• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

islam

I don't mean it personally to you, there's just a high correlation between "less educated" people and who they will vote for.
 
I don't mean it personally to you, there's just a high correlation between "less educated" people and who they will vote for.

In terms of education, do you think the average Trump supporter is more or less educated than the average black churchgoer- a demographic whose overwhelming support for Hillary cost Bernie the nomination. Or do you suspect they're comparable.
 
Why don't you believe in flying unicorns?

I think he is trying to "backdoor" his case using logic as opposed to leaving it based on faith alone, since we do that for pretty much every other facet of life aside from religion.

Why is his logic any different than anyone else's logic? Because he uses bigger words? I think everyone who believes in religion uses some pretty basic logic: there is shit we can't explain so it probably came from somewhere else. That is the same logic as he is using, he just disagrees on the applicable probabilities.
 
Please prove that "flying unicorns" don't exist. Once you have you'll be a 7.0 "flying unicorn atheist" until you've proved it with certainty, you are, at best, 6.9.

Lack of evidence that something does not exist is not conclusive that the thing truly doesn't exist. However, if you are talking probabilisticly, lack of evidence can mean that the thing probably does not exist. Atheists have looked at the evidence and concluded that god does not exist with very (extremely) high probability. There is nothing vaginal about it, it is simply how evidence and knowledge accumulation works. Pascal's wager is for those who's assessment of the probability is less than high, that's where the "pussy" label seems apropos.

I don't care about explaining why flying unicorns don't exist, because I don't believe they exist. Which is what irks me about that dude ... I can see why people who believe in religion want to explain why to other people, because a big part of Christianity is trying to save others as well. But why does an atheist care about explaining to others why he doesn't believe in religion? He has as much to gain from wasting his time doing that as I do wasting my time to you explaining why I don't believe in flying unicorns. If he actually didn't believe in anything, then he would simply say he doesn't believe in it and move on. Not write fucking books about why he doesn't believe. That behavior is what actually defies logic.
 
Logical to attempt to explain to others why he doesn't believe in religion in hopes of convincing others to stop believing as well as their belief directly impacts his as well as many others way of life. If his lack of religion existed in a vacuum sure, but it doesn't.
 
I don't care about explaining why flying unicorns don't exist, because I don't believe they exist. Which is what irks me about that dude ... I can see why people who believe in religion want to explain why to other people, because a big part of Christianity is trying to save others as well. But why does an atheist care about explaining to others why he doesn't believe in religion? He has as much to gain from wasting his time doing that as I do wasting my time to you explaining why I don't believe in flying unicorns. If he actually didn't believe in anything, then he would simply say he doesn't believe in it and move on. Not write fucking books about why he doesn't believe. That behavior is what actually defies logic.

He thinks religion is a dangerous delusion, that over the millennia has caused immeasurable strife and suffering and he wants to try and limit that cause and effect in the future. Furthermore he thinks that religious belief and faith, i.e. belief in something despite evidence to the contrary, impinges on scientific progress in a society. For example, despite overwhelming evidence to the positive, global climate change is still called into question with religious zealotry and this continued questioning will cause our society major problems in the next 50 to 100 years. Religious belief requires a mode of knowledge accumulation that allows for ignoring data that opposes a preconcieved conclusion and that mode of learning has tremendous capacity to be harmful to society. So, Dawkins, the so called pussy, is trying to save society from it's own delusions that he thinks are extremely dangerous, that's why he writes fucking books.
 
Well without religious ideology a lot of today's problems surrounding inequality and needless death/suffering could be avoided.

But religion over history has helped a lot of people, most certainly. Not always fairly or equally, but net help has occurred. usually at the expense of non believers, of course.

But all this religious superstition about sexual activity and territorial conflict is outdated and a hindrance to all sides. These religions are outdated and sorely in need of a renaissance.
 
Which has killed more innocent people in the past 15 years, Radical Islam or the US Military spreading freedom?

I'm genuinely curious and since you Islam-haters make such a case I assume you know the score by heart.

By the way, I think Islamic extremists are fucking assholes who need to be killed, but I don't think it is the number one issue and I don't think it deserves the blood of thousands of American servicemen and the 5 trillion we have spent on it already.

So one of you, any one of you, quantify and justify the 1) human death toll (including US servicemen and women) and 2) the cost (including ongoing health care for veterans) of fighting this problem in the manner we are, and which you are ostensibly in support of.

thanks in advance

Hi Bake..

Trying to understand your POV... am I right in assuming your advice to the nation in December 1941 would have been to cede the Pacific to Japan? Only 2,400 or so citizens were killed by the attack.. and my guess is Japan was sending strong signals they wanted to cripple us, not conquer us.. would you have advised ramping up for strategic retaliation? Or ceded the Pacific and sued for some type of DMZ through Hawaii?
 
Hi Bake..

Trying to understand your POV... am I right in assuming your advice to the nation in December 1941 would have been to cede the Pacific to Japan? Only 2,400 or so citizens were killed by the attack.. and my guess is Japan was sending strong signals they wanted to cripple us, not conquer us.. would you have advised ramping up for strategic retaliation? Or ceded the Pacific and sued for some type of DMZ through Hawaii?

