A personal question

quote:

---

Sure, a lot terrible is happening in the world in the name of religion, but religion is not responsible for that, it is each of those inviduals responsibility because it is their own decision that made them to use religion as a cover for, oppression, terrorism, etc.

---

So, are you saying that when a religion actively teaches all of it's adherents that hatred of another group, or intolerance of all other faiths, is justified, that this religion is not at fault?When does religion accept fault for, let's say, justifying the slavery of dark-skinned people in the US, or the treatment of women as chattel, which still goes on today in some fundamentalist Muslim areas?Religion has been used to justify untold numbers of atrocities over the millenia, and after the fact, the same thing is always recited by the apologists: "Those people weren't REALLY following Christianity/Judaism/Islam. We interpret the holy books the right way now!"Actually, Hitler believed he was doing God's work.http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -Mein Kampf

quote:

---

or when the Nuclear Bombs were dropped on Japan in the name of preserving democracy.

---

This was politics mis/using science. Do not blame science for how others misuse it.

quote:

---

Or when Stalin killed all those people in the name of communism.
Do you see where I am getting at?

---

I see that you are blaming science for the actions of power-hungry despotic people.This is inappropriate.[/B][/QUOTE]

or when the Nuclear Bombs were dropped on Japan in the name of preserving democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This was politics mis/using science. Do not blame science for how others misuse it.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or when Stalin killed all those people in the name of communism.
Do you see where I am getting at?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I see that you are blaming science for the actions of power-hungry despotic people.This is inappropriate.Well, that was exactly my point, just as inappropriate to blame religion for the horrible things peple do in the name of religion

Sure, a lot terrible is happening in the world in the name of religion, but religion is not responsible for that, it is each of those inviduals responsibility because it is their own decision that made them to use religion as a cover for, oppression, terrorism, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Schrafinator :So, are you saying that when a religion actively teaches all of it's adherents that hatred of another group, or intolerance of all other faiths, is justified, that this religion is not at fault?I cannot speak for every religion because Im not aware of all of their scripts and so it would be wrong if I replied that statement, perhaps someone else would defend Judaism or Christianity.But what I can say about Islam is that the Quran doesnt "teach" anything similar to hatred or intolerance to other faiths, it is PEOPLE who teaches those ridicilous belives and if you dont agree with that then please ask, I would be glad to correct your misconceptions about religion.

Originally posted by gene90:
Because we can use precision conventional weapons to neutralize Saddam's regime. Because Iraq does not yet possess nuclear weapons it is not a significant threat to the United States and there is no need for total war. Warfare has changed since the second World War. While we still use dumb bombs to kill enemy troops in huge numbers we no longer have to drop dumb bombs and incendiary weapons on cities to get the job done and hope they get near the target.The main reason why they won't use nukes is because they want the oil.In the war against Japan they had nothing but dumb bombs (conventional or otherwise) and a very large, relatively unskilled, draft army. Today we have a highly skilled, relatively small professional army that is capable of very rapid deployment almost anywhere. They would not have had that capability in a hypothetical ground war in Japan (no helicopters). We can get in and out of Iraq very rapidly and destroy targets even in densely populated areas with near surgical precision.Japan had nothing worth taking.One more thing: when we hit Iraq it will almost certainly be a route, perhaps even a massacre. Most US casualties will probably be friendly fire.Isn't that the norm now?Theoretically but who was calling the shots, the emperor or the generals? As I understand it the generals were, they attacked the US after having promised the emperor that no American bomb would ever fall on Japan (they would have elminated our carriers at Pearl).And who calls the shots now, Bush or his "advisers"?They had telephones and they had teletype machines. They also had a considerable shortwave radio broadcasting capability that they used to wage a propaganda war against American servicemen.Would you believe it at first that anyone would use such a wepon on people? How long would it take you to react?Then why, in March of 1945, was a U-boat (number 234, in fact) intercepted en route to Japan carrying V-2 rocket parts, jet fuel, and approximately 1,200 pounds of uranium oxide? By the way, that uranium may have eventually reached Japan, after having been confiscated by the United States and used to produce the bombs we dropped there.Do you have evidence of this? I see from your reply that you go more for the "official" version.Size and shape of the city had nothing to do with it. In fact Nagasaki was a lousy target because its topography prevented maximum
destructive yield.That is why it was not the first target.If we had wanted to kill the largest number of civillians possible we would have hit Tokyo instead.Tokyo wasn't a good target because of many other factors.Now, if the Japanese were falling over themselves to surrender, why did it take TWO bombs?I didn't say that they were "falling over themselves to surrender". I had said that they were willing to surrender.I have a feeling that even if they had surrendered instantly the USA would have still dropped the second bomb.What evidence do you have of that? I have Truman's diary and speech that say that he intended for the target to be exclusively military, therefore implying that the civilian casualties were incidental (as happened in Dresden and several other cities during the war).He wanted the target to be military only, but other factors forced him to choose this.Uh yeah. We nearly fought WWIII over Berlin and had we built a wall in Tokyo we might not be around to type this today.

