone cares about their welfare. Civilization exerts pressure on us to increase the number of people we consider loved ones, so that we care about the people on the other side of the planet who are no more than abstractions. Abrahamic religion does precisely the opposite. It encourages us to regard those people as a rival pack, an enemy tribe, of infidels, heathens, ragheads, great Satans, whatever... so it's okay not to care about them.

That, in a nutshell, is why I despise Abrahamism. It works against civilization. It is something we simply have to outgrow before the tribal instincts it reinforces destroy us.

I think Fraggle you'll find community and family feeling is next to nil in secular societies. Personally I will tell you there is a massive difference between what I have seen in the Middle East and the United States. The notion of family and community itself is completely different, in the US it is every man for himself, in the ME, notwithstanding some weird dictators, they have tremendous social support systems.

sam your discounting the fact that the US is brought up in a sociaty that ONLY values indervidual greed. Try Australia and the UK where we value social good over religion

Does not stop them from bombing Iraq and Afghanistan, does it?

Sam i could say the same about theists bombing bail but i wont. why? because i am inteligent enough to know there is more to it than that.

So your really tying my hands, either i become an anti islamic prick or i debate base on honesty while YOU throw in straw men

Oh and we havent "bombed" anyone, we dont have the airforce deployed apart from a couple of refuling planes

Sam i could say the same about theists bombing bail but i wont. why? because i am inteligent enough to know there is more to it than that.

So your really tying my hands, either i become an anti islamic prick or i debate base on honesty while YOU throw in straw men



Maybe I am not being clear. For example, while this (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673270,00.html) is typical behaviour in the Middle East, it would be extremely unusual in Australia. The concept of morality is utterly different.




Oh and we havent "bombed" anyone, we dont have the airforce deployed apart from a couple of refuling planes

And what is the moral basis of Australian involvement in the Iraq war?

Is there one? What is the social good at stake there?

Maybe I am not being clear. For example, while this (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673270,00.html) is typical behaviour in the Middle East, it would be extremely unusual in Australia. The concept of morality is utterly different.



looks like a day care.

well the social good would proably howard's US citizanship sam.

Dont blame me for that decision, when i wrote to my local member to complain i was told "sorry, i think what the PM is doing is the right thing", when i marched in the street the only good that came out of it was that was that i saw Peter Garrot perform live and got to lission to Brian Brown (one of my favorate politions). Also howard lost his seat and the goverment both over this and other issues. I NEVER voted for the liberal party, (infact i dont even vote labor, i vote democrat), i write to my politions and i demonstate in the street against there actions if i dissagree with them. What more would you like me to do? If you send me a sniper rifle i could kill tony abbot for you??

well the social good would proably howard's US citizanship sam.

Dont blame me for that decision, when i wrote to my local member to complain i was told "sorry, i think what the PM is doing is the right thing", when i marched in the street the only good that came out of it was that was that i saw Peter Garrot perform live and got to lission to Brian Brown (one of my favorate politions). Also howard lost his seat and the goverment both over this and other issues. I NEVER voted for the liberal party, (infact i dont even vote labor, i vote democrat), i write to my politions and i demonstate in the street against there actions if i dissagree with them. What more would you like me to do? If you send me a sniper rifle i could kill tony abbot for you??

Hmm you could adopt an Iraqi. That would actually contribute to social good.

What I'm saying is that the individual Australian soldiers are not slaves of Howard. But they have no compunction about getting involved in a war that has absolutely nothing to do with them. Thats as much tribalism as anything else.

Hmm you could adopt an Iraqi. That would actually contribute to social good.

yeah, maybe if he will teach him western values he wont grow up to be a suicide bomber.

I think Fraggle you'll find community and family feeling is next to nil in secular societies. Personally I will tell you there is a massive difference between what I have seen in the Middle East and the United States.I've lived in the United States for 64 years. Why are you lecturing me about my own country??? What you're observing is a different scope of community and family feeling. This is the inevitable result of our expansion from a pack-social species to a herd-social species. We may not have quite the same suffocating, cloying devotion to the family we had the good or bad luck to be born into, but we understand that the people in Germany, Japan, the USSR, China, Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq are our brothers too! No, we don't spend our days and nights wallowing in the affections of our parents and neighbors, but the up-side of that is that we don't tolerate the idea that it's okay to bomb the crap out of Iraq because they're not our parents and neighbors.The notion of family and community itself is completely differentYes it is. Over there the people on the other side of the planet are the Great Satan. Over here, the people on the other side of the planet are members of the same "family and community" as we are.In the US it is every man for himself, in the ME, notwithstanding some weird dictators, they have tremendous social support systems.You will probably never understand Western society because of the perceptual fraction you were taught, but your children will if they're born here. You look around you and don't SEE the things that YOU value, that close-knit family thingie that drives Americans up the wall. But you don't NOTICE the things that WE value, which is genuine concern for the whole human family. It's spread over more people, more by eight orders of magnitude, so of course it's highly dissipated. We're not conscious of it at every moment and some people manage to go their whole lives without having it enter their mind. But on the balance, we do care greatly about world civilization. The misguided attempt to impose democracy on Iraq, for example, was not launched by our treasonous leaders out of any love for the Iraqi people on their part, but the shrinking minority of Americans who think it's a good idea think so because they really believe it will make life better for our brothers, the Iraqis.

We all instinctively know that if the world becomes intertwined into one big global economic and political entity, with everyone caring for and depending on everyone else in one giant pack/tribe/herd, there can be no more war. What many of us don't understand is that this will never happen so long as Abrahamism remains a powerful counterforce dragging us back into tribalism.

You will probably never understand Western society because of the perceptual fraction you were taught, but your children will if they're born here. You look around you and don't SEE the things that YOU value, that close-knit family thingie that drives Americans up the wall. But you don't NOTICE the things that WE value, which is genuine concern for the whole human family.

No, we don't spend our days and nights wallowing in the affections of our parents and neighbors, but the up-side of that is that we don't tolerate the idea that it's okay to bomb the crap out of Iraq because they're not our parents and neighbors.

Thats all just theory isn't it?

After all, the US is currently occupying two countries while supplying 50% of the worlds arms. It does not recognise several UN resolutions covering basic human rights or the jurisdiction of the ICC.

The US also uses trade practices that bankrupt third world farmers while subsidising its own and uses military force to avoid accountability for its actions. All this while supporting dictators, using death squads to destabilise elected governments and enabling conflicts in countries that hold resources.


Also, while not all these practices are endemic to all secular countries, the trade practices and supply of arms as well as support for suppressing different cultures is.


How does anything that you said jibe with all of the above?

Plus if your own family and community is cloying and suffocating how do you view the world? Is community feeling something you can tolerate only because it is abstract and distant and requires nothing more than a warm glow? Is the love and charity inversely proportional to the distance?

And btw, you are bombing the crap out of Iraq. And Afghanistan. Five years for one, seven for the other.

As for the Great Satan?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77594

Thats all just theory isn't it?

After all, the US is currently occupying two countries while supplying 50% of the worlds arms. It does not recognise several UN resolutions covering basic human rights or the jurisdiction of the ICC.

