Confidence is based on repetitive results or reasonable deduction based on similar experiences. You can be CONFIDENT that the Earth will rotate again so the sun appears in view to us on the morrow because at least 10,000 consecutive occurrences tells you its a likelihood. By that same merit, I can be confident in my ability to drive because I've done so for fifteen years and I'm still alive. I am not, however, confident that I will never die in a car accident just because I have not died yet. That would require:

Faith, which requires no repetitive results or deduction of any kind. Example: How many times have you witnessed God flooding the Earth? Answer: None, but you have faith because you read it in A book (or THE Book, as you say). There is also no record or evidence whatsoever of a flood of global proportions within the last 12,000 years that Christians claim as the total history of the earth, yet their 'faith' is maintained.

There's a HUGE difference.

By the way, there's no need to put Atheist in quotations. Its not a nickname or alias, "Cowboy". You don't see we atheists doing it with Christian or God or Muslim. Yes, it is used to define a broad range of beliefs, but so is Christian or God or Muslim.

You're saying this as if you were there.



Actually ...

First off, do some research. Before 1960, Republicans were more like Democrats and vice versa, so Republicans were progressive liberals (anti-slavery was an liberal and progressive idea back in those days) ... the opposite of what they are today.

Secondly, why are your bringing up examples of racist democrats from 70 years ago to compare to Ron Paul, who is alive and active today? That's kind of counter intuitive. If you regard my previous paragraph (since it was pre-1960), these "Democrats" you're citing were yesterday's "Republicans", so you're still off the mark.

And no, I don't think Ron Paul is a racist, nor do I see any claims otherwise in this thread.

I've never said "Peace Always", ever. In fact, when GWB wanted to jump on Hussein again like Daddy did, I was making the argument "why are we kicking around in Iraq again instead of focusing on N Korea (who was actually openly threatening all its neighboring countries and was as well refusing security council inspectors)?" The only thing I've said is a kind of equivalent to "we shouldn't be jumping into schoolyard brawls and beating up the kids". We went to Iraq for oil and somehow GWB convinced everyone it was for "WMDs" and "links to Al-Qaeda".

Striking back? Fine, but we haven't been struck first? Yes, yes, Al-Qaeda on 9/11, but that wasn't Hussein, it wasn't the Pakistani people, it wasn't Iran ... honestly, there is more connection to Saudi Arabia than there is to Iraq, but did we beat on the royal family there? Nope, they were evacuated from the U.S. by Bush and Co. within 6 hours of 9/11.



Ask those same immigrants if they want to see their homeland nuked or at the very least, the towns where they grew up carpet bombed. I sincerely doubt it. There are several reasons to sentence someone to death, celebration of any event isn't one of them.

BTW, I've not made up anything about you, I'm contesting the views you've put forth in this thread. I once again offer up Waco as an example that you ignored the first time. Should it have been bombed because of David Koresh?



Its not for me to decide when or if I've proven you wrong, its yours. I can only argue the point, but you're hardwired into some sort of "only I and those who think exactly like me deserve to live" mentality. Besides, I already know that even if I do manage to open your eyes to the hatred you're spouting, YOU would never admit it. I'm still in this because ... well, I'm not sure why. Maybe I'm bored this early in the morning and this is my entertainment.



"Bully other nations into wars" and "let's throw nukes around". That'll get respect ... right. And "no redeeming qualities" ... anyone can say that about any other country and use any justification to do so. Have you lived there? Have you even been there? Do you know any North Koreans? I'm sure they, too, would be remiss to consider a nuclear solution.

Your argument seems to always boil down to the point that oppressed people should rebel. I agree. However, you seem to think this happens instantaneously the moment people realize they're oppressed (and if they don't, they deserve death ... just as those regimes promise them for non-compliance). It doesn't, especially when the oppressed are OUTGUNNED by those in power. Sometimes several generations pass before the people realize they can overpower through numbers or just get tired enough not to care about the consequences anymore. Egyptians finally did after 30 years of Mubarak's rule. It was also a MOSTLY peaceful revolution. No nukes, no outside help to get them started.

Oh, and the American revolution wasn't instantaneous either ... look it up.