​

By the way you need to check your history. We did NOT force Germany to an unconditional surrender, we left that to the Soviets and so we had to divide Germany.Germany didn't attack you on your own "soil" and humiliate you either.We took care of Japan ourselves and didn't have to give half of them over to communism.It was mostly a case of revenge in regards to Japan.

Originally posted by gene90:Are you making this up or do you have sources?

​

Look, the current treaties we're tossing around are to reduce both Russian and American warheads down to no more than 4,250 per side before January 1, 2003.

​

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) Which should be easy to do for the Russians.How many Americans do you think can be killed with 4,250 hydrogen bombs? And that's a current goal of arms reduction. How many do you think there were during the height of the Cold War?The Cold War was mainly a war of propaganda.Well, according to this (Japanese) site:"It follows from this that the Soviet Union had outstripped the U.S. in the number of nuclear weapons by the end of the 1970's."

​

http://www.cnfc.or.jp/plutonium/pl10/sympo.e.htmlOr appeared to.Propaganda:1. Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some causeThe victor gets to write, or influence, the official history.In other words most of written history didn't happen in the way it is portrayed to make those who won look better. Most people will accept what they are told as being true if it comes from authority. I.E. The bible.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-19-2002]

And Henry Morris believed the data supported his views. And Michael Behe his views. And wmscott his views. What these Creationist views most have in common is that they disagree with you and each other. When evidence is of secondary importance then any conclusion is possible.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

As long as they are of our own group. The Other is always a threat to be dealt with. Animals only kill when they are either hungry or feel threatened. Humans are one of the few animals who kill for sport or pleasure, and even prey on their own.

---

​

Lots of animals will eat their own offspring.

​

Animals such as weasels, fishers, raccoons, dogs and cats all kill for pleasure.

​

It's not terribly uncommon.

​

---

They kill out of instinct, they are predators.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
They kill out of instinct, they are predators.

---

Your black vs. white perceptions are sometimes most amusing. Schaf is right. Many animals kill for the hell of it.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
They kill out of instinct, they are predators.

---

​

Your black vs. white perceptions are sometimes most amusing. Schaf is right. Many animals kill for the hell of it.

​

---

You are humanizing them. Bonk, bonk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
You are humanizing them. Bonk, bonk.

---

No I'm not, Nos. Ask a primatologist.You make the error opposite the one of which you accuse me -- that of mechanizing animals, of drawing a hard line between 'them' and 'us' Animals, mammals in particular, have more or less all of the same brain structure and chemistry as do we. It is absurd to reduce animals to autonomatons.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
You are humanizing them. Bonk, bonk.

---

​

No I'm not, Nos. Ask a primatologist.

​

You make the error opposite the one of which you accuse me -- that of mechanizing animals, of drawing a hard line between 'them' and 'us' Animals, mammals in particular, have more or less all of the same brain structure and chemistry as do we. It is absurd to reduce animals to autonomatons.

​

---

Whatever.

