Forum menu
WW2 - you kidding me? Lots of Jews being exterminated... Looks like a religious component to me.
Looks like a religious component to me.
So you've downgraded it from "a huge religious component" to just "a religious component" now ?
But yeah, if the Jews hadn't been so religious, then WW2 would not have happened.
Good point well made.
Lots of Jews being exterminated... Looks like a religious component to me
Racial component, mate. Different.
In that case race and religion correlate.
Melvyn Bragg told me* that the American Civil War was partly religious in that both sides used convenient parts of the Bible to justify their position on slavery.
*on the telly
I was kind of hoping that by asking a specific question, this would be the one thread about religion that didn't go back to the same old themes of world war two and the big bang.
Oh well. Still no answer.
Why wouldn't anyone mention WW2 ? ........ it's a known fact that religion is the cause of all wars, except the ones which weren't caused by religion.
Religion's not so much the cause, as the justication. Wars are usually about power, access to resources etc.
But surely the ACW was more political than religious. There would have been many "believers" on either side who could be swayed by a preacher telling them that god was on their side. But it wasn't about one religion or race's hatred of another...the efelant in room of one side wanting to continue to treat other human beings as sub-human. Anyway, I think there are other wars already mentioned that probably weren't that religious anyway.
It was probably mainly economic. But my point was that religion's often (not always) the excuse for a war.
[i]The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles[/i] : FACT
How it manifests itself does not detract from that inalienable truth. Race, religion, nation, makes no difference, it is still the interminable struggles between oppressor and oppressed. New conditions simply create new forms of oppression, and new oppressors and oppressed.
Blame religion and you have missed the point. And therefore the solution.
There was a large undercurrent of religious fervour in the Federal States before and during the American Civil War. The leaders of the movement to free the slaves used the pulpits of churches to get their message across, often using quite rousing and inflammatory commentaries on the evils of slavery. The strange thing is they were quite racist in their own attitudes, beleiving that negroes were mentally deficient, 'childlike' in their ability to percieve the world and that the white, Northern Men of God were needed to show them how to live good lives.
Religion (as used by the above movement) was a large mover of public opinion in the North towards support for a war with the seccessionist States.
I am in agreement with ernesto's point. I often wonder why humans evolved systems of class which then start to turn on themselves and self-consume.
Then I just get on and chop another piece of timber.
Squidlord and muddydwarf may soon run out of hairs to split.
It was probably mainly economic.
All wars are about economic power. There is no power other than economic power.
That rule can be applied to the Roman conquest of Britain 2000 years, or the bombing of Libya today.
Interesting programme on Beeb2 tonight about whether God had a wife. The presenter could seriously have me developing an interest in theology.
I saw that, lovely Greek girl.
Very interesting programme about the development of the early religions of the pre-Israel Nations. That Rabbinical scholar got on my wick though with his not-so-implied insistence that Judaism is obviously so much more superior than any other religious or world view.
Love how he flatly contradicted the parts of Hebrew texts that didn't support his statements.
As a rule I tend to avoid debating with people that continue to support a notion but cannot provide a single verifiable fact to back it up, but this quote I saw is too good not to share:
“What is often described as a debate between creationism and evolutionary theory is in fact a debate between creationism and the whole of science as we know it. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. For informed people to challenge accepted scientific orthodoxy on the basis of proper evidence is always healthy, but to debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion.” Neil Butcher
deadlydarcy - MemberSquidlord and muddydwarf may soon run out of hairs to split.
No, thought you were interested in the ACW, that's all.
Anyway, surely if we were splitting hairs, we'd then have twice as many as we started with... We wouldn't run out 😛
But how many angels could dance on the end of them?
verifiable fact
[img] 
[/img]
Civil war was about the Southern Alliance trying to leave the union.They were at that time confident that the price of cotton (pre Egypt) would allow them to survive,without the Industrial North.The North wished to prevent them,and went to/provoked,war. Despite the religious justification for slavery used,it was not about that,it was about the potential economic impact of 80% of the workforce leaving/demanding better pay and conditions.After the war the North allowed the South to impose "Jim Crow laws" to control the black population
BTW; Did you know that the great emancipator Abe Lincoln favoured forced repatriation to Africa for a people who had never seen the continent and were not seasoned.He only freed the slaves to try and create a 4-4.5 million strong army behind Confed lines.
What is often described as a debate between creationism and evolutionary theory is in fact a debate between creationism and the whole of science as we know it. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. For informed people to challenge accepted scientific orthodoxy on the basis of proper evidence is always healthy, but to debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion.
Newtonian Physics [i]is[/i] wrong, yer numpty. What world do you live in?
Oh, and so is 'Einsteinian' Physics. Now I'm not saying that I believe in creationism, but is just shows how crap that quote is.
On top of which, the way it is phrased, it implies that Einsteinian [i]and [/i]Newtonian physics are both 'correct'. Which, given that they are in conflict cannot be true. So the quote isn't even internally consistent! Then he has the cheek to talk about challenging scientific orthodoxy! Hey buddy! They have! You've just had your head so far up yer .... that you haven't found out yet!
Newtonian Physics is not wrong. It's a special case.
It doesn't explain the world
It doesn't explain the world
Oh that old conundrum.