I've nowhere stated that Congress was free and clear for the vote. Hell, I condemned them as they made it because I knew what the move against Iraq was really all about and I say they should have seen it too. However, you seem to be making the argument that, since Congress voted for it, GWB is free and clear and holds no responsibility for anything that's occurred. He's not.

He paved the way. That was my point. He begged everyone and their mother to let him go into Iraq like Daddy did, falsified data from the CIA to do it and then said "to hell with the UN" when they didn't agree and convinced Congress to let him do it anyway.



Its irrelevant because we're not arguing the nature of Pakistan's founding. We're arguing whether it deserves to be nuked. I (and every other nation in the UN) says "no". Sorry.



Resorting to the absurd ... how mature.



You're right, I've never read the Qur'an and no, I'll not be spewing "tolerance" on this level ... my previous statement should have been an indicator. I was raised Southern Baptist and I know more about Christianity and the Bible than the majority of Christians to whom I've ever spoken. As a book, fine, I'm not going to say "burn all bibles" ... as a religious doctrine, it is poison, just as any other religious text. As for the Qur'an, do you think the Bible carries no history of blood to rival its teachings? If so, then I'd be willing to put money on "you're wrong".

Also, you, like every religious fanatic I've encountered, are making an incorrect assumption that without religion, there is no morality. This is false. Read up on Progressive Social Evolution. Yes, there are a few good morals spread throughout the Bible and probably the Qur'an as well, but they're buried under a lot of hate and oppression and silly myths stolen from other cultures that too many people find believable and center their lives around.

Out of curiosity ... is it this upbringing and the idea that God was so wanton with destruction that makes YOU so sure in your judgment of other nations and the "necessity" of nuking them?

Exactly. Bullying is what you boil down to.




Worked with, maybe, but I find it hard to believe you have friends "across the cultural spectrum" considering the hatred you are spewing for the rest of the world.

BTW, its not about a "bleeding heart" ... its about the golden rule. I don't wish to be lumped in with every other American (especially the radical right-wing warmongers), so I'm not going to lump in foreigners with their governments.



You can call me BHL all you want. I'm not offended. Again, the golden rule. You can't claim that you "judge people on individual merit" while lumping all middle-easterners together and evoking a genocidal outlook for the area. That doesn't work.



Our nation shows more restraint ... but your argument is that we should show NO restraint. What has the UN done? What are WE supposed to do? Nothing. Its not our business ... we are, once again, not the World Police. As for the "war machine" ... again, we are not World Police.



I state again. George W. Bush dragged us into Iraq. Also quoting from Wikipedia:

"An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]

"Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.

"Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002."

I do not stand corrected.



Irrelevant. A) Again, I don't care what their government knew, I was speaking about the ENTIRETY of the country. B) How the country came about is a moot point. I never argued when or how it was created ... only that it doesn't "deserve to be CRUSHED" on your say so.



"I'm a bad guy. How does this make me a bad guy?" Why did that have to be explained?



Religion is poison, no matter which book it starts with.



Is there any way you can use that "Critical Reasoning" in regards to something other than yourself and your own goals for America's world domination? Apply the golden rule, at least.

Chazter:


Part of my response to Andy. His fantasy wars include countries whose regimes (not necessarily their people) obviously have a dislike of America. My point was that if you start leveling nations, many many more countries will start to hate America and we can't fight them all.

Andy:


And you learned all this by watching Fox News, right? Enough said. BTW, lumping EVERY person of middle east residency under one negative adjective is called "racism" ... look it up.



Prove indefinitely that even half of the people in that area are lending "comfort" to "our enemies" and I'll jump aboard your racist train. Until then, innocent people are called "civilians" and don't deserve to be a part of your genocidal plan of attack.



Wrong. These are mostly third world countries ... on what do you base the idea that their "evil" is stronger? The fact that we COULD wipe them out with relative ease (as you've stated) contradicts this idea.



George W. Bush dragged us into Iraq. Sorry. And much of the contempt we're facing now is because of it.



Again, show me that every Pakistani was in on harboring Bin Laden and I'll jump on your train. Not going to happen.



Really? Ok, then ...



I can agree with "too many humans on this planet". I've been saying that for years, but I don't call it upon myself to decide which CULTURES should be eliminated to make the rest comfortable.



