Florida Christians protest atheist billboard
15 Aug 2009, 3:17 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
Dresden was not a military target.
Dresden had railroad marshalling yards for troop trains and there were anit-aircraft canon batteries in Dresden. It was a kosher target by the then current rules of war. The city of government of Dresden never declared Dresden an open (i.e. undefended) city. Indeed they would not dare. The nazi government would haVe had them hung for cowardice and treason.
Dresden was a legal target and a good one. It burned beautifully. It was Sir Arthur Harris' masterpiece. Almost as good as the low level incendiary raids Gen. Curtis Lemay sent against the Japanese cities.
It would behoove you to learn some historical facts instead of letting your political prejudices lead you astray.
ruveyn
As it would behoove you to let go of racial and historical prejudices... and your comment about Dresden burning beautifully sickens me, personally. I can only begin to think of your response were someone to make that comment about Pearl Harbor. That you continue to grasp tightly to so much hate, loathing and violence after 60 years is remarkably saddening.
M.
_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.
For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
15 Aug 2009, 7:23 pm
makuranososhi wrote:
As it would behoove you to let go of racial and historical prejudices... and your comment about Dresden burning beautifully sickens me, personally. I can only begin to think of your response were someone to make that comment about Pearl Harbor. That you continue to grasp tightly to so much hate, loathing and violence after 60 years is remarkably saddening.
M.
Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to relive them, again and again and again. Without our past, we have no future.
If our forces had not fought hard and well against Germany, I would have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathroom sink.
Lessons. It is all about lessons. Here are the lessons;
1. Cherish and defend your friends
2. Destroy your enemies
3. Be polite to the neutrals. You will probably be doing business with them.
4. Good manners count for more than morality.
ruveyn
15 Aug 2009, 7:38 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
I have no quarrel with confronting a murdering force and opposing and destroying it but to purposely and with clear intent vengefully kill helpless people indiscriminately is clearly a war crime under international agreement. The term "collateral damage" is the militarists verbal excuse for insane murder. If a bank robber killed a batch of civilians and stole money he is not merely convicted for the money stolen but held fully responsible for the murder involved. Unnecessary killing is a basic crime. Hiroshima was not a military target. Dresden was not a military target. And in our current wars the wild murder of wedding parties and funeral processions is not in pursuit of actual terrorists but the claim that there were terrorists after the fact is in the same order of the frequently corrupt practice of the police shoving a gun into the pocket of an innocent bystander who had been shot down in mistake. Very clearly the stumblebums who shoot innocents only arouse huge hatreds in a local population that knows better and only generate more resistance than it supposedly conquers. It is a huge military tactical error.
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were major population center, but small towns. The goal was not for genocide, but to end a war. It stinks to have lost lives of civilians though, and I don't think it needed to. What could have been done is for an unpopulated area within visual range of Tokyo to have been hit. That would have equally shown to the Sun King a weapon which is "Brighter than the Sun".
Quite frankly, Japan was already experiencing defeat. I think even more diplomatic solutions could've easily ended the war.
Quote:
As for the middle east, nothing is going to stop the irrational hatred of the Jews [or of America either for that matter] amongst either Muslims or idiotic European types.
Here we see the much attested to radically anti-establishment moral clarity of Christianity. I've heard so much about it, but to see it is truly amazing. They say Christianity's the one religion that transcends tribalism and nationalism and they're right.
Thank god you can see the idiocy of those Arabs who detest America for using their region as a gas station. Thank god you can see how benevolent and idealistic US foreign policy has been. Those stupid Arabs, what, living in war zones partially due to US involvement are nowhere near as bright or clear thinking on the issue as a relatively (realitive to the third world) affluent American righteous Christian. You and likeminded individuals truly have the moral clarity to see past such stupidity that third worlders the world over cannot. You obviously see America as the flawless shining city on the hill that it truly is, not as evil foreign journalists, policy analysts, and social critics pretend it is. Thank goodness for your moral clarity.
Quote:
Even if you bomb them with antimatter photon torpedoes or whatever the heck else, they will never get the point. Why bother? Israel is powerful enough to take care of herself anyway.
Israel does indeed have the might to sack as many Palestinian villages as the far right in that country can hate. Thank goodness for Christianity's "The mighty shall inherit the earth" philosophy, which you so faithfully follow.
Quote:
As for Atheist buses and billboards, they'll do nothing. Just like Christian billboards do nothing. Really the public school system is the most effective method of indoctrination into this belief system, whether you like it being called a belief system or not.
