Is anyone else scared sh*tless by this?

The US military is big .. really big when compared to the rest of the world. No one disputes this. Seems to me that the only two things having any deterence power over our new form of imperialism .. er .. democratic persuasion is A) military casualties and B) cost. Military programs like this drastically radically reduce these two barriers.

But lower American casualties sound great, right? Well, imagine 10~20 years from now when America is a few revs into optimizing these machines for production cost and lethality. And you know we'll be stockpiling them (oh, how we like to build 'em big and in plenty). Now you have a overwhelming fighting force that can be parked on the lawn (or sand dune) of any nation that dares to disagree with our policies.

So far these (NLOS, predators w/ hellfires, etc.) haven't been flagged as an atrocity by the general public as nuclear weapons are, they're simply seen as a non-traditional way of fighting conventional warfare. But the devastation unleashed by autonomous military vehicles could be just as massive to civilian casualities if done in the right numbers, especially since the conflict is so impersonal. Think about the history of conflict, advancing from hand to hand, to ranged guns/artillery/mines, to aircraft bombs .. and how many more civilians die as collateral damage in modern warfare. The military tech advantage would ensure that we keep a monopoly on this warfare for a good number of years. If we had them today, I bet we'd already have invaded Iran with little debate on the subject.

Ideally this would be a good thing. Less casualties. Perhaps in a "noble" war where we clearly have the moral high ground (though even WWII had its firebombing atrocities). But with a government you can't trust, a country with a military budget far exceeding the rest of the world combined, a looming energy crisis, and an ignorant public, this has got to be one of the scariest things on the horizon.

Also; I'm puzzled as to why atheists like him feel the need to "Preach" their beliefs to others. He speaks of those that atheists "need to reach" in the video. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this one of the most distasteful (and irritating) things about the followers of organised religions.

Yes, well, as he explains in this video, the goal is not necessarily to convert people, but to "raise consciousness" as he puts it, to make atheism a legitimate point of view, if nothing else. Atheists wont threaten you with eternal hellfire unless you reject the supernatural, nor do we intend to have people follow some silly rules about sex that we invented. We dont want people to bow to some earthly nor celestial supreme being. Nor do we make outrageously arrogant claims of knowledge and certainty without at the very least pointing to publicly available evidence.

If we had to make demands, it would probably be that people should have a right, and a duty, to think for themselves.

"Not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning." To your points:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.

I tend to agree with you that this argument matters little and is tangential to the whole topic. However, you've supplied a fair amount of evidence for this point including inflammatory phrases such as "magical teapot believers", "nutjobs", "full of shit", "I think you know where you can store your advice", etc.

2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.

Again, I don't see it being too central to the original discussion. It is interesting, though, that you stated "Militant, in your face, logical, rational atheism is the only chance we have of salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet." Sounds like you're out to "evangelize" change in the world then? Perhaps even applauding where militant atheism is applied? More on that in point #4.

3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.

A strawman argument that is so over simplified and incorrect that it isn't worth addressing.


4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.

Nobody denies the crusade, inquisition, etc. took place, but the issue is whether these people are "Christian" or not. Did they call themselves Christian? Yes. Were their actions aligned with the words and example Jesus laid out for his followers and, therefore, what Christians are supposed to be like? No. You are assuming that all those who claim to be Christian are truthful representatives of Jesus and not self-centered, power-hungry, opportunists who saw it was fashionable to call themselves "Christian" given the power structure of the day. You are attempting to equate two vastly different entities and, therefore, the logic fails.

Is it fair to level the same charges against atheism by equating the actions of atheistic states to represent all atheists? 26.3 million killed in China under Mao Tse Tung, 66 million in the Soviet Union under Lenin/Stalin/Khrushchev, 2.5 million under Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. If you are going to make the claim that Christians are genocidal monsters, it would seem that atheists are in the same boat. If you want to talk about current events, communist regimes with atheistic tenants (e.g. China, North Korea, etc.) continue to be highlighted for human rights abuses as they target those purely because of religious beliefs (do a search on hrw.org for examples). The problem here is that it is hard to argue that these leaders are not following the "beliefs" laid down by what you portray of atheism -- religious people are "nutjobs" and there is work to do in "salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet".


