Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Mass Destruction

  1. #1 Mass Destruction 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    71
    I have just finished watching a dvd download called "Trinity and beyond - The atomic bomb movie" basically for people who haven't seen it, it's about the making of the atomic bomb from day 1 upto recent years and how the governments (mainly russia & U.S.A) strived to get the most damaging weapons, it also includes propaganda clips and video of now uncensored material.

    It was an amazing watch and a real insight, i'd reccomend buying or downloading.

    After watching this though it really got me thinking about all governments and how they have such a lack of looking after the people, their too busy thinking of the best ways to destroy everyone else. There they are setting off 50 megatonne bombs without even a thought about the consequences it may be having on the planet ( i know they will of had masses of talks about it but just setting off the bombs i think is a pure disregard for our well being)

    Since when did we have a say about what goes on and also how do governments get into the position where they just decide that 50 megatonne bombs are a benefit to our society on the whole.

    I tried to think what would life be like without having any government at all and do they serve a real benefit, after all it is them that declare war but its people like us that have to go and fight it.

    I'm starting to get on my soap box about all this so i apologise, but do you think we will ever over come this weak peace that is only held together by "if you push the button then we will" or do you think there will ever be a time where we all work together to move forward, it's so pathetic fighting over small pieces of land when there is still a universe out there yet to be explored.



    Or will it end with a KABOOOOOM!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Since when did we have a say about what goes on and also how do governments get into the position where they just decide that 50 megatonne bombs are a benefit to our society on the whole.
    It was a benefit to the Americans at the time as it was them or the German's (although they ended up using it on the Japanese. It's difficult to understand when your country isnt under threat from attack (wherever you live!)[/quote]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    71
    Sorry i meant that as a public opinion, like wherever your from if the majority of the public back you to make this decision then that is the best action to take (more power to the people). But i understand that its a very complex issue, like if we were under threat then the obvious action is to retaliate with firepower.

    I think we live in a very sad state of affairs and we have no say in the matter as to what goes on, but now our lives are in their hands.

    Is it possible for change or do you think this problem will continue to snowball and over time get worse?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    The DMV threat is real and you ask good questions, but we humans live in
    such great numbers that we have to be organized, and government is that organizing. We have had over five thousand years of government and have made a lot of progress while having it.

    Also, war has always been with us during that time because states and barbarians have also been organized.

    Instead of government being the problem, let me bring up several other more threatening problems:

    (1) the growth of crime in cities and governmental corruption from a slide in the way families in our secular society discipline and teach moral principles to their children. This behavioral deterioration makes government less responsible and more dangerous.

    (2) Negotiation does not work without the implied threat of war, so some or occassional war is natural, inevitable.---realism in preference to idealism. Example, since Christians and Judaists insist on invading Islam now and then, the Muslims retaliate. Since we have nuclear arms and modern technology, they resort to terrorism as a way to retaliate without us being able to most effectively use our technology.

    (3) The nature of war is more brutal because of of the behavioral deterioration. People are killed by dropping bombs on them are firing from hidden locations. People sneak and snipe at others. We burn them with flames, fire spent uranium in artillary shells, grow plague germs and print fake money. There is little or no honor in war but there did used to be some.

    (4) Leadership is becoming increasingly religion-centered. This means that the world is becoming led by leaders who look forward to the coming (or 2nd coming) of the "Savior" lled by what the faithful believe will be a Battle of Armageddon. They are not properly motivated to work AGAINST having such a major world conflict with DMVs. It would be less likely to happen if we kept secular leadership, but the trend is away from it.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    22

    It is so sad that one has to use evil to against evil.
    I wish one day, one day there is no religions in the world.
    What people believe are just love, happiness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    124
    Sorry to say that snowfire, but you're just gonna have to keep wishing forever... Violence is a part of human nature, with religion, or without it.
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by snowfire

    It is so sad that one has to use evil to against evil.
    I wish one day, one day there is no religions in the world.
    What people believe are just love, happiness.
    John Lennon's alive :-D :-D .
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    Sorry to say that snowfire, but you're just gonna have to keep wishing forever... Violence is a part of human nature, with religion, or without it.
    I agree, but religion gives people a lot more reasons, excuses, and tools to manipulate than they would otherwise have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    Sorry to say that snowfire, but you're just gonna have to keep wishing forever... Violence is a part of human nature, with religion, or without it.
    I agree, but religion gives people a lot more reasons, excuses, and tools to manipulate than they would otherwise have.
    In what way?

    Reasons/excuses: some people do do some horrific actions in the name of religion (such as terrorists). But there are far more non-religious reasons/excuses for killing people. Consider Hitler.

    Tools: what tools are they provided? Granted, they can say 'do this or you're going to hell'; but, again, there are far more non-religious tools (such as money) that can be used to manipulate people.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    [quoteViolence is a part of human nature, with religion, or without it.
    Reasons/excuses: some people do do some horrific actions in the name of religion (such as terrorists). But there are far more non-religious reasons/excuses for killing people. Consider Hitler.[/quote]

    If Nazism and Bolshivism (now, East Asian Marxism) were/aren't religions, what are they? When a belief system serves the same function as a religionn why not consider it one?