The US also uses trade practices that bankrupt third world farmers while subsidising its own and uses military force to avoid accountability for its actions. All this while supporting dictators, using death squads to destabilise elected governments and enabling conflicts in countries that hold resources.

How does anything that you said jibe with all of the above?

another I HATE the US post? you got anytime for living with all that hate?

another I HATE the US post? you got anytime for living with all that hate?

Its not hate to attempt to understand the dissonance between what people say and what they do.

e.g. this incident was completely ignored by the secular world, which is largely the cause of it.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6522

Many of us remember the crucial failure of the WTO's Fifth Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico in 2003. It was on this day that Lee Kyung Hae, leader of the Korean Federation of Advanced Farmers, discovered that his loudest voice was in death.

Wearing a sandwich board that read, "The WTO kills farmers!"- Lee took a knife and stabbed himself in the chest. His death was ignored by the WTO and the mainstream media. Given the lack of attention, many argue that his violent end was in vain. Sadly, his dishonored death is one of thousands being ignored by corporate mainstream media.

In 2003, 17,107 farmers committed suicide. In the last few years, the number of documented suicides in India's rural areas has skyrocketed. These suicides have become so commonplace that they are mystifying a nation and polarizing the debate over biotechnology.



So when I hear things like, "Koreans are our brothers", all I can say is that you must have strange family values.

Its not hate to attempt to understand the dissonance between what people say and what they do.

e.g. this incident was completely ignored by the secular world, which is largely the cause of it.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6522



So when I hear things like, "Koreans are our brothers", all I can say is that you must have strange family values.

i think you just HATE the west.

i think you just HATE the west.

Oh no, but I wonder how they define secularism and morality. Indeed I do. And I would very much like to have someone explain it to me.

Oh no, but I wonder how they define secularism and morality. Indeed I do. And I would very much like to have someone explain it to me.

i dont believe you. i do think you hate and despise the west, particularly israel and Israelis. and jews.

i dont believe you. i do think you hate and despise the west, particularly israel and Israelis. and jews.

Why? Is it unwestern to question what you see? Should I just be watching faux snooze instead?

Why? Is it unwestern to question what you see? Should I just be watching faux snooze instead?

you dont question, you feel hatred, and maybe others dont notice it but i do.

you dont question, you feel hatred, and maybe others dont notice it but i do.

So questioning why 17,000 plus farmers are committing suicide due to trade practices that favor first world farmers is an indication of hatred?:confused:

I hear the words bandied about, but the evidence does not support the assertion.

So questioning why 17,000 plus farmers are committing suicide due to trade practices that favor first world farmers is an indication of hatred?:confused:

I hear the words bandied about, but the evidence does not support the assertion.

if you questioned maybe, but clearly you do more then that, and quite often.

if you questioned maybe, but clearly you do more then that, and quite often.

Its an abstract concept for you, but its harsh reality for many

Since the late 1990s (about when industrial agriculture took hold in India),166,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide and 8 million have left the land.

The faint concept of distant brotherly love seems odd in this context.

Atheists continuously insist that they have a sense of Morality. Well, yes, a sense. They remember the difference between good and evil. However, there is nothing outside of law and peer pressure that could enforce this sense of morality into any action that could inconvenience an Atheist. They are willing to do good as long as it is conducive to their self interest, but, equally, they are willing to do evil also, if it is in their self interest and if they can keep it hushed up. Cheating on taxes, cheating on tests, cheating on their wives. Competition in the workplace – screwing people over on the excuse that the rules are the same for everybody – not finding a problem with making real life into some kind of a child’s game.

But sometimes they don’t even bother to keep it secret. Here we have America’s and Britain’s advocacy for Torture. They KNOW it is wrong. But it is so darn in their Self Interest to do it. Well, not really in their self interest if they look at all the calculations involved. But for those in the Intelligence Community, all the nasty tools of the Inquisition come out in a celebration of useful Barbarism.



You fail to take into account the fact that the leaders of these nations (the US and the UK), especially in recent times, who support and/or commit acts of torture are strict and strong Christians. Not atheists. You will also find many strict believers on this site who find no problems at all with torturing people if it is to serve their own self interest. On the contrary, atheist human rights organisations have been voicing their opposition against the conduct of these Governments quite strongly.

Your hatred of anything not Catholic is well known on these boards Leo. And attempting to portray atheism as being the danger to civilisation is neither knew or original.

Atheists and Protestants are willing to aim their Moral Sense outward when they themselves can support themselves in the roll of the Victim… when the Self Interest of Morality is on their own side, when the restraints of Morality are intended only to hold back the other guy. It reminds me of how the British and the American’s had a Holocaust going of their own, firebombing civilian population centers in both Europe and Japan… even the first Nuclear Bombs were not aimed against military targets but were set to incinerate women and children.
Oh you have got to be kidding me! I see you failed to take into consideration the Catholic Church played in the War, resulting in the deaths of Jews and other person's not Catholic. But that's alright, isn't it? It's ok so long as it's them who are dying.

Also, the British and American’s enforced a Food Embargo against Europe, again aimed against the Civilian Populations, and it is a little known fact that nearly every ‘Concentration Camp’ started out as Food Rationing Centers, and those who starved there were not killed by Adolf Hitler but by the American and the British Food Embargos. But the War Crimes Trials did not even bother to discuss these issues.
So you are advocating a position that it was the American and British who killed the millions who perished in the concentration camps because of a food embargo? Are you serious? I guess the gas chambers and incinerators were just personal pest control and heaters that went wrong, eh Leo? You have evidence that it was not the Nazi's, but the Allied forces, who killed the 11 million people Leo? Because your claim is not only hateful, but downright idiotic. Are you a Nazi sympathizer Leo?

I cannot believe that any intelligent and rational human being could even attempt to excuse or defend Hitler's actions and that of his forces during the War.

Come now, Bells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

After all, the US is currently occupying two countries while supplying 50% of the worlds arms. It does not recognise several UN resolutions covering basic human rights or the jurisdiction of the ICC.

The US also uses trade practices that bankrupt third world farmers while subsidising its own and uses military force to avoid accountability for its actions. All this while supporting dictators, using death squads to destabilise elected governments and enabling conflicts in countries that hold resources. And all of this backed by the most theistic administrations and most religious citizenry of any major Western country - especially concentrated in the factions within the US that most wholeheartedly support those bad things.

When you see the effects of corporate capitalism on family life in the US, you are seeing the effects of institutional power dominated by devoutly theistic people (as well as the effects of simple wealth) - in many US corporations (Cargill, for example, since you mention the effects of international agribusiness on Indian farmers) not only theistic obeisance but belonging to one of the right churches is almost necessary for corporate advancement.

Do you see why many Americans, with personal experience of the motivations and justifications of people who do such things, are deeply suspicious of religion given power ?

You admire the kind and intelligent treatment shown jihadists - we ask where the jihadists came from. They remind us of abortion clinic bombers - another product of theistic religion. You admire the close knit families - we note that they are necessary in defense against other close knit families amid the absence of economic foundation and opportunity; we see the feuds and nepotism, the similarities to the Hatfields and McCoys or the dynasties of inherited wealth, and we estimate how much coercion is buried in such a system.

