Could you be monolithic religious & an evolutionist?
- Thread starter Busy
- Start date
Most enlightend people have, yes. They realize the extent of the horror that was averted due to the use of the first (and only) two atomic weapons used in war.
Let me guess. Were any of them Japanese?
Would you favor a similar tactic to be used on the US if the rest of the world got fed up of its interfering ways?
To save the world?
What a load of BS
Umm... this was an attempt at surgery sam, not a battle wound.
Oh! It's a joke! I get it now.
Umm... this was an attempt at surgery sam, not a battle wound.
Oh! It's a joke! I get it now.
You could read the link and get the bigger picture.
Nice attempt at a strawman there, but I won't go for it.
Japan was not "interfering". They were bent on expanding their empire through violence. We (the US of AWESOMENESS) are attempting to rid the world of terrorists and spread democracy, the best way yet discovered to ensure the maximum prosperity for individuals. *blows a big raspberry at sam*
I did. Your picture is still a trepanation.
I wonder if you even see the irony there.
Irony? What irony? All I said was that we're right because we're the US of AMAZINGNESS while the Japanese were evil. What's the problem?
Look. Hundreds of years from now, when the world is living in democratic bliss and sipping coffee at Starbucks(TM) we'll all look back and have a laugh at how silly the world was.
كم هو ثمنه؟ coffee?
كم هو ثمنه؟ coffee?
I see self delusion is guaranteed in fundamentalists, even irreligious ones.
The case in point is your usage of "the majority". I shall bring it up in detail on your next quote..
As I tried to explain earlier, you would have to assign a number. If we were to say that the "majority" is worked out from 1,000 of the top killers in history you would find that your two examples are lacking. Sure, perhaps they were more successful in their specific style of murder, but you would be in no position to consider them, (with regards to their atheism), "the majority".
You have already stated that the "majority" of people in history were religious while trying to claim that when it comes to murder, the majority were atheist. I have no qualms with you denigrating atheists, I'd just like you to support that claim, and even you know you can't. You can "he was a pussy cat" all you like, it's irrelevant.
Ah, so you didn't mean "the majority of the greatest murderers and fiends" at all. There are two conclusions.. You either meant "the majority" while using the top 2 as the only basis or you just meant there's a couple of people that killed more than "the majority" and happened to be atheists.
Let me clarify it for you..
To find a "majority" you need to assign a value. For the sake of this discussion we will say the top 100 mass muderers of all time..
1) yhwh
2) Stalin
3) Mao, (amusingly enough considered a "man of greatness" by many)
4) etc etc etc...
Now.. to be able to assign "majority" in this instance you would need at least 51 of those 100 to be atheists. Upon doing so you could state that "the majority of greatest murderers and fiends were atheist". Without assigning an initial value you're just wasting pixels.
That connection will always be there if you only use 2 names. try 100 and then we actually have something to work with. Right now I will not deny that those with the desire to kill that were atheist were better at the job than theists, but that does not equal "majority".
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, nothing more. Theism is a belief in a god or gods, nothing more. Human greatness is most certainly not associated with either by that token. There are great humans that were atheists and great humans that were thiests - it is inconsequential.
Not everything yellow is a banana, but all bananas are yellow, (alright stfu they're technically green to begin with). Yellow is not the same thing as a banana.
A murderous banana is not murderous due to it being yellow.
But it also is not "majority" unless you intend to use just 2 names in the list.
It's an unfortunate side effect of schooling. Misunderstanding led to many viewing Huck/Sawyer as childrens stories and they were taught as such. Yankee is largely unknown, (in this part of the world), but certainly not as much so as the one's I highlighted. However, the point in that instance was to show that atheism, (in that respect), was imperative for their creation.
I will run proper figures later, but from early estimates it seems that a good 50% of your list of "people of greatness" revolves around those that had a penchant for killing. Rameses, Alexander, Joan of Arc, Blair, Khan, Napolean, Nelson etc etc etc.
So I ask you this.. How many must a person kill to be considered great, and at what number does that greatness stop being so great? (Amusing because many consider Mao a "person of greatness".. guess the number is irrlevant).
I suppose it's just me but I could come up with very few names, (be they religious or otherwise). I would probably be far more impressed by those people whos names we shall never know.
It's debateable. To many the primary purpose of a weapon is to prevent killing. Countries rarely decide to launch a war against those that have nukes. you are less likely to launch an attack on a guy that is holding a gun. The door swings both ways.
But you're still missing the point.. It might or might not be convenient what the primary purpose of a weapon is.. It's irrelevant. Split the atom.. Hell science could inadvertently obliterate the universe.. We'll discuss the moral implications of that in some other classroom.
Certainly. Would stop those religious whackjobs from knocking on my door every week. "How soon would you like to meet god?"
See, weapons are as much a preventative measure as they are a destructive measure.
Actually no. I dislike guns, have an even greater dislike for knives and consider myself one of the calmer humans on this planet. I'm not into weapons to be perfectly honest - not because I'm specifically pacifistic or anything, I'm just a chilled kinda guy..
However, for the gazillionth time.. My personal views and opinions concerning weapons are of no relevance or consequence to science.
You said "should've guessed". What you probably meant to say was "shouldn't have guessed, should've asked".
Just a question sam.
Are you a pro-survival type? I mean, would you try to protect yourself from someone trying to kill you?
Just curious.
Are you a pro-survival type? I mean, would you try to protect yourself from someone trying to kill you?
Just curious.
Sure, but I'd probably use a frying pan rather than a gun. It'd be more handy anyhow.
Ah. I see. Thanks.