I'm sorry to say, but the billboards aren't targeted towards getting theists to suddenly say "I've been wrong all these years! I might as well now join an atheist group." THe billboard is targeted towards people who are atheists already to join nontheist groups and perhaps its also trying to convince a few people that atheism ≠ immorality. But after seeing the moral clarity and humility with which you've denigrated hundreds of millions of people and your truly non-nationalist speeches I'm having second thoughts. Maybe the supposed moral humility of Christianity really is the only way.
Last edited by Master_Pedant on 15 Aug 2009, 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
15 Aug 2009, 7:51 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Thank goodness America has militariasts like you, willing, no, eager, to start WWIII. The fact the Romans were somewhat successful at salting the earth and killing people doesn't justify their actions.
.
WW2 (actually WW1 continued) was started by the Germans and the Japanese. The Italians went along for the ride (to their ruination). We did not start WW2. We finished WW2.
I didn't say Americans started WWI or WWII. I said certain American militarists like you, a few ultra-hawkish liberals (Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris), and traditional hawks wish to start World War Three (as nuking a significiantly populated and predominantly Muslim country surly would).
Quote:
Every year, I remember and rejoice the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What can I say? We do it right in the Fatherland.
ruveyn
What can I say? We do it right in the Fatherland.
ruveyn
Indeed, the vaporization of living, breathing, feeling people, including women and children, as well as mass inducing of cancer among people nearby is something everyone should feel joy in. I can even feel a tear of joy come out my eye as you say that... wait... I can't.
15 Aug 2009, 8:34 pm
I always cringe when someone calls me good. I'm often called good, but those people don't know my thoughts, and temptations.
Matthew 19:17 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
15 Aug 2009, 8:39 pm
ruveyn wrote:
makuranososhi wrote:
As it would behoove you to let go of racial and historical prejudices... and your comment about Dresden burning beautifully sickens me, personally. I can only begin to think of your response were someone to make that comment about Pearl Harbor. That you continue to grasp tightly to so much hate, loathing and violence after 60 years is remarkably saddening.
M.
Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to relive them, again and again and again. Without our past, we have no future.
If our forces had not fought hard and well against Germany, I would have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathroom sink.
Lessons. It is all about lessons. Here are the lessons;
1. Cherish and defend your friends
2. Destroy your enemies
3. Be polite to the neutrals. You will probably be doing business with them.
4. Good manners count for more than morality.
ruveyn
Your conclusion that, since the Nazis acted like Nazis the British who were the victim of unrestricted war were justified in acting like Nazis also seems rather odd in consideration of what the British were supposed to be fighting for. What were they defending if they concurred in Nazi principles? If the Nazis persecuted Jews were the British to be justified in pursuing that policy?
The aphorism "Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it." spoken by Santayana is one of the most simpleminded stupid and oft quoted sayings by people who have no historical perspective whatsoever since many powerful organizations, governmental, religious and business have been wholly aware of their frightful errors for centuries and nevertheless persisted in their idiotic strategies without further contemplation and to frightful consequences.
15 Aug 2009, 8:54 pm
ruveyn wrote:
makuranososhi wrote:
As it would behoove you to let go of racial and historical prejudices... and your comment about Dresden burning beautifully sickens me, personally. I can only begin to think of your response were someone to make that comment about Pearl Harbor. That you continue to grasp tightly to so much hate, loathing and violence after 60 years is remarkably saddening.
M.
Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to relive them, again and again and again. Without our past, we have no future.
If our forces had not fought hard and well against Germany, I would have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathroom sink.
Lessons. It is all about lessons. Here are the lessons;
1. Cherish and defend your friends
2. Destroy your enemies
3. Be polite to the neutrals. You will probably be doing business with them.
4. Good manners count for more than morality.
ruveyn
I agree that those who forget are doomed to repeat it - and those who live in the past are condemned to never escape it. No one said forget what can be learned, from what I can tell. But you celebrate wholesale slaughter of innocent and culpable alike, and the ruination of others... I find those behaviors appalling. I can understand your hatred for the Nazis, and for those who slew kin and neighbor - yet those people are long gone, and new members of society have risen. And while some may share characteristics, you paint them all with the same brush, with paint rotting from the decades that have passed. I do not understand why you keep your hatred alive, tended like an orchid in a hothouse, seeking it ever to bloom.
M.
_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.