And all of this backed by the most theistic administrations and most religious citizenry of any major Western country - especially concentrated in the factions within the US that most wholeheartedly support those bad things.

When you see the effects of corporate capitalism on family life in the US, you are seeing the effects of institutional power dominated by devoutly theistic people (as well as the effects of simple wealth) - in many US corporations (Cargill, for example, since you mention the effects of international agribusiness on Indian farmers) not only theistic obeisance but belonging to one of the right churches is almost necessary for corporate advancement.

Do you see why many Americans, with personal experience of the motivations and justifications of people who do such things, are deeply suspicious of religion given power ?


This is hardly something new, is it?

After all, most secular countries in Europe follow the same trade practices, and US policy has been the same through both Democrats and Republicans.


You admire the kind and intelligent treatment shown jihadists - we ask where the jihadists came from. They remind us of abortion clinic bombers - another product of theistic religion. You admire the close knit families - we note that they are necessary in defense against other close knit families amid the absence of economic foundation and opportunity; we see the feuds and nepotism, the similarities to the Hatfields and McCoys or the dynasties of inherited wealth, and we estimate how much coercion is buried in such a system.

You forget, I have lived there. And yes, there are several problems associated with an autocratic rule, but the family and social support systems among the people are real.

This is hardly something new, is it?

After all, most secular countries in Europe follow the same trade practices, and US policy has been the same through both Democrats and Republicans. WTF does Democrat and Republican have to do with any of this ?

You say atheists don't feel guilt, and admire the theisms that produce jihadists and beat women with sticks for driving cars. You blame the behaviors of wealthy theists on atheism, and the evils of powerful and violent theists on "secular societies". Hello ?

WTF does Democrat and Republican have to do with any of this ?

You say atheists don't feel guilt, and admire the theisms that produce jihadists and beat women with sticks for driving cars. You blame the behaviors of wealthy theists on atheism, and the evils of powerful and violent theists on "secular societies". Hello ?

Atheists come in all sorts of guises. It can be argued that many politicians are atheists, especially if one looks at the propensity of so many at the top to treat the religious in ways that do not appear very devoted to the cause.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/14/usa.midterms2006

And as I said, the US is not alone in the practices which defy explanation as secular or immoral. One cannot compare the prohibition of car driving to driving entire economies into poverty and starvation, while simultaneously arming them in conflicts.

Atheists come in all sorts of guises. It can be argued that many politicians are atheists, especially if one looks at the propensity of so many at the top to treat the religious in ways that do not appear very devoted to the cause. Well if bad behavior labels the atheist, then atheism is going to be associated with bad behavior, I can understand that.

I can also understand how behavior and attitudes closely associated with professed theistic belief and the influence of theistic religion and accountability to a deeply theistic constituency can be instead attributed to lack of such religion - - since if the behavior itself indicates lack of religious feeling by all concerned, the conclusion follows immediately.

But that is more informative as explication of viewpoint than convincing as argument.
One cannot compare the prohibition of car driving to driving entire economies into poverty and starvation, while simultaneously arming them in conflicts. If they are both being done by strongly religious people, who justify their actions (if pushed on the matter) by reference to their religion, the comparison is not so farfetched.

But that was not intended as a comparison of incommensurable evils, in the first place.

The evils of US imperialism are admitted. The fact that such use of Western Industrial power is most closely identified with the more theistically religious factions of the most theistically religious Western power is worth noticing, IMHO. Especially if such evils are supposed to be a product of some kind of atheistic foundation for secular Western societies.

The evils of US imperialism are admitted. The fact that such use of Western Industrial power is most closely identified with the more theistically religious factions of the most theistically religious Western power is worth noticing, IMHO. Especially if such evils are supposed to be a product of some kind of atheistic foundation for secular Western societies.

Sure, and it would be a cogent argument, if the rest of the secular societies were also not using similar methods to advance their own. However, as the purported center of science and technology, which is frequently touted as the hotbed of atheism, one wonders how many of those atheists contribute to the technology that drives this engine. And where their morals have gone.

Come now, Bells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

Oh come come Southstar, what else is one to assume when someone claims Hitler was not responsible for the death of the Jews and others in Nazi concentration camps, but that it was the actions of the Allied Forces that resulted in those deaths? Do you honestly think they all died of starvation because of a food embargo imposed by atheists and protestants?

I did not call him a Nazi. I asked him if he was a Nazi sympathiser. He was the person who brought Hitler and the Nazi's into the discussion with his claims about them in his opening thread. I asked him how he could defend Hitler and the Nazi's when their own actions in causing millions of deaths is documented by proof and the testimony of the survivors. The survivors did not say all who perished did so due to starvation. They saw people being led into gas chambers, they saw them being led into incinerators, they saw them having to dig ditches and then lined up and shot. There is documentary proof of the genocide committed by the Nazi's. So when someone comes forth and claims that they were not killed by Hitler and the Nazi's but were in fact killed by a food embargo, I think others should be allowed to question his beliefs and ask for proof, don't you?

So far, Leo has offered no proof to back up his own statements. His is based in rhetoric and an attempt to defend a murderous tyrant, who was, for all intents and purposes, a Catholic. Kind of striking, don't you think?

Leo claimed that all the Jews were rounded up and placed into "Food Rationing Centres", which later became concentration camps and the people who supposedly "starved" there were killed by the Allies with a food embargo. Should we not be able to question his beliefs or his motives in making such claims?

Sure, and it would be a cogent argument, if the rest of the secular societies were also not using similar methods to advance their own. Some much more than others - and the methods seem more closely associated with capability than theistic deficiency, as a scan of Indonesia's or Pakistan's or Argentina's behaviors hint. However, as the purported center of science and technology, which is frequently touted as the hotbed of atheism, one wonders how many of those atheists contribute to the technology that drives this engine. Many of these atheists will be found arguing that technology does not drive this engine, that their work does not contribute to the driving technology, that the engine is inevitable and their work ameliorates its effects, that the engine is not really behaving like that, that nothing is perfect and the mistakes of the engine can be corrected, etc.

Of course they do have to justify themselves, if confronted, since they have no authority to do that for them.

And occasionally an argument will take hold - the story of the atom bomb being given to the deeply theistic and family values oriented Truman and his strongly Christian generals, for example, and what that crowd did with it, has a certain resonance. The comment that the person who gives a chimp a shotgun has some responsibility for the holes in the ceiling sometimes carries weight.

And so to the extent that you do find people in genuine opposition to the engine, you may find them disproportionately atheistic. Because the role of theistic religion in setting up and defending this engine makes the workings of it easier for the atheist inside it to see. They have less personal investment, even if complicit otherwise.

Atheists continuously insist that they have a sense of Morality. Well, yes, a sense. They remember the difference between good and evil. However, there is nothing outside of law and peer pressure that could enforce this sense of morality into any action that could inconvenience an Atheist.
...


Thankfully.

Morality is derived from "law and pee pressure".