[QUOTE][B]The main reason why they won't use nukes is because they want the oil.[/QUOTE][/B]That has nothing to do with it. We could nuke every square inch of Iraq and it wouldn't affect the oil. [QUOTE][B]Japan had nothing worth taking.[/QUOTE][/B]What did "taking" have anything to do with it? They started a war with us and we ended it. [QUOTE][B]Isn't that the norm now?[/QUOTE][/B]That's what happens when you are the world's only remaining superpower and you have overwhelming force. [QUOTE][B]And who calls the shots now, Bush or his "advisers"?[/QUOTE][/B]Red herring. We are talking about the command structure of the Empire of Japan as it was in 1946, in case you forgot. [QUOTE][B]Would you believe it at first that anyone would use such a wepon on people?[/QUOTE][/B]Would you believe they would attack Pearl Harbor? [QUOTE][B]How long would it take you to react?[/QUOTE][/B]If I were the emperor we not would have had the war in the first place.But I would have surrendered within a matter of hours of the first bomb, assuming I had not actually considered the state of my country and done the only rational thing I could do in that situation and ended the war weeks before rather than foolishly waiting around with no hope for victory and only a massive spilling of blood in my backyard. [QUOTE][B]Tokyo wasn't a good target because of many other factors.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion. [QUOTE][B]I didn't say that they were "falling over themselves to surrender". I had said that they were willing to surrender.[/QUOTE][/B]Then why did they wait until we had dropped TWO bombs? [QUOTE][B]Do you have evidence of this?[/QUOTE][/B]You are the one that has been consistently failing to provide cites. [QUOTE][B]I see from your reply that you go more for the "official" version[/QUOTE][/B]I prefer it to the revisionist version. Especially when you are making up the revisionist version as we go. [QUOTE][B]I have a feeling that even if they had surrendered instantly the USA would have still dropped the second bomb.[/QUOTE][/B]"A feeling" ? [QUOTE][B]He wanted the target to be military only, but other factors forced him to choose this.[/QUOTE][/B]Wrong. He didn't choose the target at all. [QUOTE][B]Germany didn't attack you on your own "soil" and humiliate you either.[/QUOTE][/B]Yes they did attack us on our own soil, the FBI arrested several German sabateurs on US soil during the war. And they sank our boats within clear view of the New Jersey beaches. We nearly managed to bomb one that ran aground near Lantana, Florida but it managed to escape.However, would you like to show that revenge had something to do with it or am I supposed to take you on your word? [QUOTE][B]It was mostly a case of revenge in regards to Japan.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion. Besides if we just wanted revenge we would have nuked Tokyo. After all, revenge was the purpose of the Doolittle Raid and Tokyo was our target that time.Now, why didn't the Japanese surrender after the FIRST bomb, if the bombs were not necessary at all? For that matter, why had they not already surrendered if the nation was in chaos?

[QUOTE][B]Which should be easy to do for the Russians.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion. [QUOTE][B]Or appeared to.[/QUOTE][/B]You are new to this debate.This is how it works.I present historical evidence that says I am right, and then you present historical evidence in your rebuttal.You are just making things up as we go and it isn't very convincing. [QUOTE][B]The victor gets to write, or influence, the official history.[/QUOTE][/B]Ah. I'm sure you deny the holocaust, don't you? Since we won the war and got to write the history we probably just made that all up to make us look better.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
You are humanizing them. Bonk, bonk.

---

​

No I'm not, Nos. Ask a primatologist.

​

You make the error opposite the one of which you accuse me -- that of mechanizing animals, of drawing a hard line between 'them' and 'us' Animals, mammals in particular, have more or less all of the same brain structure and chemistry as do we. It is absurd to reduce animals to autonomatons.

​

---

​

Whatever.

---

LOL...... willful ignorance and self contradiction to boot.Did you not argue with Delshad that we ARE animals? Yet now you imply that we are somehow fundamentally different from them.Oh BTW, did you get your info from the TV again?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Well, that was exactly my point, just as inappropriate to blame religion for the horrible things peple do in the name of religion.

---

There is a difference, though.At the time horrible things are done in the name of religion or politics, it is the policy of the given religion or government that they are right and just in their actions because, at least in the case of religion, it is justified because the holy books say that it is what they are commanded to do.The thing is, since it is religion, each interpretation is equally valid, so who is to say, for example, that Biblical justifications for slavery are wrong, simply because we do not agree with them today? Who is to say that the bloodthirsty and warrior God of the Old Testament isn't the true God and wants his chosen people to slaughter their male enemies and rape their women? He commanded it before, why not again?You will notice that the misuse of science is generally perpetrated by non-scientists, while the atrocities of religion are carried out by religious people.Science is not an unchanging dogma that is adhered to; it is a method of inquiry and a body of knowledge. It is, in short, a tool.We don't put the hammer in jail if it cracks someone's skull.However, why are you wanting to excuse the makers of the hammer who instruct people in the users manual that it is God's good and holy work to kill certain kinds of people with the hammer?