• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Christians on Decline, Non-believers Skyrocketing in US

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OverVolt said:
Yea, Iraq was a holy war, okay. And atheists are the rational ones.
Click to expand...


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.
 
JSt0rm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bshole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
realibrad said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
Zorkorist said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Orignal Earl said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

140224-us-defense-chart-215p_d40ecad0e93608f7224bcfd4d5df8a2f.jpg
 
realibrad said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the US was a bloodthirsty nation.
I said it can't defeat any nation it wants to
 
Orignal Earl said:
Did you beat the Taliban?
Click to expand...

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.

QPR-moving-the-goalposts.png
 
realibrad said:
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.

QPR-moving-the-goalposts.png
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Orignal Earl said:
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
 
realibrad said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
realibrad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Orignal Earl said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
OverVolt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well...apparently if the US only gets hit with "only" 300 nukes from France it could consider it a win
So ya... 😉
 
Orignal Earl said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top