It's certainly preferable to making use of an imaginary entity to support an ethical system.

thats my feeling exactly,and Im atheist,whats it with these religious nuts making atheists into some kind of monsters without compassion? :shrug:

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

That about sums it up.

i dont believe you. i do think you hate and despise the west, particularly israel and Israelis. and jews.

but ISREAL,Israelies and jews are north-african arabs not westerner's???????????????

Oh come come Southstar, what else is one to assume when someone claims Hitler was not responsible for the death of the Jews and others in Nazi concentration camps, but that it was the actions of the Allied Forces that resulted in those deaths? Do you honestly think they all died of starvation because of a food embargo imposed by atheists and protestants?

I did not call him a Nazi. I asked him if he was a Nazi sympathiser. He was the person who brought Hitler and the Nazi's into the discussion with his claims about them in his opening thread. I asked him how he could defend Hitler and the Nazi's when their own actions in causing millions of deaths is documented by proof and the testimony of the survivors. The survivors did not say all who perished did so due to starvation. They saw people being led into gas chambers, they saw them being led into incinerators, they saw them having to dig ditches and then lined up and shot. There is documentary proof of the genocide committed by the Nazi's. So when someone comes forth and claims that they were not killed by Hitler and the Nazi's but were in fact killed by a food embargo, I think others should be allowed to question his beliefs and ask for proof, don't you?

So far, Leo has offered no proof to back up his own statements. His is based in rhetoric and an attempt to defend a murderous tyrant, who was, for all intents and purposes, a Catholic. Kind of striking, don't you think?

Leo claimed that all the Jews were rounded up and placed into "Food Rationing Centres", which later became concentration camps and the people who supposedly "starved" there were killed by the Allies with a food embargo. Should we not be able to question his beliefs or his motives in making such claims?

The Jews were killed for their failure to ecconomicaly support germany in ww2 their claim being we are not german we are jewish?
Considering the financial problems Germany had and the large amount of financial pull the Jews had, it was only right that the government interviened, taking what they refused to give. The downside for the Jews is that hitler was a loony and decided that because of the arrogance of the religious leaders in there failiure to commit as german citizens, they were treated like the enemy????????

The Jews were killed for their failure to ecconomicaly support germany in ww2 their claim being we are not german we are jewish?
Considering the financial problems Germany had and the large amount of financial pull the Jews had, it was only right that the government interviened, taking what they refused to give. The downside for the Jews is that hitler was a loony and decided that because of the arrogance of the religious leaders in there failiure to commit as german citizens, they were treated like the enemy????????

Errr I would suggest you go back and actually revise your history.

Do you think the handicapped and disabled children and adults he had killed during 'Action T4' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4) in the name of racial hygiene had not contributed enough of their wealth?

Firstly, the Jews were killed by the Nazi's in World War 2. So your first comment is vastly incorrect.

Secondly, Hitler was known to have been a confirmed anti-Semite well before World War 1. It may have commenced while he was in his first year of high school. He even admitted himself that he was an anti-Semite well before he returned to Germany. Jews were his scapegoat and he viewed them as being almost sub-human and an insult to his beloved Aryan race.

His 'intervention' was not because they were rich but because they were Jews.

Errr I would suggest you go back and actually revise your history.

Which cultures/countries or which account of what happened???

Do you think the handicapped and disabled children and adults he had killed during 'Action T4' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4) in the name of racial hygiene had not contributed enough of their wealth?
Hitler was a loon and i was only commenting on Jews and the cause of the persecution (anti-semitism may have pushed towards the killing but it wasn't the cause of their persecution) I said he was a loon he did many stupid things

Firstly, the Jews were killed by the Nazi's in World War 2. So your first comment is vastly incorrect.

Check out the ecconomic balance and financial troubles that hit germany after ww1 and before ww2, they were told to invest they didn't just say no but claimed not to be german but Jewish. don't see how it is vastly incorrect?

Secondly, Hitler was known to have been a confirmed anti-Semite well before World War 1. It may have commenced while he was in his first year of high school. He even admitted himself that he was an anti-Semite well before he returned to Germany. Jews were his scapegoat and he viewed them as being almost sub-human and an insult to his beloved Aryan race.

He was also part Jew?????
and mad

His 'intervention' was not because they were rich but because they were Jews.
I didn't say because they were rich (you are twisting words)
I said because they denounced their status as germans because they were Jewish and in fact refused to put german money back into germany during a time of war.
And you hit the nail on the head with because they were Jews. they were Germans and refused this identity.

Hitler was a loon

The Jews were killed for their failure to ecconomicaly support germany in ww2 their claim being we are not german we are jewish?


No, no. This is not supported by historical documents or testimony. The Jews in Germany were the targets of rabid hatred long before the start of WW2. Further many jews did in fact consider themselves German and this was part of why they did not leave a fiercely anti-semitic environment and were slow to realize how severe the threat was.

Americans, especially Catholics, approve of torture

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/arch...06/032406h.htm

Which should not be surprising since the Catholic Church has depended on it at various periods for its marketing.

No, no. This is not supported by historical documents or testimony. The Jews in Germany were the targets of rabid hatred long before the start of WW2. Further many jews did in fact consider themselves German and this was part of why they did not leave a fiercely anti-semitic environment and were slow to realize how severe the threat was.

You have to look econimacaly at the situation between wars.
events like this have a cause, something caused anti-semitism.
The killing of german ethnics was obviously a main part of the result only, but their ethnic status was only part of the problem and cause.
I agree that a lot felt like german citizens but, decision on mass boils down to religious leaders, it would have been govermental approach to head Rabbi's, just as it is down to muslim clerics now.

I don't agree with what happened at all but if we are truly supposed to learn from our mistakes how can we, unless we know the truth?
from just a few post's on here there is a vast array of interpetations.
My feeling is that, you shouldn't have a leader in any country who is not from that country, "An austrian in charge of germany killed 6 million germans" to learn from this is to never put schwarzzeneger in power:wave:

also i'm sure that around three time as many Ukrainians were starved to death by Russia, why is this not taught along side the holocaust or is most available history on the war Jewish biased and, nothing more than a sideshow or follow-up to there original attempt at documenting history " the bible"

P.S i realy don't want to get into debate on the holocaust I can't disagree with you because your points are also factors of what happened

I don't agree with what happened at all but if we are truly supposed to learn from our mistakes how can we, unless we know the truth?

I am not sure what we you are talking about. I don't think it should be a lesson we learn from this that 'we' should support the war plans of dictators unless we are willing to accept being killed en masse. I don't think this a good way to look at causes and lessons, even if I agreed that the Jews to whatever degree created their own problems by not supporting Hiter's build up of the war machine. A build up that was supported by American industry and was in fact extremely effective. If he hadn't been such a poor leader Germany could have taken a lot of land and then tried for more later, rather than taking on the whole world.

Should 'we' if 'we' are Americans, jewish, italian, afro american, whatever. Pick any group. Should 'we' only support Bush's wars and future wars to prevent our group from being herded into gas chambers? Is that a lesson we should learn?

I do think in the States we get a disproportionate focus on the jewish Holocaust. One area we should see more of is where our country contributed to and supported other holocausts, dictatorial regimes, undermined democracy, etc. I am quite sure it would be useful to know about Russia's treatment of Ukranian's but given that this information will simply add to 'our' sense of being the best country, reinforce notions about how good capitalism is as opposed to everything else and put the problem 'over there' and not contribute to any soul searching, I do see it as a high priority.