5. God wants us to have free will.

Free will is a core point used against the logical "problem of evil" or "problem of hell" arguments. You've had your own ad hominem arguments to try and avoid it -- "That's some good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt if I've ever heard it."or "More rhetoric and no substance." You also attempt to claim that free will can't exist in the Christian view -- "And the Christian set of rules by which you must live is most certainly NOT free." You are trying to change the definition of free will with freedom from consequence -- again, another logical fallacy. Along your line of argument, free will should include the ability to choose to go to heaven. However, if heaven is a "perfect place", would it be perfect if anyone and everyone could be there? Free will cannot make logical impossibilities true -- can I choose to make myself invisible? score 5000 on the SAT test? etc.


6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.

Old argument? Yes. The core argument of the cartoon is "The Problem of Hell", a variant of "The Problem of Evil"/Epicurus' Riddle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell) which is a logical argument that has been around for a long while.

Hold water. Not bad. You could say the same of the theistic ontological argument too. Atheists and Christians have used these for some time and, as such, it is apparent that neither side considers the other's logical "proof" so compelling as to concede defeat. I expect that you'd claim this to be more "bullshit", as you are fond of saying, so I'll be more direct. "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." is not true. Free will and yet being unable to choose evil are logically inconsistent. On one hand, you have free will with the potential for evil while on the other, no evil but no free will.


7. Well over 90% of the world is religious.

Arguing over a relatively small percentage seems to be silly -- the point that the vast majority of the population is religious isn't impacted by the difference. It seems equally ridiculous to claim that a majority is proof of something -- I'm sure that Christian and Atheist alike can site a majority opinion either now or in the past that we consider incorrect.


And to sum up what we've heard outside of these points:

1. Then I suppose Jesus and the old testament God are full of crap as well. Which I happen to agree with.
2. But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is rife with examples of God threatening eternal damnation and hellfire to anyone who doesn't follow his rules.

For all of the times you've bashed people for lacking logic or evidence, where is it when you make these assertions? You've read what Jesus did/said and can comment specifically how he is full of crap then?


Although it has been interesting to watch the comments go back and forth on this and to jump in from time to time, I find the following quotation by Elbert Hubbard appropriate, "Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice." As this string of comments (along with hundreds like it scattered about the internet) shows, God is not going to be proved or disproved by logical arguments alone.

God loves everyone, anyone who says your going to hell is full of crap.

Then I suppose Jesus and the old testament God are full of crap as well.

Which I happen to agree with.

But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is rife with examples of God threatening eternal damnation and hellfire to anyone who doesn't follow his rules.

Sorry, Christians can't have it both ways.

Obey God, or spend eternity in unimaginable suffering.

Let this expire in the queue and all shall suffer hellfire! Just you wait!

This video really has it all. We have the preacher, preaching hellfire and brimstone to a bunch of liberal college kids who just woke up from a three-day drunk. Maybe a different venue would be a better idea?

We have the cameraman, who thinks he's very "witty" in capturing a non-event.

And then we have the liberal professor, who resorts to foul language to get his point across, balks when he's asked whether he believes in God, and acts like a jerk, as will most egotistical professors in a situation like that.

Upvote for a good example of why this country is going down the toilet.

I dont desire an invisible man in the sky watching my every move, and possibly sending me to eternal hellfire for some of those moves, So I guess that by his own standards, that proves Lewis wrong

In this scene an ominous knock sounds at the door. Leporello, paralyzed by fear, cannot answer, so Giovanni opens the door himself to reveal the statue of the Commendatore.

"Don Giovanni! a cenar teco m'invitasti - Don Giovanni! To dine with you you've invited me."

It exhorts the careless villain to repent of his wicked lifestyle, but Giovanni adamantly refuses. The statue sinks into the earth and drags Giovanni with him. Hellfire surrounds Don Giovanni as he is carried below.

Donna Anna, Don Ottavio, Donna Elvira, Zerlina, and Masetto arrive, searching for the villain. They find instead Leporello under the table, shaken from the horror he has witnessed, which he describes to the others. The concluding chorus delivers the moral of the opera - "So ends he who evil did. The death of a sinner always reflects their life."

Don Giovanni (literally "The Punished Rake, or Don Giovanni") is an opera in two acts with music by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte. It was premiered in the Estates Theatre in Prague on October 29, 1787. Don Giovanni is widely regarded as one of the greatest pieces of music ever composed, and of the many operas based on the legend of Don Juan, Mozart's is thought to be beyond comparison. The opera was billed as dramma giocoso or "playful drama", belonging to a genre neither completely comic nor completely tragic.

Rickegee, truly a man after my own heart... I get chills whenever I see this scene.

Hellfire? That's a new one... this is the FGM-148 Javelin fire-and-forget anti-tank system