I could say the same about theological degrees. I'll not bother to make some silly anti-conservative statement here ... I think you speak for yourself well enough.

So we're posting stuff just to criticize without investigating its authenticity at all? Big surprise.

Double post, sorry.

Right. I'm just saying, include all sides ... there's not just a coin to consider. :)

There isn't "both sides" ... there are multiple sides. Its not "black and white" or "heads or tails". You're ignoring that the lack of evidence contradicting the story could still mean it is false.

1. Evidence = story may true.
2. Evidence = story may STILL be false.
3. Lack of evidence contrary = story may be true.
4. Lack of evidence contrary = story may still be false.

Again, the arguments made by several of us here: illiteracy, lack of efficient means of communication and lack of efficient publication means; is a strong counter to your disbelief of a lack of contrary claims to the stories.

As creative said:



Who documents in anything: "Dear Diary, there was no alien invasion today. There was no conspiracy found in the American government. Giant fairies didn't buzz around the sky spraying pixie dust over everyone and the populace flew around without airplanes. It wasn't amazing!" It just doesn't happen.

Its not impossible for a completely fueled 747 to take down a tower. And I think claiming you can design a building to take the impact of up to 487 TONS propelled at over 500 mph without it being a completely solid structure is a bit hopeful if you claim it for MULTIPLE crashes. Can you not imagine the damage such an impact could do to ANYTHING? Let alone tossing a ton of highly flammable liquid fuel on top of it ... seriously.

If you want to talk conspiracy, I find it far more credible to look at evidence you may have that the threat of attack was ignored by the powers-that-be. But for the above, I think you're too confident in the abilities of architects ... I mean, its not like they have a lot of hard data gathered from "jumbo jet crashes into buildings" that they can use to design said buildings.

All of those people were given the opportunity to evacuate before the storm. The majority of those "victims" were self-imposed ... they chose to stay. Yes, there was a lot of mismanagement and mistakes made on the part of FEMA ... I'll not say there wasn't. However, "intentionally leaving people stranded" who chose to strand themselves may not be the correct argument.

Question: Do you also disagree with "Defense" spending?

So, don't vote AndyBgood ... check. Way to be completely and utterly evil.

Really, the best way to handle countries that "hide among civilian populations" that "endanger our men and women" is ... well, not to get involved in a war in those countries because ... well, none of them can touch us militarily. And we are not the World Police (America! F*** yeah!).

"Harboring our enemy" ... right. Because random people have a say in what oppressive governments do, politically. You know those same citizens which militants hide amongst aren't necessarily CHOOSING to be human shields, right?

By this reasoning, the US government should have firebombed the entire city of Waco because it was "harboring" David Koresh, right? (Reasoning: Cult is to Regime, as City is to Country). I'm sure that would have been just fine with you right? So long as you weren't living in Waco at the time.



Basically what you're saying is, if you were in charge you would turn America into an engine of fear in the world? You really think the rest of the world is going to say "Yay, America!" at that point? Several countries hate us now ... start leveling nations that don't agree with your personal doctrines and see how quickly the world as a whole unites against us. Sorry, if we're going to survive, we need to set an example of how to "play nice" ... not be the schoolyard bullies that beat up smaller nations because they don't like our "Girls Gone Wild" and "American Idol" culture.

Grow up. People who spout the above propaganda believe the USA can withstand whatever the world throws at it ... including the entirety of the world itself. Sorry, not going to happen. Choose your battles ... and try not to choose only those with third world countries just because "we can take 'em!"

If it was about Batista, who cares? Its like a soap opera, people talk about characters as if they were real as part of some kind of identification with the material. Its harmless. I would think the same about Batista ... not because I think he's actually a jackass, but because he's PORTRAYING a jackass. Watch the clip again and tell me he wasn't.

If it was about Kanye (and I have no information at all about the whole situation there), then what's the big deal? I'd assume Kanye was acting like a jackass (but I don't care enough to find out). If you act like a jackass, someone's going to call you a jackass. That someone is not necessarily a bad person for labelling you a jackass.

Obama haters are really just finding ANYthing to ***** about, aren't they?

