Correction: Blaming Christianity for the Crusades is NOT the same as blaming the Holocaust on science. Anti-Semitism was the real cause of the Holocaust. Ultimately, the motive behind the acts is the real cause of the incident. If I got stabbed in some alley by a crack addict, I wouldn't lie in hospital thinking "I hate knives" i'd lie thinking "I hate crack". You can't blame the terrors of incidents on society's technological advancement and understanding of science. Our knowledge of cyanide's effect on the human body isn't what killed millions of Jews: it was a bunch of stupid and easily proved wrong ideas held with the utmost devotion by the **** party. Exactly like Christians during the Crusades.
Technology gave the ****'s the tools to easily mass murder millions of people, Gases were also used during warfare to flush out people from the bunkers and no mans land. Thanks to Scientists and science these atrocities became a reality, if not for science I doubt that the ****'s would have even became a world power, the ****'s conquered and pillaged thanks to science. The Flame Thrower, their tanks, their gases, they even tried making an Atom Bomb. This all became a reality because science is abused, and you don't get my point. Science, just like Religion can look bad only if the people misuse or misinterpret. Thanks to science the ****'s managed to mass murder 6 million Jews, I'd like to see them pull that off with swords or arrows, obviously it was Anti-Semitic's that, made this a reality but the Jews were actually an excuse to start the war. Believe me, once/if Athiests become a larger force we will all start to see Extremists on your side, you will become the bad guys, that's human nature to follow a side to the extreme. People fight for their country when all they get in return is a fancy ribbon, people kill for "Stuff" people always choose sides, it's human nature to fight and sadly this human nature has made religion look bad.
My reply is in red. heres one ancient genocide with "spears and swords" http://www.neobyzantine.org/movement/problems/index.php Heres anouther http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-...cient-Culture-Proven-by-Massacres-59928.shtml Bible talks about old genocides and inspired them http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_cana0.htm ancient india http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/india-ancient-medieval Anouther fun talk about genocides http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/global_history_genocide Mongol genocide through their conquests. http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/mongol-conquests
Here's the big problem with blaming the holocaust of science: The crusades were committed by people who thought that they were under the direct orders of god/religious authorities. If there was no religion, there would have been no crusades. Scientific advancements helped in the mass murder of the Jews during WWII, but it is absolutely not responsible for their deaths and the for the holocaust as a whole. Again, as other have said above me, don't blame the knife, blame the guy who stabbed you. If you actually believe that it is science's fault that the holocaust happened, I also expect that you would be a firm believer in taking cars off roads (cars kill people!), removing the use of electricity from our society (electricity/electrical fires kill people!), destroying all bridges (that people could potentially jump off!), removing knives (that people could cut themselves with!) from everyday use, etc. But no, you don't believe that. Because you don't blame the knife for cutting someone or the bridge for making someone jump off. You blame the person who did it.
You're correct on a technicality, as any weapon can neither be good or bad since it doesn't do anything. It's how you use them that is, which why the person is charged with murder, not Glock. Although I doubt you would think the A-bomb is so great if the Germans had beaten us to it, and we had got bombed, or if the soviets had lobbed some of theirs over this way. But there is another thread already for that discussion. I think you mean we can disprove stuff when we say so. Because if I ask for this disproof, all you will say is "It's not my job to provide disproof, It's yours to provide proof." yes, and fighting over things like money is much more reasonable. Maybe we should just collect all the oil and burn it in one big fire so that there will never be any for people to have wars over. or, Let's launch all the precious metals into space. How about we declare world wide anarchy so people can't fight over things like political views(and get their fingers bitten off!! lol)? "Well after all the people its made into ignorant tyrants who have killed millions in their greed its hard not to blame it[money]."--makes just as much sense I like how I've also noticed this yet no one on the atheist side seems to get it.
Yep, greed an religion, two of the worst things for humanity.. The difference is they money is necessary, as you were nice enough to prove for me - without money we would be even worse off. Without modern-day religion, though, we would be far better off.
Theres a difference between an anti-theist and an atheist. He just straight out hates theists. I don't care. I just don't believe in it. And if Atheism became a worldwide accepted thing, there wouldn't be extremists because there wouldn't be atheists. Because if there was no theists there wouldn't be need for a group of people against something that is no longer believed in. If it happened, we'd drop the moniker and move on I guess... idk
There have already been a few movements attempting to redefine the atheist movement. 'Brights' is one of the bigger ones.
Without the atomic bomb, we would have had to do a direct invasion of numerous cities full of civilians willing to fight to the death for their country and honor. I've never been a big fan of theoretical debates like the hiroshima ones (where we don't know the true answer, since we don't know the number of lives that would have been lost), but I will say that you could easily put up a good argument that more Americans and Japanese would have been lost in a direct invasion than in the dropping of the bombs.
There is a transcript from military strategists saying about 5 million Japanese lives would have been lost (it's in that debate somewhere, but if you really want it I'll get it). 200,000 over 5 million is a better number any day.
@RabidZergling Why do you blame idiotic, so-called "religious" people on all Christianity? These people misinterpret.. That's not our fault.. We weren't even alive then. That's like saying "atheists are bad because of people like Hitler who kill theists for fun." -Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941. -Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941. lol you're kinda sounding like Hitler right now... tbh o.0
The same flawed thinking still exists in Christianity, so whether you were alive or not, you're still clinging to a belief that condones the ending of millions of lives. You claim they "misinterpreted" the bible, yet they received the teaching even earlier in time. If anything, modern day Christians are misinterpreting the bible. Unless your argument is "No-one understood the bible, and only NOW does humanity gets it". No-one knows for sure whether Hitler was an Athiest, I don't know how many times this has been stressed. Hitler made comments that indicated both him being a Christian and him being an Athiest, and in the end, only Hitler knew. It's hardly relevant, because not matter what Hitler believed, Christianity is what enabled the Holocaust to happen. One of my favourites: Flinging "You're just like Hitler" comments around only makes you seem more juvenile.
As strange as this sounds millions would have died on both sides if we hadn't dropped the bombs thousands are better than millions. No life should be lost but if it has to be done try to have the mininal loss of life. The atom bomb save around 4.7 million lives I say it was worth it compared to a full on invasion. Religion has killed more than millions so yes I don't "accept religion" if you want to put it in that context.
yet you argue about this. you don't definitely know the answer. you think you do but you cant be positive. so explain.
Well this is about anouther debate but if you looked at how many could have died to how many actualy did you would see it was a better choice to drop the bombs instead of the invasion. They said they would fight to the death I guess they didn't exspect that we could have brought total anilation to them but we only choose two small cities. We honestly could have droped the boms on tokyo and killed millions just in that one city but we choose smaller cities which were in the mountains so the blast would be contained in the valleys. If we wanted to we could have made japan a giant smoking collection of craters. We let them surrender and we then accepted it.