Christians on Decline, Non-believers Skyrocketing in US

[JSt0rm]

Yea, Iraq was a holy war, okay. And atheists are the rational ones.

I didnt say iraq was a holy war I said "Its about humans using religions and gods (edit) as a justification to do horrible things to other humans."

George Bush saying god told him to invade Iraq gave him a pass with certain people who actually believe America is god's country.

 

[bshole]

I didnt say iraq was a holy war I said "Its about humans using religions and gods (edit) as a justification to do horrible things to other humans."

George Bush saying god told him to invade Iraq gave him a pass with certain people who actually believe America is god's country.

I hope not. I reluctantly admit that I supported that war at the time. I bought the bill of goods that was being sold. It completely opened my eyes when it turned out to be a pack of lies. I supported the war out of FEAR of being attacked and nothing else. I suspect most Americans did the same. It should be noted that Christopher Hitchens (a brilliant atheist speaker) supported the invasion of Iraq very strongly. His support actually lasted far longer than mine and he never did retract it.

It is despicable to use God as an excuse for going to war. It was a common tool of the past but in a modern world it is ridiculous and pathetic. Actually IMHO most reasons for going to war are ridiculous and pathetic. America is a bloodthirsty nation. I don't know if it religious based or not but it is a serious problem.

The influence of religion in the Western world has been in steady decline for decades. While there is no reason to mourn it's slow death, there is also no reason to hate people because they continue to believe a particular creation story UNLESS AND UNTIL that belief HARMS you or some other innocent party. It is possible for somebody to believe the Bible and still be a intelligent, useful and good human being.

 

[realibrad]

I hope not. I reluctantly admit that I supported that war at the time. I bought the bill of goods that was being sold. It completely opened my eyes when it turned out to be a pack of lies. I supported the war out of FEAR of being attacked and nothing else. I suspect most Americans did the same. It should be noted that Christopher Hitchens (a brilliant atheist speaker) supported the invasion of Iraq very strongly. His support actually lasted far longer than mine and he never did retract it.

It is despicable to use God as an excuse for going to war. It was a common tool of the past but in a modern world it is ridiculous and pathetic. Actually IMHO most reasons for going to war are ridiculous and pathetic. America is a bloodthirsty nation. I don't know if it religious based or not but it is a serious problem.

The influence of religion in the Western world has been in steady decline for decades. While there is no reason to mourn it's slow death, there is also no reason to hate people because they continue to believe a particular creation story UNLESS AND UNTIL that belief HARMS you or some other innocent party. It is possible for somebody to believe the Bible and still be a intelligent, useful and good human being.

How is the US a bloodthirsty nation? It literally has the ability to kill everyone on the planet or defeat any nation it wants. Why would a bloodthirsty nation not use its power if it had it?

Iraq was a shit war fought for shit reasons. But to say the US is a bloodthirsty nation is stupid.

 

[Zorkorist]

One would start to believe that Government is doing it right, in the absence of religion, but they are not.

It's quite messed up right now. That kids are realizing Religion, isn't the answer, is only the first step.

-John

 

[Orignal Earl]

How is the US a bloodthirsty nation? It literally has the ability to kill everyone on the planet or defeat any nation it wants. Why would a bloodthirsty nation not use its power if it had it?

Lot's of countries have the power to kill everyone on the planet.
You don't do it because..well

Using conventional means, why didn't you clean up little ol Afghanistan or Iraq nice n quickly and by yourself

 

[Zorkorist]

There are very few countries that have an ability to kill everyone.

They can overwhelm their population, similar to how priests have overwhelmed their populations in the past.


Government, has to respect input by it's citizens (or opress them,) something Religion conveniontly ignores.

-John

 

[Orignal Earl]

There are very few countries that have an ability to kill everyone.

They can overwhelm their population, similar to how priests have overwhelmed their populations in the past.


Government, has to respect input by it's citizens (or opress them,) something Religion conveniontly ignores.

-John

He must of meant kill everybody on the planet using nukes right? Which would start a chain reaction of nukes flying. Which a lot of countries have the power to do
You guys don't think the US could kill everybody on the planet with like cruise missiles and tanks do you?

 

[Zorkorist]

He must of meant kill everybody on the planet using nukes right?
You guys don't think the US could kill everybody on the planet with like cruise missiles and tanks do you?

You are the one that raised the spectre of death.

-John

 

[realibrad]

Lot's of countries have the power to kill everyone on the planet.
You don't do it because..well

Using conventional means, why didn't you clean up little ol Afghanistan or Iraq nice n quickly and by yourself

What does that have to do with the use being a supposed bloodthirsty nation?

If the US was a bloodthirsty nation, we would do what countries used to do in wars, and that is level the entire country. There is a huge discussion about the foreign policies of the US, and all of my countries blunders. There is not a doubt in my mind we do horrible shit. Ill even grant you that far too many are willing to go to war.

That said, the US is not a bloodthirsty nation, because like I said, if the US wanted to, it could be engaged in a crap ton of war.

That is not me talking out of my ass either.

 

[Orignal Earl]

You are the one that raised the spectre of death.

-John

What? Did you see what I quoted?

 

[Orignal Earl]

What does that have to do with the use being a supposed bloodthirsty nation?

If the US was a bloodthirsty nation, we would do what countries used to do in wars, and that is level the entire country. There is a huge discussion about the foreign policies of the US, and all of my countries blunders. There is not a doubt in my mind we do horrible shit. Ill even grant you that far too many are willing to go to war.

That said, the US is not a bloodthirsty nation, because like I said, if the US wanted to, it could be engaged in a crap ton of war.

That is not me talking out of my ass either.

