Side note-God, my response is long... I hate long posts and so hate my own post...

There was a time when I would have insulted you for such a... magical fairytale-type post. However, age has tempered my youthful arrogance and I will attempt to be more respectful.

You have an illusion that is polar opposite from the fanatics who propose that God is our savior and that if everyone follows his word we will all be saved… (Your argument is that the belief in God is our destroyer and that if everyone abandons his word we will all be striving for the betterment of humanity…) You assume that religion is not the excuse for war but the problem itself... If religion is truly the excuse, as I claim, there will be more wars even if religion is abolished and all the wars that have happened, not in the name and constant glorification of God, but for other reasons, will repeat themselves. If religion is the problem, as you state, then wars will dry up and poof, comfort for the world. The betterment of mankind… Um, I need to write a self-help booklet with a title like that…

Think of your ideal utopia... and now, make it real. No wars, no conflict (like trade wars, where entire areas starve out, etcetera,) on massive scales leading to the degradation of other countries. Nothing interesting for the news huh? Just a few murders and social discord now and again? Just near-utopia? No massive riots when corporations cause the subjugation and poverty of millions... No mass rape in Africa? Can someone say boring!

Sorry, I can only respect your opinion so much. I understand your opinion but think it a little wishful thinking. I wish you were right on the money and that religion was the cause, but the rose-colored glasses are not for me. You asked an A/B question and the answer is a mix of A and B-We certainly would invade another planet and try to reason with them. If our terms (The complete surrender of their finate resources and land) of reasoning failed, we would kill them all and take their resources.

Christianity was the excuse we used on the Indians not because we truly believed in god, but because A-It is a form of control and B-It makes us the savior instead of the animal. As I said before, we cannot slaughter because of greed... we need another reason. In other words, religion is a tool and if broken, we will make another one.

Let's look at some wars fought around the world and why... Vietnam? The expansion of communism (Because, we Americans could not abide our competitor actually advancing.) Iraq? Boredom and glory. Rome's barbarity? Conquest. Germany? Racial superiority. The American Civil War? Expansion of Federal powers. The hundreds of mini-conflicts between warring peoples due to poverty? Starvation. The crusades? Religion. Does religion win over in history as the leading cause? Yes. Has religion been involved in the aforementioned wars as a secondary motivator?-No, not even motivator, I mean excuse?-Yes. Germany was supported by the pope and hunted a religious people---for the resources. (Also, just because those nations I used as examples may have been supported by the religious or purported to be religious, they did not fight under the constant "support" or glorification of God. In other words, those wars were fought for religion as much as Iraq was fought because of weapons of mass destruction…)

Will there be something to replace religion on a massive scale if the excuse dies? Yes. Reminds me of the episode of South Park when the world fought a war simply because they could not agree on the name of their all-atheist nation...

We grow bored, we bomb Iraq. We need oil? We take it. We need other resources? Here we come. Government subjects massive amounts of people to poverty? We burn it down. By we, I mean humanity. Oh, Germany is certainly more reasonable than a few hundreds of years ago... cept that whole gassing incident... and I know Africa, a country that sold their own into slavery for the most part, is more reasonable... cept the whole raping and tribal fighting. You know one tribe fights another because they believe male-anal penetration is wrong? Yet male-oral is okay... and the other tribe thinks male-oral is fine, but anal is wrong… so naturally, they both have to kill each other…

So disagree, it’s your right. I just see a lot of "religious" stubbornness in your argument that is equal to the other side's arguments... You are basing your guesses of what might be; I am basing my estimations on what has been...

>> ^Shepppard:
Disagree completely.
If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.
Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.
Oh sure, there would still be killings of sorts, people come home and find another man with their wife and they snap. But that's never going to change.
As for the Natives of the Americas, I got news for you. They were enslaved and sent to Boarding Schools where they were forced to learn... Christianity.
I'm not exactly done with that either. Truly, you think that the people a few hundred years ago were as reasonable as we are now? Picture this, we master space travel. We find a new world inhabited by Aliens. Do you think Earth would A) Kill them all, and declare it Earth II, or B) Try to trade and reason with them?
I'm pretty sure most of us would vote option B. With time we've gained knowledge. Almost everywhere has drifted away from "They're different then us, so we need to not trust them and/or kill them and claim it as ours."
Muslims are a large exception to this, and that's why it has to change.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

Disagree completely.

If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.

Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.

Oh sure, there would still be killings of sorts, people come home and find another man with their wife and they snap. But that's never going to change.

As for the Natives of the Americas, I got news for you. They were enslaved and sent to Boarding Schools where they were forced to learn... Christianity.

I'm not exactly done with that either. Truly, you think that the people a few hundred years ago were as reasonable as we are now? Picture this, we master space travel. We find a new world inhabited by Aliens. Do you think Earth would A) Kill them all, and declare it Earth II, or B) Try to trade and reason with them?

I'm pretty sure most of us would vote option B. With time we've gained knowledge. Almost everywhere has drifted away from "They're different then us, so we need to not trust them and/or kill them and claim it as ours."

Muslims are a large exception to this, and that's why it has to change.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

@bcglorf:

"...what course does the most to reduce conflict and suffering?"

Why, more war, of course!

Isn't that what you've been saying about Afghanistan and Iraq all along?

If we didn't stop bombing the shit out of them and propping up puppet governments, imagine how much worse things would be for them?

That's your logic.

yeah, more war! bring it!

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^campionidelmondo:
Oh ok, so now that it's all in ashes and total anarchy, it's time to leave? I see...a job well done.

I certainly don't think the US is helping by staying. Who needs more war and death? What would you propose the US do?


I think he was saying "mission accomplished" in all seriousness and jest.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
Oh ok, so now that it's all in ashes and total anarchy, it's time to leave? I see...a job well done.


I certainly don't think the US is helping by staying. Who needs more war and death? What would you propose the US do?

>> ^blankfist:
"he lives in a paranoid little bubble the requires him to be armed with deadly weapons to feel safe"

If owning a weapon means you're paranoid, then what do you think having a police force says about everyone?

It's entirely different levels from having a police force who you can call on to uphold the laws of the land when need be vs. always carrying a loaded, deadly weapon with you.

"taxes go towards all the necessary services and infrastructure you wish for in a civilized society"
Like war, maintaining hegemony, prison industrial complex, etc.? Compulsory taxation is indentured servitude. It doesn't matter if you agree with how the stolen money is to be spent. Some probably think we should steal more from people to pay for more wars.

I did say that you can disagree with how it's spent, that's hardly the point. The idea is that you lobby and protest and vote in people that spend the money in a way that you think will better the country, not just remove all money going to the government.


And, infrastructure is a good point. But it's paid for voluntarily by all of us who buy gasoline. The more you drive, the more you fill up your tank, and therefore the more you pay for infrastructure. Voluntary taxation isn't theft and it's very moral.
Except that the fuel tax starts going away as you increase bio cars, especially if they are ones that are electric and are charged from your house that's powered by solar panels. Sure, they are a stupendously tiny minority at the moment, and for the time being they deserve to not have to pay for the roads for all the good they're doing, but once more and more cars stop needing petrol, you start losing that money stream and it needs to come from somewhere.

And what about public transport? You can say that the cost to run it should be entirely in the price of the tickets, but to run a GOOD public transport system is almost impossible to do at a profit or breaking even, so you need to provide more money into, which everyone should give to as it's a benefit to all. (less pollution, less congestion etc.) It's a case where the people who don't use the service ALSO benefit from those that do, so they should foot up some of the bill also.

Also, the whole idea of voluntary taxation falls over when you get to social security. As the very time you NEED it is when you're not in a position TO pay for it. Hence everyone should pay a little to ensure that if they DO need it, it's there. Just having any service be 'user pays' just doesn't work


"Gee, where were THESE people when the billions of dollars were/are being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan."
I agree. There seemed to be less outrage over going to war and the trillions in bailouts.

Agreed

"he lives in a paranoid little bubble the requires him to be armed with deadly weapons to feel safe"

If owning a weapon means you're paranoid, then what do you think having a police force says about everyone?


"taxes go towards all the necessary services and infrastructure you wish for in a civilized society"

Like war, maintaining hegemony, prison industrial complex, etc.? Compulsory taxation is indentured servitude. It doesn't matter if you agree with how the stolen money is to be spent. Some probably think we should steal more from people to pay for more wars.

And, infrastructure is a good point. But it's paid for voluntarily by all of us who buy gasoline. The more you drive, the more you fill up your tank, and therefore the more you pay for infrastructure. Voluntary taxation isn't theft and it's very moral.


"Gee, where were THESE people when the billions of dollars were/are being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan."