Didn't you get the memo? I created it with a band of lesbians last week, complete with everything, including memories. We're still having some work done, Jupiter didn't turn out how we liked. I'm thinking about changing it to a large disco glitterball? Whatcha reckon?
Oh that old conundrum.Didn't you get the memo? I created it with a band of lesbians last week, complete with everything, including memories. We're still having some work done, Jupiter didn't turn out how we liked. I'm thinking about changing it to a large disco glitterball? Whatcha reckon?
No, really. If you don't understand any Physics, you can't really take part in this discussion.
It doesn't explain the world
Meaning what?
No, really. If you don't understand any Physics, you can't really take part in this discussion.
I was aiming at fun because you have strayed into more of a philosophical nature, stating that Newtonian mechanics isn't precise really isn't helpful when you when you end up asking "It doesn't explain the world". You should try reading Hawking's books, I believe he posits a theory about branes and how they interact to create universes.
I have a PhD in molecular electronics and studied quantum mechanics in quite some detail, so I do actually know quite a bit about physics ta.
If you don't understand any philosophy (especially solipsism) I suggest you don't add anything else...
I asked my Daughter how she knew God was a man, not a woman.
She said, "D'uh! if it was a woman then it'd be Godess, not God"
Seems fair to me - and about as valid as anyone else's theory 😉
Newtonian Physics is wrong, yer numpty. What world do you live in?
Well the one I live in is described very well by Newtonian Physics. It's not perfect, but only a fool would dismiss it as wrong. Not completely correct in all cases would be a better way of describing it.
Lol @ AdamW
When CM posted
What world do you live in?
I was going to reply that he had probably drifted in from a neighbouring brane, but thought it might have been lost.
Sorry I'm late. Are there any Hobnobs left?
Loud mouthed atheists spouting extracts from the god delusion at religious people they don't understand is just as bad.
Does this happen? Has this ever happened? Or have you made it up in order to give weight to your argument? [citation needed]
Do you believe in the Higgs Boson?
Two things,
1) the Higgs Boson neither requires nor demands "belief." Scientists don't "believe" in the Higgs Boson, it's a theory and they've built a little machine to test this theory.
2) The difference between the Higgs Boson and god is that there is evidence to support the existence of the HB. Specifically, the things that we can see and measure behave in such a way as to indicate the presence of something else that we've not discovered yet. The LHC is looking for this something. Comparing the two is disingenuous as it assumes an identical starting point when this isn't in fact the case.
The Einstein story is presented as fact, not a parable. Why do that when it's so easily disproved ?
Because the majority of people don't question things, they believe what they're told. Even if a relatively (ho ho!) small number of people go "well, that's deliberately misleading!" it doesn't matter, we're statistically insignificant.
If you don't understand any Physics, you can't really take part in this discussion.
If you don't understand Physics, you can't take part in a discussion about religion? It's practically a prerequisite!
Well the one I live in is described very well by Newtonian Physics
really?? How do you pick up stuff?
I have a PhD in molecular electronics and studied quantum mechanics in quite some detail, so I do actually know quite a bit about physics ta.
So, i was supposed to get that from your original post how?
If you don't understand Physics, you can't take part in a discussion about religion?
Now, that's not what I said is it?
really?? How do you pick up stuff?
How about you tell us nicely why Newtonian Physics prohibits the picking up of stuff rather than asking sarky questions?
How do you pick up stuff?
Eh? I lift things with my hand/arm putting in work to overcome the force of gravity which as I'm not close to any massive gravity well or travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light is very well decribed by Newtonian mechanics.
What problems do you experience when picking stuff up?
What problems do you experience when picking stuff up?
I don't, but then i don't live in a Newtonian world.
the laws in my world allow me to grip and squeeze stuff. It's a lot more fun!
What problems do you experience when picking stuff up?
Schrödinger's cat steals it.
"Loud mouthed atheists spouting extracts from the god delusion at religious people they don't understand is just as bad. "
Er, actually I'm an atheist and have never read or quoted Dawkins. atheism was around for a considerable time before Dawkins and his is not the only reading material available on the subject.
As it's only relatively recently that we could publicly state our atheism, without Christians torturing,having a pogrom or setting fire to us, we get a little giddy and feel it's nice to be allowed to express our opinions in relative physical safety sometimes. Sorry about that.
I don't, but then i don't live in a Newtonian world.
So for you Force doesn't equal Mass times Acceleration?
So for you Force doesn't equal Mass times Acceleration?
🙂
Schrödinger's cat steals it.
Go on, explain that statement in a thread full of physicists, I challenge you.
Charlie - wtf are you talking about? Tell me where Newton's laws stop you from picking stuff up?
If it were all Newtonian, stuff would break when we tried picking it up, unless we were very very very careful.
If it were all Newtonian, stuff would break when we tried picking it up, unless we were very very very careful.
See now I'm really confused. I thought that it was going to be about how Newtonian mechanics breaks down at very high velocities or near very large gravity wells (e.g. the orbit of Mercury that doesn't obey Newtonian mechanics), or something to do with quantum mechanics but this is new to me. Why does Newtonian physics require stuff to break when picked up?
Because atoms and other smaller stuff would have to behave in a Newtonian manner.
I thought it might be about the failure to get a Unified Theroy of Everything [quantum v Newtonian]but incompletness and wrongness are not the same.
I am also intringued just answer the question please you flirt