I didn't say the US was a bloodthirsty nation.
I said it can't defeat any nation it wants to

 

[realibrad]

I didn't say the US was a bloodthirsty nation.
I said it can't defeat any nation it wants to

Ok, what nation could it not beat?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Ok, what nation could it not beat?

Did you beat the Taliban?

 

[realibrad]

Did you beat the Taliban?

So first you say that the US could not be nations, now its the US could not defeat a terrorist organization.

But yes, the US could likely destroy all of the locations the Taliban use, but that would require massive collateral damage. The collateral damage would be far to high to be politically palatable.

 

[Orignal Earl]

So first you say that the US could not be nations, now its the US could not defeat a terrorist organization.

But yes, the US could likely destroy all of the locations the Taliban use, but that would require massive collateral damage. The collateral damage would be far to high to be politically palatable.

The Taliban ran Afghanistan before we declared them a terror org
You were setting up to do business with them before 911

The only way the US could defeat any nation is in some kind of fantasy world that every country would stand by while the US killed everyone in a nation.
Oh and in that fantasy world the US would be labeled a bloodthirsty nation

 

[realibrad]

The Taliban ran Afghanistan before we declared them a terror org

The only way the US could defeat any nation is in some kind of fantasy world that every country would stand by while the US killed everyone in a nation.
Oh and in that fantasy world the US would be labeled a bloodthirsty nation

There is no way you are being serious now.

Hypothetical world is hypothetical.

The US has the military might to defeat any country. If you want to redefine what defeating a country means, then have at it. Generally though, the way the word defeat is used, would mean that my statement is correct.

If you take the military might of the US, and put it up against the military might of another country, the US would win. If you want to start giving hypothetical situations where its not military might vs military might, it stops being a question of military might inherently.

So, what is your actual claim, and what do you disagree about my initial claim?

Is this going to be round 2 of our previous discussion?

Also, what does this have to do with anything?

The Taliban ran Afghanistan before we declared them a terror org
You were setting up to do business with them before 911

 

[Orignal Earl]

There is no way you are being serious now.

Hypothetical world is hypothetical.

The US has the military might to defeat any country. If you want to redefine what defeating a country means, then have at it. Generally though, the way the word defeat is used, would mean that my statement is correct.

If you take the military might of the US, and put it up against the military might of another country, the US would win. If you want to start giving hypothetical situations where its not military might vs military might, it stops being a question of military might inherently.

So, what is your actual claim, and what do you disagree about my initial claim?

Is this going to be round 2 of our previous discussion?

Also, what does this have to do with anything?

Do you think the US could invade and take over France? Israel?
They would not use their nukes?
Why do they have them again?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Is this going to be round 2 of our previous discussion?

Also, what does this have to do with anything?

I guess so, you just keep going on and on
It's pretty funny

 

[realibrad]

Do you think the US could invade and take over France? Israel?
They would not use their nukes?
Why do they have them again?

Yes.
Yes.
Military option.

Using a nuke does not mean insta-death for the entire world fyi. The US has enough nukes to destroy all of France, or Israel. The way our nuclear force is set up, we would have the ability to destroy the bulk of France in a first strike. France does not have enough ICBM's to take down the US, and not even close to enough Subs.

The US would have huge losses, but it would win. A big reason we have nukes, is to make sure we don't have to fight those kind of wars. It does not serve US or global interests to have large countries fight it out. Nukes make the losses far to high politically, and so you have seen less war post WWII.

I still don't understand your point though. Can you tell me what it is, because this is really starting to feel like our last discussion.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Yes.
Yes.
Military option.

Using a nuke does not mean insta-death for the entire world fyi. The US has enough nukes to destroy all of France, or Israel. The way our nuclear force is set up, we would have the ability to destroy the bulk of France in a first strike. France does not have enough ICBM's to take down the US, and not even close to enough Subs.

The US would have huge losses, but it would win. A big reason we have nukes, is to make sure we don't have to fight those kind of wars. It does not serve US or global interests to have large countries fight it out. Nukes make the losses far to high politically, and so you have seen less war post WWII.

I still don't understand your point though. Can you tell me what it is, because this is really starting to feel like our last discussion.

It is like our last discussion
Last time started with me correcting you about the US being a secular nation and then you went on and on (moving the goalposts)

Here, I tried to tell you the US could not defeat any nation in the world and you are going on and on and moving goalposts

 

[OverVolt]

It is like our last discussion
Last time started with me correcting you about the US being a secular nation and then you went on and on (moving the goalposts)

Here, I tried to tell you the US could not defeat any nation in the world and you are going on and on and moving goalposts

Conventional warfare with any decent world power is basically out of the question because of the nuclear option.

Hence all the political posturing and lack of action.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Conventional warfare with any decent world power is basically out of the question because of the nuclear option.

Hence all the political posturing and lack of action.

Well...apparently if the US only gets hit with "only" 300 nukes from France it could consider it a win
So ya...

 

[Zorkorist]

Ya'll out to change this thread title to "War Games"

-John

 

[realibrad]

It is like our last discussion
Last time started with me correcting you about the US being a secular nation and then you went on and on (moving the goalposts)

Here, I tried to tell you the US could not defeat any nation in the world and you are going on and on and moving goalposts

You may want to go back because I think you might have me confused with someone else. We talked about how Muslims make a disproportionate amount of religious terrorists, but that in the US we were unlikely to be effected by that.

 

[OverVolt]

Well...apparently if the US only gets hit with "only" 300 nukes from France it could consider it a win
So ya...

With all the financial stuff going on I think there would've already been a WWIII if it weren't for nuke deterrents.