    Myself, I believe the only problem with religions is that they divide us and that they all happen to be so awfull!---mostly, so old or defective. If we had one that " with nuclear bombs so we can satisfy some grand "Second Coming" illusion, we should be world-united by a world-veiw and way of thinking that focuses us on building a new and better civilization, one that steers us into space and the colonizing of our solar system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    The human race will never become 'one' unless we all have something in common to hate. Aliens is the only thing i can think of, so until such time we will have to make do with ourselves.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    If Nazism and Bolshivism (now, East Asian Marxism) were/aren't religions, what are they?
    Ideals.

    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    When a belief system serves the same function as a religionn why not consider it one?
    That's the most nonsensical thing I've heard in all my life.

    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Myself, I believe the only problem with religions is that they divide us and that they all happen to be so awfull!
    Myself, I believe the only problem with atheists is that they're condescending, don't consider the feelings of religious people before they start ranting on about how horrible religion is, and all happen to be so arrogant.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Myself, I believe the only problem with atheists is that they're condescending, don't consider the feelings of religious people before they start ranting on about how horrible religion is, and all happen to be so arrogant.
    Myself, i believe that the only problem with this quote is that you've written it on the assumption that all atheists are condescending, apathetic and arrogant.

    i don't know whether you simply fail to realize that charles brough is not all atheists or whether you simply don't give a rats arse. but while we're on the subject of considering the feelings of other people before a rant why don't you explain to me how you considered, before your own little rant, how i or other atheists might feel being labeled as condescending or arrogant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Myself, I believe the only problem with atheists is that they're condescending, don't consider the feelings of religious people before they start ranting on about how horrible religion is, and all happen to be so arrogant.
    Myself, i believe that the only problem with this quote is that you've written it on the assumption that all atheists are condescending, apathetic and arrogant.

    i don't know whether you simply fail to realize that charles brough is not all atheists or whether you simply don't give a rats arse. but while we're on the subject of considering the feelings of other people before a rant why don't you explain to me how you considered, before your own little rant, how i or other atheists might feel being labeled as condescending or arrogant.
    I was mostly playing on the fact that Mr. Charles is doing some over-generalization himself. Of course I don't think all atheists are like that. You completely missed my sarcasm.

    Now this raises questions in my mind as to how you failed to see Charles's over-generalization, yet readily addressed mine.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I was mostly playing on the fact that Mr. Charles is doing some over-generalization himself. Of course I don't think all atheists are like that. You completely missed my sarcasm.

    Now this raises questions in my mind as to how you failed to see Charles's over-generalization, yet readily addressed mine.
    charles' over generalizations are the same old generalizations i've seen a million times before, and i bet i'll see them a million times more, theres no failing to see them by anyone except for maybe charles himself.

    what i havn't seen a million times over is people taking a stab at atheists, sarcastic or not, so excuse me for paying more attention to your counter arguement than to charles generalizations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    [quote="scientstphilosophertheist"]
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    If Nazism and Bolshivism (now, East Asian Marxism) were/aren't religions, what are they?
    Ideals.

    This seems to have offended the theist. Surely, you believe religions serve some function, don't you? They are systems of belief which we humans have always had and which bind us into the Christian, Hindu, Muslim and other socieites and their civilizations that have brought mankind to where we are now. I respect religions because they serve a vital evolutionary function, a necessary one. Don't be so sensitive. Being a science forum, the focus here is not from a religious but from a scientific perspective.
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    If Nazism and Bolshivism (now, East Asian Marxism) were/aren't religions, what are they?
    Ideals.
    This seems to have offended the theist. Surely, you believe religions serve some function, don't you? They are systems of belief which we humans have always had and which bind us into the Christian, Hindu, Muslim and other socieites and their civilizations that have brought mankind to where we are now. I respect religions because they serve a vital evolutionary function, a necessary one. Don't be so sensitive. Being a science forum, the focus here is not from a religious but from a scientific perspective.
    Actually, I wasn't offended at all. The emoticon was to convey my condescending tone, as I find it quite amazing that you called Nazism and Bolshivism religions.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Good!

    To me, religion is a type of belief or world-view system that serves a vital human social evolutionary function, that of binding people into larger societies than they are otherwise evolved to live in. Every religion has answers to certain questions which, together, comprise a self consistent body of belief that is able to fulfill that function.

    That explains why functionally or structurally, all religions are the same or equal---even though some are constructive and others are more a threat to humanity.

    Religions have evolved in content. They have evolved in the mainstream from primitive animism to polythisms and then to monotheisms.

    That means that if the evolution of type continues, the next religions would be atheistic or at least Free Thinking. And certainly, Marxism and Nazism have served the same function, that is of binding their believers into a society.

    The popular defintion of "religion" is merely a description of old religions and is not a functional definition of what they really are. To define something right is to explain its function. A chair has to be defined as something you sit on.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplent.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •