Richard Dawkins

[lightgigantic]

Jaster Mereel

Your average two-handed sword, unless you're talking about monstrous processional swords, only weighs between 2-4 pounds. Not heavy at all.

Yea, but anyone can learn to use them.

a gun is even easier - and lighter

Resupply of personnel to the front, where the killing takes place. You know, the main focus of warfare?

machine guns tend to greatly reduce the ability for chivalry, what to speak of the options a veteran has at their disposal during a high altitude aerial bombing attack - hence modern warfare is essentialy about resupply (I remember talking to one anti tank machine gunner who was trained to understand that in a combat situation he would have 15 seconds to be "active")

 

[lightgigantic]

Sure they could. A sword is not that heavy. World War II Japan had both women and children ready to fight with said heroism and determination, to the last drop of blood, with medieval weapons if necessary. From history class I recall video clips of rows of Japanese children lined up across a street, performing rather mean-looking synchronized cuts with wooden swords that are very similar in weight and mass distribution to the real thing. (I happen to have personally handled both as well.)

But just a few men in a B-29 could have taken out them all and their entire city with the drop of a single bomb. And that's another characteristic of modern warfare: If you are unfortunate to find yourself on the business end of a modern weapon, your chances of surviving are far lower than in ancient combat, where if defeated in face-to-face combat with your adversary, you may be spared your life and turned into a slave.

EDIT: I see Jaster beat me to it.

The point is that it is far easier to pick up a gun than it is to pick up a sword - didn't the wild west use the term the "equaliser" for the six shooter - the idea is that any weasily guy suddenly becomes a force to be reckoned with

 

[S.A.M.]

Questions:

1. How many people keep a sword in the house?

2. Between a man with a gun and a man with sword, who is likely to emerge alive?

Technology makes killing easier, no doubt about it.

Look at the spree of school shootings.

 

[baumgarten]

a gun is even easier - and lighter

An AK-47 weighs about ten pounds, much heavier than most swords.

But I get what you mean. You're right, modern weaponry levels the playing field a bit in terms of skill, since it is at least somewhat easier to intently kill someone more martially skilled than yourself with a gun than with a sword.

"This is your standard blaster, simple point and click interface." -- Penguin hunter to Leela, Futurama

 

[Fire]

You don't believe artillery, missiles, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons are capable of killing more people than swords?

They can, but do they? Perhaps even with such advanced weapons around, war is a deterant on both sides and has forced more allies. Do you think the EU, UN, NATO etc would exist if every country just had simple weapons like olden times? No, perhaps war would be as flippant as ever and we would return to battlefields of tens of thousands of soldiers with swords and pea shooters. Afterall, there's no nuclear bomb for the politicians who wage war, to fear. Hence why I question deaths from advanced weapons is actually higher than that of 1,000 years ago (bearing in mind population growths).

Actually Dawkins does not believe that politicians are truly as religious as they portray themselves. According to him, they feign religiosity to garner votes/favor from the people.

Well then we have a larger[/] problem with religion don't we? Even if George Bush is an atheist (which I very much doubt), he only gets away with what he does by pandering to that of the very strong religious right who support absurd policies.

 

[S.A.M.]

They can, but do they? Perhaps even with such advanced weapons around, war is a deterant on both sides and has forced more allies. Do you think the EU, UN, NATO etc would exist if every country just had simple weapons like olden times? No, perhaps war would be as flippant as ever and we would return to battlefields of tens of thousands of soldiers with swords and pea shooters. Afterall, there's no nuclear bomb for the politicians who wage war, to fear. Hence why I question deaths from advanced weapons is actually higher than that of 1,000 years ago (bearing in mind population growths).



Well then we have a larger[/] problem with religion don't we? Even if George Bush is an atheist (which I very much doubt), he only gets away with what he does by pandering to that of the very strong religious right who support absurd policies.

Still need scientists to design and make the weapons, more lethal and with the capability to kill more people.

And if the scientists and politicians are not religious, are they not the biggest misusers of power?

Since they are ones who appear to be deluding the people and making the weapons of war?

Regarding deterrent, it only appears to work when both sides are well matched.

Do you believe all countries should have a nuclear weapon, then?

And what advantages does atheism confer here?

 

[spidergoat]

So does Dawkins see atheism and the Scientific method as the big ideas that will not only reverse the excesses created by scientific industrialisation but also prevent further excesses by future generations?

Basically no, except for it's ability to figure out why some industrial processes are unhealthy, and how they may be improved. I think he suggested that something else is required, and that is our challenge. He mentions the study of ethics, especially scientific ethics.

 

[Fire]

Still need scientists to design and make the weapons, more lethal and with the capability to kill more people.

Well if you're expecting an attack of morals among certain individuals, then perhaps some do, but in persuit of a job there will always be others behing them happy to take their place. With regard to the arms race, it's a case of needs must.

And if the scientists and politicians are not religious, are they not the biggest misusers of power?

Perhaps, especially since a secular nation would hardly enjoy the fact their leader has taken them to war if it isn't for a good reason, a religious nation doesn't need a good reason and will be happy to support it whatever the cause, but only if it is against a different religious identity of course. The Christian parts of Lebanon were mysteriously untouched by Israel's bombs. However, it was interesting to compare the reactions of the US and the UK before the Iraq war, so yes, Tony Blair was the one with the greatest abuse of power.

Regarding deterrent, it only appears to work when both sides are well matched.

Yes, and forced peace amongst those well matched nations. I can hardly expect any war between the majority of the worlds nations unless of course one of the backward nations normally reclusive due to an ideology of some kind, mostly religious.

Do you believe all countries should have a nuclear weapon, then?

To be honest, I wouldn't fear it. It seems to encourage responsability in both how other countries act towards them and how they act towards other countries. Any nation who decided to use the bomb in an act of war would know that they would not last long, hence the deterant. I can perfectly understand why countries like Iran and North Korea want these weapons, I say let them have it so long as they can then be part of the 'international community' and bring them out of isolation. Then in 100's of years to come there will be no need to even have these weapons and we live happily ever after :m:

And what advantages does atheism confer here?

I think the advantages lay with citizens. Politicians will try to get away with all sorts of shit, and with a secular base, they are limited.

 

[spidergoat]

And what advantages does atheism confer here?

Leaders that are religious might be more willing to commit to a catastrophic nuclear war. In one way, because some religions anticipate an end time, and in another way, because they believe in an afterlife (with their side inhabiting the good neighborhood).

 

[baumgarten]

Maybe, most probably not. Religion doesn't generally instill in one either the desire to die or ambivalence toward life.

If you are of a generally deathly disposition and seek justification for throwing your life or the lives of others away, then in religion you can find the promise of an afterlife. In atheism you can find comfort in that it won't matter when you die because you won't exist anymore. Neither most atheist philosophies nor any major religion say themselves that it's okay to devalue life. Such a doctrine would not last long against the competition of those who do value life, for the doctrine's proponents would all be outlived by them.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Neither most atheist philosophies

correct, yes atheism absolutely does not devalue life.

nor any major religion say themselves that it's okay to devalue life.

but religion does devalue life, the words kill and smite and murder, are printed 240+times in the kjv bible and there are over 850 cruel, violent and unjustified acts, in those pages too, it's the same in the qu'ran it's 870+ in there, are you really sure, major religions dont devalue human life, you need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[baumgarten]

but religion does devalue life, the words kill and smite and murder, are printed 240+times in the kjv bible and there are over 850 cruel, violent and unjustified acts, in those pages too, it's the same in the qu'ran it's 870+ in there, are you really sure, major religions dont devalue human life, you need to go back to the drawing board.

You just said the words kill, smite, and murder in the space of one sentence. Does that mean you devalue life?

 

[pavlosmarcos]

You just said the words kill, smite, and murder in the space of one sentence. Does that mean you devalue life?

your just showing how moronic you can be with that sentence.
you obviously dont understand a simple point.

 

[baumgarten]

your just showing how moronic you can be with that sentence.
you obviously dont understand a simple point.

Forgive me for my insolence. I was certain that I had read a suggestion that the inclusion of bad words into a piece of literature makes said text evil and causes those who read it to do evil things regardless of the reader's free will.

Obviously I am wrong; this really does sound preposterous now that I've typed it out, and it's certainly not something you would knowingly put forward. Could you perhaps make yourself a little clearer for me?

 

[Ophiolite]

And it appears you don't understand simple logic.

You claim religion devalues life and as evidence note how often the words kill, etc are contained in the Bible.

Yet if the mere appearance of these words is evidence of the the devaluation of life, then their appearance in your post - at a much higher rate per 1000 words - must be evidence that you also place little or no value on life.

What don't you understand about that?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Questions:

1. How many people keep a sword in the house?

As far as fully functional replicas are concerned, I have 5, and one spear.

2. Between a man with a gun and a man with sword, who is likely to emerge alive?

Depends on the situation. Location, surprise, discipline, etc... a good swordsman sneaking around the corner is more than a match for a jumpy burglar who's never even hunted before. Generally, though, the man with the gun will win if circumstances are equal.

Technology makes killing easier, no doubt about it.

Definitely.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

machine guns tend to greatly reduce the ability for chivalry, what to speak of the options a veteran has at their disposal during a high altitude aerial bombing attack - hence modern warfare is essentialy about resupply (I remember talking to one anti tank machine gunner who was trained to understand that in a combat situation he would have 15 seconds to be "active")

Although I fully understand your point and agree with it, I feel the need to nitpick.

Warfare is still about killing the enemy, regardless of what anyone tells you. Resupply is an essential component, but it's not the central part of war because without personnel who are you resupplying and with what? Massive armies are still more likely to win than smaller armies, but you are right in that a massive army can only be more effective than a smaller army if it is capable of resupplying itself with weapons, food, and other essential items, including reinforcements if necessary.

Just felt like picking out a few bits from my favorite subject.

 

[Fire]

I think the notion from religious people devaluing life comes from the whole stem cell research thing. They reasearch into possible cures in order to preserve a few cells. They also don't seem too concerned about the decline of the environment too and support war more than their atheist/secular counterparts. End Times is also something that suggests they would like 'armageddon' to come about ASAP.

 

[Fire]

edit : nevermind

 

[baumgarten]

I think the notion from religious people devaluing life comes from the whole stem cell research thing. They reasearch into possible cures in order to preserve a few cells. They also don't seem too concerned about the decline of the environment too and support war more than their atheist/secular counterparts. End Times is also something that suggests they would like 'armageddon' to come about ASAP.

Yes. Of course, these particular religious people (who fit the stereotype you're describing) are also idiots.