No, your point was there was no evidence contradicting books not yet written or known to the public at the time. No one writes about events that DIDN'T happen ... that would be silly, thus my examples.

I could say right now that a man named Bubblebutt actually tiptoed on tulips in 300 AD and danced across an airborne leaf and by your reasoning, since you won't find any documents from the era REFUTING that no one danced across tulips (nor is anyone from that era still alive to refute it), then you can't say Bubblebutt didn't exist or do what I've claimed.

I think its a pretty ridiculous claim. Wouldn't you want some other source to confirm my claim? Obviously you don't care for the specific example above, but that's what this topic really boils down to ... "Here's a ridiculous story." "This can't be true." "But it is, here read this." "What else do you have for proof?" "Nothing, why should I need anything else?" "..."

MsHarmony, sorry, I couldn't pass this without word ...



You're talking about books that weren't in large circulation at the time, IF they were even written yet. Only a handful of copies of the originals (at best) have ever been found and you can't believe that, what? Someone's diary wasn't found saying "No crucifixions took place today, this day that a book not yet written will say that the Son of God named Jesus will be flogged and hung on a cross."?

Or ...

"June 6th, 29 A.D. ... Went to market today and didn't see a man healing all the lepers in the square. Nope. No one walking on water today. Maybe tomorrow."?

Sorry, for a time period certainly not known for its literacy or its publication ingenuity, that's definitely not a valid argument.

If you'd paid attention, Cowboy, Josephus has already been discussed. I stated:



I consider this to put Josephus' writings under suspicion. Aside from that, Jesus was never mentioned by name.

In response to Tacitus, I stated:



It was Tacitus himself classifying these Christians as evil trouble-makers and basically terrorists, not Nero. Do you really want to use him as one of your examples?

Also, this is "General Religion Chat". It is for topics of religious discussion, this being one. You are not required to be of any denomination to post here.

Here's a fun thought ...

Let's say there's this great catastrophe ... a nuclear war or something and just about all information is wiped ... except a copy or two (maybe more HIDDEN in CAVES--where the earth collapsed into the foundation of a house) of Harry Potter!

Centuries later, someone finds this book and since all technical knowledge of today was lost in the nuclear fires, this is the only STORY record of our times. Not knowing fact from fiction of the era, the people of the future believe in magic and this "Harry Potter" from long ago. As time passes, more books are extracted from the CAVES and people figure it must be true and this J. K. Rowling must've been some sort of historian.

Others, seeing selfish gain in the stories, start embellishing or "find" their own Harry Potter stories ... like the Gospel of Ron Weasley or the Testament of Severus Snape.

Wouldn't that be fun?

If that book on Italy includes "culture, habits and mindset of Italians" I would expect to have a decent cursory understanding of just that after reading it ... if I did not, I would label the book as fiction. As far as your question, its not a great selling point for anything, especially "eternal life". "Well I don't understand this, but I'll do it anyway" doesn't seem like a good motto nor does it seem like God would approve.



Titus Flavius Josephus was a Jew whose accounts are very controversial among historians. The "respected" part of your statement is primarily a self-proclaimed adjective. Josephus also managed to talk himself out of being executed by the Romans (while apparently 39 of his companions were) and convinced them to allow him citizenship and pay him a pension ... I wonder how he did that? He never said.



And if he really is known for his integrity and moral uprightness, perhaps he is also correct in naming Christians as terrorists and evil?



Pliny the Younger was also a playwright and poet, known for writing fiction.



None of these accounts mention or allude to the existence of Jesus by name.



No doubt, the author(s) knew their controversial nature and hid copies so the text would not be lost. However, just because they were found doesn't mean they're 100% factually correct and/or unbiased accounts of anything. Nor does it mean God placed them there.



Keep in mind that Paul never meet Christ and did not write about him until many years after the crucifixion. When those letters were written, he was professedly a Christian convert ... thus, bias.



Schools teach the "Theory of Evolution", which is not scientific law mostly because any single human cannot live for millions of years to watch the process take place. There is much evidence to support this process, however and more being unearthed all the time. The author, Darwin, did not so much "question the validity" ... he was penning his thoughts on how nature might work, breaching new scientific territory and since it mostly went against what he was taught (as he was religious, by the way), of course there was a natural conflict.