Could you be monolithic religious & an evolutionist?

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

Not really no..

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

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

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

If it helps then yes, I would agree that, (if) there were a god, that the actions of humans are not specifically what it wants them to do - but "belief" is where the buck stops. It is "belief" that causes people to do the crazy things they do - as does the text they get those crazy beliefs from. Neither of them are science.
 
SnakeLord said:
Not really no..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why some choose science (eugenics) and others religion tells you more about the people than science or religion.
 
Nope, no more than a scientist builds a bomb because he wants to kill people, although HE KNOWS thats what the ultimate and only aim of a bomb is.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

A scientist does not build bombs because he wants to kill people, a muslim detonates those bombs because he wants to kill people.
 
SnakeLord said:
The intention of all suicide bombers up to date, the people that flew planes into Twin Towers etc was not to kill people?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Another customer is Jordan. Like Sudan, Jordan has signed the convention but not ratified it, making the treaty effectively meaningless for both governments. The other nations to which the UK deals chemicals are Cyprus, India, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen.
Click to expand...
 
Churchill was a celebrated atheist:
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.
Click to expand...

http://iraqwar.org/chemical.htm


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

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

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

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.
Click to expand...
 
So why do the soldiers use bombs in war
Click to expand...

Politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ones who build chemical weapons never consider the effects on civilians?
Click to expand...

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

Did scientists stop making atomic bombs after WWII?
Click to expand...

No.

Why?
Click to expand...

Politics.




[edit]

Churchill was a celebrated atheist
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Let's get it straight right now for the pair of you.. An "atheist" does not have murder on his mind, "science" does not engage itself in the morality of such action. The only thing that considers, justifies and promotes death is "belief". Yes, an atheist that "believes" all christians are fucknuts can kill as can a religious man that believes all atheists are vermin. Atheism and science are not the cause.
 
Last edited:
superluminal said:
No, that's jibberish.

Light is an entity with wave-like and particle-like properties and is not "beyond time". What the hell does beyond time mean? That's complete uneducated jibberish. So god is a photon? Which photon is he? What is god's wavelength? Can I measure god with a photometer?
Click to expand...
Its not jibberish, at least if you're educated enough to know what the theory of relativity (but obviously you're not so I'll explain)

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

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

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

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

Nothing like MAD to keep the nations in check. Pray to God this doesn't change in a few decades.
 
SnakeLord said:
Politics. Atheism and science are not the cause.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Its all science.
 
.....therefore six days of God could indeed be millions or billions of years...
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly.

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

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

Yes yes.. *yawn* "pussy cats".. Sort yourself out.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to discard them. Even so, replace them with tremendous amounts of other personages throughout history.
 
VitalOne said:
Its not jibberish, at least if you're educated enough to know what the theory of relativity (but obviously you're not so I'll explain)

In the theory of relativity, blah, blah, blah...
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Since SnakeLord already answered this, I'll just let it go.
 
samcdkey said:
So its politics when scientists do it, but religion when its not a scientist?

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

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

Its all science.
Click to expand...
You somehow think that most weapons technology was invented by and manufactured by non-theists? How amusing.
 
superluminal said:
You somehow think that most weapons technology was invented by and manufactured by non-theists? How amusing.
Click to expand...



Atom bomb? Atheist

Neutron bomb? Atheist

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

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

Teller, Edward (1908- ):
Hungarian born physicist, who studied under Niels Bohr at Copenhagen. Leaving Germany in 1933, Teller was to lecture both at London and at Washington (1935). During the war years he was to join Oppenheimer's theoretical study group at Berkeley, California. Teller was instrumental in the development of the first earthbound thermonuclear explosion.
Click to expand...
 
Just to be clear here, most of the violence in the history of the human race has been perpretrated by people with theistic beliefs. If you doubt this, consider that for all of human history 99.9% of the populace has believed in a god of some kind (as theists love to point out, 95% of the world still believes in a god, so there must be one).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top