Countries must face their own demons.

As far as Arnold being pres., no, I don't like the idea. Not because he was Austrian born however.

I am not sure what we you are talking about. I don't think it should be a lesson we learn from this that 'we' should support the war plans of dictators unless we are willing to accept being killed en masse. I don't think this a good way to look at causes and lessons, even if I agreed that the Jews to whatever degree created their own problems by not supporting Hiter's build up of the war machine. A build up that was supported by American industry and was in fact extremely effective. If he hadn't been such a poor leader Germany could have taken a lot of land and then tried for more later, rather than taking on the whole world.

I'M not blaming Jews, but the decision's of their religious representative.
the lesson to learn is how to avoid genocide, how to stop it going on with out the populus's knowledge until it's too late.

Should 'we' if 'we' are Americans, jewish, italian, afro american, whatever. Pick any group. Should 'we' only support Bush's wars and future wars to prevent our group from being herded into gas chambers? Is that a lesson we should learn?
No not at all, if you were an Iraqi living in america with good buisness and asked to inrease your tax payment's or something similar beause of the countries financial hardships due to war, and you refused on the ground's that you are not american but Iraqi how would you expect to be treated?

Countries must face their own demons.
True, pity afghanistan can't be left alone to sort their's .

As far as Arnold being pres., no, I don't like the idea. Not because he was Austrian born however.
i'm sure it doesn't help though

I'M not blaming Jews, but the decision's of their religious representative.
the lesson to learn is how to avoid genocide, how to stop it going on with out the populus's knowledge until it's too late.

So what lessons should religious leaders learn from WW2?


No not at all, if you were an Iraqi living in america with good buisness and asked to inrease your tax payment's or something similar beause of the countries financial hardships due to war, and you refused on the ground's that you are not american but Iraqi how would you expect to be treated?
Wait. You mean Jews were not paying taxes in Nazi Germany?

True, pity afghanistan can't be left alone to sort their's .
This doesn't really seem to be a direct response. Afghanistan has been interfered with - to use a euphemism - for a long time by other nations. Perhaps if those nations faced their own demons on an educational level they would be less likely to mistreat, contort, colonize, steal from countries like Afghanistan.

The Jews were killed for their failure to ecconomicaly support germany in ww2 their claim being we are not german we are jewish?
Considering the financial problems Germany had and the large amount of financial pull the Jews had, it was only right that the government interviened, taking what they refused to give. The downside for the Jews is that hitler was a loony and decided that because of the arrogance of the religious leaders in there failiure to commit as german citizens, they were treated like the enemy????????

BS. The Jews ran newspapers that were anti-fascist, and some were pro-socialist, so they became the fascist's political enemies.

And so to the extent that you do find people in genuine opposition to the engine, you may find them disproportionately atheistic. Because the role of theistic religion in setting up and defending this engine makes the workings of it easier for the atheist inside it to see. They have less personal investment, even if complicit otherwise.
But for the atheist, this is all. And there is no accountability.

That alone makes an atheist more likely to invest in methods and objectives that above all favor self interest. Me and mine, rather than you and yours.

Look at Dawkins, with all the people and power at his disposal, he creates what? an atheist movement. Clearly, he is concerned only with his beliefs rather than any social goals.

Be interesting to see how many of those at the top of the decision making chain are atheists.

Also be interesting to know how many atheists interact with people outside of work, excluding family.

You fail to take into account the fact that the leaders of these nations (the US and the UK), especially in recent times, who support and/or commit acts of torture are strict and strong Christians.

Most christians I know would disagree with this statement as much as SAM would disagree that terrorists are strong muslims.

There is no real accountability for theists, either. There is some theoretical accountability after death, but at that point, it doesn't matter. No one on our Earth can be aware of it.

Self interest must be concerned with your interests, because we live in a highly connected world. It is in your self interest to create a functioning and happy world community.

Dawkins is involved in lots of things involving science, not just atheism.

There is no real accountability for theists, either. There is some theoretical accountability after death, but at that point, it doesn't matter. No one on our Earth can be aware of it.

Self interest must be concerned with your interests, because we live in a highly connected world. It is in your self interest to create a functioning and happy world community.

Dawkins is involved in lots of things involving science, not just atheism.

All words, the so-called secular societies clearly put self interest before any other. Look at the WTO, the WB, the IMF, the UN, the sanctions imposed, the aid with strings attached.

http://www.globalissues.org/

Not only biased towards their own societies but absolutely and completely destructive towards others. And when people from these countries attempt to move to better their lives, they must face "secular" discrimination, ridicule; if they protest, they face sanctions, carpet bombing and collateral damages.

Where are the morals?

Theocracy had a terrible history, I don't think we want to repeat the freaking dark ages. The things you are talking about have nothing to do with the issue.

Theocracy had a terrible history, I don't think we want to repeat the freaking dark ages. The things you are talking about have nothing to do with the issue.

No we do not. But you have to agree the atrocities of atheist fellowships in the last 60 years surpasses all the theist fellowships before them, perhaps cumulatively.

Since there has not been an atheist president of the United States, ever, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Religious wars have been the norm for more than 2000 years.

That is based on the assumption that an atheist president would actually declare himself as one.

Since there has not been an atheist president of the United States, ever, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Religious wars have been the norm for more than 2000 years.

Um, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini come to mind. But she said the last 60 years.

Oh alright, the last century :p

Don't forget Mao and Pol-Pot, or Kim Jong

Also the bias shown frequently by the UN, WTO, WB, IMF.

Don't forget Mao and Pol-Pot, or Kim Jong

Oh yeah! Thanks.

Secularism is still far more preferrable to theism as an organizing principle. Secularism can be almost anything, it can be rigid or adaptable, totalitarian or democratic. The one thing it doesn't do is incorporate ancient supersitutious beliefs. People still suck, nothing will change that. People are still greedy, religious people as much as anyone. Religion doesn't solve a damn thing. Atheism isn't a recipe for utopia, it's just playing with a full deck, dealing with reality as it is.

The names I see were quite shy of a full deck. They're infamous wackos, infact.

No we do not. But you have to agree the atrocities of atheist fellowships in the last 60 years surpasses all the theist fellowships before them, perhaps cumulatively.Once again you trot out the highly controversial thesis that communism is an atheist philosophy. Communism is a Christian philosophy even if its eventual leaders tried (with little success) to suppress religion. The fundamental principle of communism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is a slogan from the Book of Acts.

As I have asked many times, who can imagine a Confucian or a Hindu accepting the preposterous premise that what a man takes from civilization need not be correlated with what he gives back?

We would not have communism if we had not already had Christianity, with its supernatural disconnection between philosophy and reality.

Stalin made himself a God, and his citizens were used to the Royal family being considered devine. Atheism is characterized by rethinking basic premises, something that was not allowed under the totalitarian rule of Stalin.

But for the atheist, this is all. And there is no accountability.