That's silly,

But what has caused most of our current problem was invading Iraq based on lies and misinformation, who had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Our actions in Iraq also created much of these problems. Torturing mostly innocent people flamed the hate. Generals Taguba and Sanchez gave up their honorable careers to tell the truth about "systemic use of torture" in Afghanistan, Iraq, GITMO and other places.
 
That's silly,

But what has caused most of our current problem was invading Iraq based on lies and misinformation, who had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Our actions in Iraq also created much of these problems. Torturing mostly innocent people flamed the hate. Generals Taguba and Sanchez gave up their honorable careers to tell the truth about "systemic use of torture" in Afghanistan, Iraq, GITMO and other places.

Thanks, RJ. Bake's a damn good poster and, though I haven't memorized all of his posts, I have come to view him as a person who doesn't believe in the application of American power. I'm trying to understand if that's even accurate and, if so, how far is it carried?
 
Your 1941 analogy was nonsense. Trying to compare the attack on our military by an expansionist military dictatorship that was already at war with other nations with a small group group of murderers is not serious.

I can't believe you would think it is.
 
Your 1941 analogy was nonsense. Trying to compare the attack on our military by an expansionist military dictatorship that was already at war with other nations with a small group group of murderers is not serious.

I can't believe you would think it is.

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to compare or equate the two scenarios. I'm trying to ascertain if Bake is a pacifist and, if so, does it have limits.
 
Hi Bake..

Trying to understand your POV... am I right in assuming your advice to the nation in December 1941 would have been to cede the Pacific to Japan? Only 2,400 or so citizens were killed by the attack.. and my guess is Japan was sending strong signals they wanted to cripple us, not conquer us.. would you have advised ramping up for strategic retaliation? Or ceded the Pacific and sued for some type of DMZ through Hawaii?

Knowing that it would take atomic bombs killing 300,000 + people I would certainly have weighed options. Have you seen the pictures of the crispy charred women and children laying in the streets? Does that make you want to wave an American flag and sing the national anthem?

That said, the surprise attack at PH was a horrific act of aggression, not to mention ceding the pacific in a world war situation against an enemy with a Navy and an Air Force would not be smart. So probably not. M

Would you have advocated dropping atomic bombs on Saudi Arabia after 9-11 to guarantee annihilation of the aggressors? The hijackers were largely Saudi nationals...
 
Thanks, RJ. Bake's a damn good poster and, though I haven't memorized all of his posts, I have come to view him as a person who doesn't believe in the application of American power. I'm trying to understand if that's even accurate and, if so, how far is it carried?

I'm not a pacifist per se, I just don't know who else we are supposed to bomb to beat an idea.
 
I'm not a pacifist per se, I just don't know who else we are supposed to bomb to beat an idea.

You can't bomb an idea.

Although I'm sure of al baghdadhi (sp?) being a true believer. He might just want power.
 
Knowing that it would take atomic bombs killing 300,000 + people I would certainly have weighed options. Have you seen the pictures of the crispy charred women and children laying in the streets? Does that make you want to wave an American flag and sing the national anthem?

That said, the surprise attack at PH was a horrific act of aggression, not to mention ceding the pacific in a world war situation against an enemy with a Navy and an Air Force would not be smart. So probably not. M

Would you have advocated dropping atomic bombs on Saudi Arabia after 9-11 to guarantee annihilation of the aggressors? The hijackers were largely Saudi nationals...

Thanks for the follow-up. You touched on a few things there.. waving the flag in the face of dead innocents: No. Celebrating the death of bullies who themselves have no qualms about killing others to further their objectives, yes. Nuking an ally out of existence due to extremist elements in their government and society, no (thus my digging Obama's willingness to use drones).

Taking it a little further... I think Darwin was right.. and the US (messy though it is) is an interesting check on the other predators.

I think our country is 'human rights which are: 1) anchored in the rule of law, 2) shielded by various checks and balances, 3) vetted and broadcast by a free press, 4) massaged and evolving per the voice of the people, and 5) protected by enormous power capable of projecting itself across the globe'. That's an interesting combination which doesn't really exist anywhere else... so while I don't feel like a warmonger, I do like our willingness to stand up to bullies and defend like-minded allies, and I think the world is a better place when a player like that exists.
 
Thanks for the follow-up. You touched on a few things there.. waving the flag in the face of dead innocents: No. Celebrating the death of bullies who themselves have no qualms about killing others to further their objectives, yes. Nuking an ally out of existence due to extremist elements in their government and society, no (thus my digging Obama's willingness to use drones).

Taking it a little further... I think Darwin was right.. and the US (messy though it is) is an interesting check on the other predators.

I think our country is 'human rights which are: 1) anchored in the rule of law, 2) shielded by various checks and balances, 3) vetted and broadcast by a free press, 4) massaged and evolving per the voice of the people, and 5) protected by enormous power capable of projecting itself across the globe'. That's an interesting combination which doesn't really exist anywhere else... so while I don't feel like a warmonger, I do like our willingness to stand up to bullies and defend like-minded allies, and I think the world is a better place when a player like that exists.

Good post.
 
Back
Top