I agree. There seemed to be less outrage over going to war and the trillions in bailouts.

dude....DUUUUDE...
man..what can i say...?
but that you ROCK!
oh..got me some lyrics for those of you who cant understand our boy Tom araya:
Propaganda death ensemble
Burial to be
Corpses rotting through the night
In blood laced misery
Scorched earth the policy
The reason for the singe
The pendulum it shaves the blade
The strafing air blood raid

Infiltration push reserves
Encircle the front llines
Supreme art of strategy
Playing on the minds
Bombard till submission
Take all to their graves
Indication of triumph
The number that are dead

Chorus
Sport the war, war support
The sport is war, total war
When victorys a massacre
The final swing is not a drill
Its how many people I can kill

Chorus

Be dead friend from abve
When darkness falls
Descend into my sights
Your fallen walls
Spearhead break through the lines
Flanked all around
Soldiers of attrition
Forward their ground
Gregime prophetic age
Old in its time
Flowing veins run on through
Deep in the rhine
Center of the web
All battles scored
What is our war crimes
(era forever more...war)

Propaganda war ensemble
Burial to be
Bones shining in the night
In blood laced misery
Campaign of elimination
Twisted psychology
When victory is to survive
And death is defeat

Chorus
Sport the war, war support
The sport is total war
When victorys a massacre
When victory is survival
When this end is a slaughter
The final swing is not a drill
Its how many people I can kill

Yay! Troop Surge! No More War Taxes!

Umm what?

'Money for nothing and my troops for free'

I'm not sure I agree with his specific complaints about big pharma, although I agree in principle that big pharma is terrifyingly powerful. Also, the carcinogens in our drinking water bit doesn't seem right.

But in general, I tend to agree with him.

There was a fantastic full-length documentary about the 'dirty fucking hippies' on the sift somewhere that left me with the same feeling expressed by this sift.

ah, here we go: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Electric-Kool-Aid-Acid-Test-CIA-Scenario-Backfires#comment-121652

Basically, that video said that all those protesters actually stopped the vietnam war. But what freaks me out is... if those people are the baby boomers, aka rthe people who are in power now... why the fuck do they keep making more and more wars?

it's so frustrating, especially when you realise just very VERY right the dirty fuckin' hippies were.

>> ^volumptuous:
^ Methinks you should get your ass to Iraq since you love dead kids so much.
CP420 apparently doesn't give one shit about what the Iraqis think, or want. He just wants more war, more bloodshed, and more US imperialism. The concept of Iraqis wanting the US the fuck out of their country, doesn't phaze the Cap'n here. Imperialism, domination and blood are the only things that bring a smile to his face.

And sorry. But I would have a history-lesson-off with you any day of the week. If there is one bit of foreign policy and history that I'm a "buff" on, it's Mesopotamia, biznitch. I'd wipe the floor with you quicker than you can say Gertrude Bell. (as cp420 scrambles to wikipedia)


I'll take that as non-responsive since you resorted to cursing and name calling with no factual rebuttal. So you admired Hussein boy Sr. and his human rights violations? That's really great. OTOH, I like it when people can defend themselves.

^ Methinks you should get your ass to Iraq since you love dead kids so much.

CP420 apparently doesn't give one shit about what the Iraqis think, or want. He just wants more war, more bloodshed, and more US imperialism. The concept of Iraqis wanting the US the fuck out of their country, doesn't phaze the Cap'n here. Imperialism, domination and blood are the only things that bring a smile to his face.


And sorry. But I would have a history-lesson-off with you any day of the week. If there is one bit of foreign policy and history that I'm a "buff" on, it's Mesopotamia, biznitch. I'd wipe the floor with you quicker than you can say Gertrude Bell. (as cp420 scrambles to wikipedia)

I must've misunderstood your comment, then.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
For the record, I never advocated sending troops into North Korea and Sudan.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I do know about it, but you were talking about sending troops onto new battlegrounds in N. Korea and Sudan.

I think before we start more wars, we need to do more diplomacy and foreign aid.

The answer to both North Korea and Darfur/Sudan is China. We have a relationship with them now, let's twist their arm a little.

If we invaded Sudan, what's the mission? If we invated N. Korea, what's the mission?

Toppling the existing regime and replacing it with one of our own design?

No thanks. Been there, done that.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Just saw this comment from back in the day.

Do you not know about all the help we have provided around the world that has nothing to do with violence?



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Can't the US do something around the world that doesn't involve the military?

For the record, I never advocated sending troops into North Korea and Sudan.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I do know about it, but you were talking about sending troops onto new battlegrounds in N. Korea and Sudan.

I think before we start more wars, we need to do more diplomacy and foreign aid.

The answer to both North Korea and Darfur/Sudan is China. We have a relationship with them now, let's twist their arm a little.

If we invaded Sudan, what's the mission? If we invated N. Korea, what's the mission?

Toppling the existing regime and replacing it with one of our own design?

No thanks. Been there, done that.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Just saw this comment from back in the day.

Do you not know about all the help we have provided around the world that has nothing to do with violence?



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Can't the US do something around the world that doesn't involve the military?