That alone makes an atheist more likely to invest in methods and objectives that above all favor self interest. Me and mine, rather than you and yours. I see no evidence that atheists favor self-interest more than theists, and I have yet to see the slightest indication that theists have any more accountability than atheists. Where is this accountability ?

Everyone has a conscience (or lacks one) regardless of their ascription of it to a deity, after all.

Look at Dawkins, with all the people and power at his disposal, he creates what? an atheist movement. Clearly, he is concerned only with his beliefs rather than any social goals. He seems to be concerned with the bad effects of theism on the welfare of his fellow humans, and he is working to reduce them. How is that lacking in social goals ?
Be interesting to see how many of those at the top of the decision making chain are atheists. Which chain of decisionmaking ? Greenpeace? Doctors Without Borders ? Red Cross ? Sierra Club? ACLU ?

I know one chain dominated by strong theists all the way up - the US Air Force. I believe the other Service branches are also, to varying extent.

And the US Federal Government is of course in the hands of theists - has been for some time.

If you are talking about the chain of political power in nation states, a more interesting aspect is how many of them find it easy to use theistic belief to gain power. Whether they have it themselves is more problematical (your position seems to be that if they are behaving badly they cannot be theists, so discussion there is not likely to get anywhere) - but the apparently groomed vulnerability of the theist to irrational and sociopathic dishonesty in political matters is one of Dawkins's major indictments.

Also be interesting to know how many atheists interact with people outside of work, excluding family. Be even more interesting to know how many atheists interact with family. But the destruction of non-work community by corporate industrial capitalism is going to bias your findings - in the West, anyway.

So what lessons should religious leaders learn from WW2?

Not to sure, the same as all of us perhaps no difference.
I meant when you said "even if you could agree that the jews to what ever degree....did not invest in the war machine" I put blame on this on religious leader.(it is obviously not the complete cause don't mis-interperate me)

Wait. You mean Jews were not paying taxes in Nazi Germany?
O.K. how about if a successful muslim owned buisness in america making clothes is approached by the government and told 40% of the clothes you make will now be U.S. military uniform's, if the owner turns round and says no I will not make these uniform's I want no part of this I am a muslim not an american, how would he expect to be treated,and as ethnic's employ ethnic's how would his employee's be treated, how would redneck's react


This doesn't really seem to be a direct response. Afghanistan has been interfered with - to use a euphemism - for a long time by other nations. Perhaps if those nations faced their own demons on an educational level they would be less likely to mistreat, contort, colonize, steal from countries like Afghanistan.

True.

Once again you trot out the highly controversial thesis that communism is an atheist philosophy. Communism is a Christian philosophy even if its eventual leaders tried (with little success) to suppress religion. The fundamental principle of communism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is a slogan from the Book of Acts.

As I have asked many times, who can imagine a Confucian or a Hindu accepting the preposterous premise that what a man takes from civilization need not be correlated with what he gives back?

We would not have communism if we had not already had Christianity, with its supernatural disconnection between philosophy and reality.

As Chesterton said, those who will not believe in God will believe in just about anything.

Communism is just a sample of things to come.


Afghanistan has been interfered with - to use a euphemism - for a long time by other nations. Perhaps if those nations faced their own demons on an educational level they would be less likely to mistreat, contort, colonize, steal from countries like Afghanistan.

Yeah and its not the only one. Its easy to say they should go back to where they came from, disregarding that they are not free to do so.

I see no evidence that atheists favor self-interest more than theists, and I have yet to see the slightest indication that theists have any more accountability than atheists. Where is this accountability ?

Everyone has a conscience (or lacks one) regardless of their ascription of it to a deity, after all.

He seems to be concerned with the bad effects of theism on the welfare of his fellow humans, and he is working to reduce them. How is that lacking in social goals ?
Which chain of decisionmaking ? Greenpeace? Doctors Without Borders ? Red Cross ? Sierra Club? ACLU ?

I know one chain dominated by strong theists all the way up - the US Air Force. I believe the other Service branches are also, to varying extent.

And the US Federal Government is of course in the hands of theists - has been for some time.

If you are talking about the chain of political power in nation states, a more interesting aspect is how many of them find it easy to use theistic belief to gain power. Whether they have it themselves is more problematical (your position seems to be that if they are behaving badly they cannot be theists, so discussion there is not likely to get anywhere) - but the apparently groomed vulnerability of the theist to irrational and sociopathic dishonesty in political matters is one of Dawkins's major indictments.

Be even more interesting to know how many atheists interact with family. But the destruction of non-work community by corporate industrial capitalism is going to bias your findings - in the West, anyway.

Then clearly, there appears to be no difference between theists and atheists, its the nature of cultural interaction with other peoples that is the basis of intolerance in these "secular societies". Why this need to suppress all other languages, all other cultures?

But for the atheist, this is all. And there is no accountability.Except for their conscience of course.

But what the theist has is an excuse to ignore that conscience. Only with religion could people be convinced that killing heathens and hating gays is a perfectly holy thing to do. Not only does morality not come from religion, religion allows you to ignore your morals.

Except for their conscience of course.

But what the theist has is an excuse to ignore that conscience. Only with religion could people be convinced that killing heathens and hating gays is a perfectly holy thing to do. Not only does morality not come from religion, religion allows you to ignore your morals.

Isn't conscience a religious construct? Is there any evidence of a development of conscience within a society that is separate from religion?

sam religion is a social construct. There is no fary under your bed, it was an invention to keep the sociaty together and to sperate US from those non humans over THERE

SAM:

I think Fraggle you'll find community and family feeling is next to nil in secular societies.

What a strange concept.

It reminds me of that old Sting song "Russians" - the one that goes "I hope the Russians love their children too."

Do you think community and family feeling disappeared in communist Russia? Do you think it does not exist in China? Cuba? Or do you think that community and family exists in all these places because of "underground religion"?

There are many atheists posting on this very forum. Do you really think they have no community or family values? Do you imagine they don't love their children? Really?

What I see here is atheists constantly writing about social justice issues, community, care for others etc. Is it all a front put on by the evil atheists who actually care for nothing but themselves? You think?

Personally I will tell you there is a massive difference between what I have seen in the Middle East and the United States. The notion of family and community itself is completely different...

Different doesn't mean absent. You need to look harder.

Isn't conscience a religious construct? Is there any evidence of a development of conscience within a society that is separate from religion?

I'm surprised you even have to ask the question. Do you really think it is impossible to care for another person or a group of people unless you believe in sky fairies?

Asguard, James

Did you have a religious upbringing?

Isn't conscience a religious construct? No it is the other way around. The moral code within religion is a result of our conscience.

Do we follow all the teachings of the bible? No, we ignore the violent, absurd ones and try to follow the good ones. How do we know how to cherry pick the good out of this religious text which is supposed to be the word of god? We clearly have morals that didn't come from religion.


Is there any evidence of a development of conscience within a society that is separate from religion?That doesn't imply cause and effect. Wouldn't these same societies be guilty of acts of violence and drug abuse. That doesn't mean they are required for the development of a conscience. It is merely a reflection of human nature. Part of which is our desire to believe in deities.

SAM:

That sounds to me like a catch-22 question.

If I say "Yes, I had a religious upbringing" then you go on to assert that any morals I have must have come from that. On the other hand, if I say "No", you assert that I have no real understanding of what it means to be part of a religious community, and how my idea of morals is actually inferior to what I would have if I was religious.

Right?

SAM i rejected the religion i had been brought up in because it was imoral.

My ETHICS over road my religion

SAM i rejected the religion i had been brought up in because it was imoral.

My ETHICS over road my religion


Well said.

As Chesterton said, those who will not believe in God will believe in just about anything. Typical theistic projection. . It's the people raised to believe in Gods who actually do believe in just about anything - virgin births, angels, magic books, the necessity of theistic upbringing in having a conscience, you name it.
Then clearly, there appears to be no difference between theists and atheists, its the nature of cultural interaction with other peoples that is the basis of intolerance in these "secular societies". - - As far as the intolerance among the dominant theists who run the show, several explanations have been offered. It can't be anything to do with the theism, of course, because of course it can't - a priori assumption. We see that many theists elsewhere are touchy and violent and intolerant people, but that is because they are insulted or morally superior or poor, so that's OK and carries no implications for the US. In the US we search the 4% atheists for clues as to why the US is so intolerant, and how they are getting the other 96% to behave with so little respect: apparently it has to do with the "secular society" they impose, which deprives the theistic of their morals and consciences.

The details are a bit fuzzy, as yet. But it has nothing to do with corporate capitalism, the necessity of defending or concealing absurdities in one's fundamental beliefs, or ingrained misogyny and the like.
Why this need to suppress all other languages, all other cultures? We are discussing the need of some Muslims to suppress other people's movies, cartoons, etc.
Isn't conscience a religious construct? Uh, no, SAM - people have consciences, in general, and the ones who don't are mentally ill - sociopaths, found in many religious hierarchies as well as elsewhere. Religions do tend to take absurd credit for virtues in general, but that one is silly even for Islam.

"Isn't conscience a religious construct?"

conscience is just a form of empathetic expression. Empathy has developed over 1000's of years as a weapon against those who would harm the pack (either inside or outside). It also serves the duel purpose of further tying the pack together

It has nothing to do with fairies and everything to do with evolution

Isn't conscience a religious construct?
...


I seriously thought that this was said in jest.

I could not possibly conceive of someone being so naive as to believe this.
Seriously, this has got to be a joke right??

Isn't conscience a religious construct? Is there any evidence of a development of conscience within a society that is separate from religion?

Society doesn't have a conscience, individuals do.

As Chesterton said, those who will not believe in God will believe in just about anything.Sounds like this Chesterton fellow was a real doofus. What a stupid thing to say. If we're able to overcome our naivete and reject religion, why would we be naive enough to fall for something else?Communism is just a sample of things to come.Most of the Europeans who fell for communism were/are Christians. As for the Chinese, they were just bloody desperate and ready to try anything that came along. They certainly never developed the genuine grass-roots support for communism that arose naturally in the Christian countries. They just learned to make peace and put up with it, as they had been doing with their governments for thousands of years.Isn't conscience a religious construct? Is there any evidence of a development of conscience within a society that is separate from religion?Why do you reject the concept that human beings are advanced enough to recognize the value of civilization to themselves and the people they love? All a conscience needs to do, at the bare minimum, is to guide you to contribute to the maintenance of civilization. You don't have to advance it, you don't really even have to quite pull your weight every single day because by definition civilization produces a surplus and if you're not a real slacker you can catch up next week. You just have to make sure you don't drag civilization down, as Christians, Jews and Muslims do in their paroxysms of tribal violence at regular intervals.Asguard, James: Did you have a religious upbringing?I can't speak for those guys but I was raised by atheists. I never even heard of religion until I was about six or seven and then I laughed my head off because I assumed it was a joke or just a lie some kid's parents had told him like Santa Claus.

Yet my parents had no trouble teaching me morality and I had no trouble developing a conscience. I did my share of irresponsible things as a child but I never really hurt anybody or caused serious damage, and I have never in my life hit anyone.

As an adult I have always tried to give more than I take, to guide people who need it and to help people in trouble. Not every single day, we all have days when we just feel like being an asshole and I've done a few things in weak moments that I'm not proud of. But on the balance I've been a good person and I've tried very hard to make a positive difference. Being old enough to look back now, I think I've succeeded.

I love civilization because of all the wonderful things it gives us, and that's all the motivation I need to support it by behaving in a civilized manner.

Im really surpised that a scientist would say this, SAM have you never herd of a sociopath? These inderviduals are born without the ability to feel empathy for anything or anyone. We dont know yet what causes it but it DEFINITLY has nothing to do with religion. If you dont belive me then go to a jail and try to teach a sociopath religion. They will lap it up as a means to a) manipulate you and b) as a means to manipulate the system

Just be careful that you NEVER reveal any personal infomation to them because they will track you down, torcher, rape and murder you. They cant help it, they cant understand that you are anything other than a toy for them to play with

SAM i rejected the religion i had been brought up in because it was imoral.

My ETHICS over road my religion

Same here:bravo:

O.K. how about if a successful muslim owned buisness in america making clothes is approached by the government and told 40% of the clothes you make will now be U.S. military uniform's, if the owner turns round and says no I will not make these uniform's I want no part of this I am a muslim not an american, how would he expect to be treated,and as ethnic's employ ethnic's how would his employee's be treated, how would redneck's react

Could you give me some sort of reference. What are you basing this idea on? A link. I feel I am chasing a phantom here. Let me read some of your source material and see what your concern is.

As far as the situation above, in the US that business owner is perfectly within his rights. Certainly some rednecks would get upset. Some of them are upset that the Muslim business owner exists in the first place. I am not sure we need to learn lessons from how the rednecks might react. I am quite sure that other, even racist, business owners, 'white' ones, would defend that Muslim business owners right to refuse, even while gnashing their teeth.

If I read your argument above I could see it being used against, for example, the Civil Rights movement.

Should 'we' if 'we' are Americans, jewish, italian, afro american, whatever. Pick any group. Should 'we' only support Bush's wars and future wars to prevent our group from being herded into gas chambers? Is that a lesson we should learn?
.

yeah I tried to give an analogy to what I was trying to say, about how ecconomicaly the german ethnic jewish leaders, fueled anti-semetic action by refusing to financialy support the war machine but the grounds given were because they were jewish and not german?
I think you know what I tried to say about the Iraqi was an analogy, as was the muslim buisness bit, what treatment would you expect from extremist's in both situations?.
And no matter what religion,colour or faith you are and whether you support bush or not, you have no choice in the decision's of the government and are at war like it or not, so what would the government do if one group of people say all the mexicans decided we are not paying taxes etc because we do not support the war, would they not be imprisoned and or extradited back to mexico.

IT is an analogy the buisness bit? to bring to modern day a similar possible occurance that could fuel hatred of similar magnitude

I understood the analogy. I am wondering about how correct you are about what happened in Germany. So I was asking for literal links to historical information that would back up your thesis.

I have three problems with what you have said
1) I am not sure it is historically accurate
2) I am not sure what you are saying was causal or contributed to German treatment of Jews actually did that
3) I am skeptical about the 'lessons' we can draw from these things.

I thought it might be good to start at the root. Did what you say happened happen?

I understood the analogy. I am wondering about how correct you are about what happened in Germany. So I was asking for literal links to historical information that would back up your thesis.

I have three problems with what you have said
1) I am not sure it is historically accurate
2) I am not sure what you are saying was causal or contributed to German treatment of Jews actually did that
3) I am skeptical about the 'lessons' we can draw from these things.

I thought it might be good to start at the root. Did what you say happened happen?

I'm having trouble remembering the literature i read,1 book I think it was " the demonisation of hitler" but cannot remember the author, it goes into the obsession in portraying hitler as such a monster has taken over accuracies and accounts of taught facts.

1)as accurate as i have read and interperated
2)it was just a factor of what happened
3)no point should be overlooked if we are to learn lessons in prevention of genocide.

I'm reading at the momment "new diasporas" by nicholas van hear.
QUOTE .gives a perspective on the social,economic, and political implications of migration/forced migration worldwide.synthesizing approaches to both 'economic' and 'forced migration', up to now largely insulated from each other.
It sees problems on both sides v.v interesting.
I don't realy read many documents on the net , i'm a book feind.
I will look if i find any will let you know, but read the book i'm in now you might be able to see that my standing on this is that of neutral humanitarian.
I can talk to u about enforced ethnic migration but not too much about ww2 i'm afraid.
i think we are off thread though?

You called it Pinocchios hoof! Religion is pointless to the fact of morality. Being religous dosen't make you good or bad. My brother worked hard all his life up until the day he died. Half of the city i live in was literaly crushed by the fact the he died becuase he did what he cuald for who he could. He wasn't religous at all. But the church that did his girl friend wen't to called him a saint. And being Athiest dosen't make you change from good to bad. If anyone can remember the Crusades....... YAH!!! That's just one example of how religion can go bad! And another is WW2.

I am an atheist. Even though I enjoy torturing people, I occasionly don't. Which is more than I can say for the ones who would rather see people live lives of quiet desperation as their loved ones are marched to hell than to confess that mabye that is not the case.

You called it Pinocchios hoof! Religion is pointless to the fact of morality. Being religous dosen't make you good or bad. My brother worked hard all his life up until the day he died. Half of the city i live in was literaly crushed by the fact the he died becuase he did what he cuald for who he could. He wasn't religous at all. But the church that did his girl friend wen't to called him a saint. And being Athiest dosen't make you change from good to bad. If anyone can remember the Crusades....... YAH!!! That's just one example of how religion can go bad! And another is WW2.

:bravo:
I hope that in the future religion will be confined to the home, family and place of worship only, there is no place in public society anymore for religon outside of their own religious circles (all religion is cult).For those that have woken up to the misinterpretation of the jewish book and can see the history of the books and writers it's like watching adults still believing in santa/ST nick/papa xmas.

Nothing positive has come from religion to the massses, only to the individual.

I agree, to a single family religion can guide them to a sence of well being and give them hope for the future. But to the masses it dose nothing but interfere with the advancement of society. And to tell you the truth when you have an entire race of people who are willing to kill themselfs and others becuase there god told them too than this can only lead to the death and destruction of humankind. And more importantlythe killing of innocence. To abosolutly honest I find religion to have no authority over what common people like pinnochio or to believe. Becuase in the long run you'll find that we are write. But the diferance between me and church is won't tell you that you have to believe or your going to hell. After my brother died my nephew was forced into sunday school at a chatholic church. My brother would never want that but if I say something I'll never get to see my nephew again. And thats becuase of sister-in-laws chatholic mother. How would you feel!?

It's also becuase her mother is a See You Next Tuesday If you catch my drift?

I agree, to a single family religion can guide them to a sence of well being and give them hope for the future. But to the masses it dose nothing but interfere with the advancement of society. And to tell you the truth when you have an entire race of people who are willing to kill themselfs and others becuase there god told them too than this can only lead to the death and destruction of humankind. !?

:bravo:

Atheists continuously insist that they have a sense of Morality. Well, yes, a sense. They remember the difference between good and evil. However, there is nothing outside of law and peer pressure that could enforce this sense of morality into any action that could inconvenience an Atheist. They are willing to do good as long as it is conducive to their self interest

I didn't instantly have issue with this; humans are, (not just atheists my dear little Leo), selfish by nature and have to be. It is imperative to survival. From here your rant quickly descends into some personal tyrade against atheists..

Cheating on taxes, cheating on tests, cheating on their wives. Competition in the workplace – screwing people over on the excuse that the rules are the same for everybody – not finding a problem with making real life into some kind of a child’s game.

This is not an atheist issue, it is an everyone issue. People do it, (the key word is "people", Leo).

That's "people", Leo. Atheists, theists, chess players, tarot card readers and so on. If you think it's an 'atheist' thing then I would politely submit that you're an idiot.

You got that damn right snakelord! But it's not so much that it's to survival....... Well it is but it is it isn't. But that's not the point! The point is that athiest anrn't the first to do evil in fact through out histery when ever a war started it was allways the church that gave the excuse for the war......... OOOH, that country has a lot of arab nonbelievers of christ they should be destroyed! That's not the way things should be. And being an athiest myself I can look at the whole picture without prejudice. Becuase if god where real he sure as hell wouldn't want that shit let alone the killing in his name! And I'm sure that snakelord, pinocchio's hoof, and evey other athiest and true god lover would agree in that. And on the other hand religion shouldn't depict that there is only one god and you must believe in it. In fact I have a friend from way back that's not only
bhudist (or how ever the hell you spell it) but he's alsochristan and he dose go to church..... And temple. But that's because bhudists don't believe in only one thing.

You got that damn right snakelord! But it's not so much that it's to survival....... Well it is but it is it isn't. But that's not the point! The point is that athiest anrn't the first to do evil in fact through out histery when ever a war started it was allways the church that gave the excuse for the war......... OOOH, that country has a lot of arab nonbelievers of christ they should be destroyed! That's not the way things should be. And being an athiest myself I can look at the whole picture without prejudice. Becuase if god where real he sure as hell wouldn't want that shit let alone the killing in his name! And I'm sure that snakelord, pinocchio's hoof, and evey other athiest and true god lover would agree in that. And on the other hand religion shouldn't depict that there is only one god and you must believe in it. In fact I have a friend from way back that's not only
bhudist (or how ever the hell you spell it) but he's alsochristan and he dose go to church..... And temple. But that's because bhudists don't believe in only one thing.

And after that paragraph, it's quite easily concluded you don't know stuff about religion.

I feel sorry for you Trip! If you truely think that there is one religion than your an idiot to believe that! So the future gose on and your still stuck in the past crouched in a fetal position in a dark corner praying to you singular god for solvation. Where the rest of the world passes you by. I know what it feels like because I refuse to ever fire a gun at some one. I will live by the sword and die by it. And many have said that society has grown out of the use of swords. But in the 10 years that I have used a sword in training and practice that's the only thing I can count on. But for you religios fanatics can you honestly say your god will protect you from the darkness like my skills and sword will protect me!?