For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
15 Aug 2009, 9:08 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
I have no quarrel with confronting a murdering force and opposing and destroying it but to purposely and with clear intent vengefully kill helpless people indiscriminately is clearly a war crime under international agreement. The term "collateral damage" is the militarists verbal excuse for insane murder. If a bank robber killed a batch of civilians and stole money he is not merely convicted for the money stolen but held fully responsible for the murder involved. Unnecessary killing is a basic crime. Hiroshima was not a military target. Dresden was not a military target. And in our current wars the wild murder of wedding parties and funeral processions is not in pursuit of actual terrorists but the claim that there were terrorists after the fact is in the same order of the frequently corrupt practice of the police shoving a gun into the pocket of an innocent bystander who had been shot down in mistake. Very clearly the stumblebums who shoot innocents only arouse huge hatreds in a local population that knows better and only generate more resistance than it supposedly conquers. It is a huge military tactical error.
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were major population center, but small towns. The goal was not for genocide, but to end a war. It stinks to have lost lives of civilians though, and I don't think it needed to. What could have been done is for an unpopulated area within visual range of Tokyo to have been hit. That would have equally shown to the Sun King a weapon which is "Brighter than the Sun".
Quite frankly, Japan was already experiencing defeat. I think even more diplomatic solutions could've easily ended the war.
Quote:
As for the middle east, nothing is going to stop the irrational hatred of the Jews [or of America either for that matter] amongst either Muslims or idiotic European types.
Here we see the much attested to radically anti-establishment moral clarity of Christianity. I've heard so much about it, but to see it is truly amazing. They say Christianity's the one religion that transcends tribalism and nationalism and they're right.
Thank god you can see the idiocy of those Arabs who detest America for using their region as a gas station. Thank god you can see how benevolent and idealistic US foreign policy has been. Those stupid Arabs, what, living in war zones partially due to US involvement are nowhere near as bright or clear thinking on the issue as a relatively (realitive to the third world) affluent American righteous Christian. You and likeminded individuals truly have the moral clarity to see past such stupidity that third worlders the world over cannot. You obviously see America as the flawless shining city on the hill that it truly is, not as evil foreign journalists, policy analysts, and social critics pretend it is. Thank goodness for your moral clarity.
Quote:
Even if you bomb them with antimatter photon torpedoes or whatever the heck else, they will never get the point. Why bother? Israel is powerful enough to take care of herself anyway.
Israel does indeed have the might to sack as many Palestinian villages as the far right in that country can hate. Thank goodness for Christianity's "The mighty shall inherit the earth" philosophy, which you so faithfully follow.
Quote:
As for Atheist buses and billboards, they'll do nothing. Just like Christian billboards do nothing. Really the public school system is the most effective method of indoctrination into this belief system, whether you like it being called a belief system or not.
I'm sorry to say, but the billboards aren't targeted towards getting theists to suddenly say "I've been wrong all these years! I might as well now join an atheist group." THe billboard is targeted towards people who are atheists already to join nontheist groups and perhaps its also trying to convince a few people that atheism ≠ immorality. But after seeing the moral clarity and humility with which you've denigrated hundreds of millions of people and your truly non-nationalist speeches I'm having second thoughts. Maybe the supposed moral humility of Christianity really is the only way.
Wow, clear eyes. I am so impressed by an Aspie using sarcasm to deride...
15 Aug 2009, 10:02 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
I have no quarrel with confronting a murdering force and opposing and destroying it but to purposely and with clear intent vengefully kill helpless people indiscriminately is clearly a war crime under international agreement. The term "collateral damage" is the militarists verbal excuse for insane murder. If a bank robber killed a batch of civilians and stole money he is not merely convicted for the money stolen but held fully responsible for the murder involved. Unnecessary killing is a basic crime. Hiroshima was not a military target. Dresden was not a military target. And in our current wars the wild murder of wedding parties and funeral processions is not in pursuit of actual terrorists but the claim that there were terrorists after the fact is in the same order of the frequently corrupt practice of the police shoving a gun into the pocket of an innocent bystander who had been shot down in mistake. Very clearly the stumblebums who shoot innocents only arouse huge hatreds in a local population that knows better and only generate more resistance than it supposedly conquers. It is a huge military tactical error.
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were major population center, but small towns. The goal was not for genocide, but to end a war. It stinks to have lost lives of civilians though, and I don't think it needed to. What could have been done is for an unpopulated area within visual range of Tokyo to have been hit. That would have equally shown to the Sun King a weapon which is "Brighter than the Sun".
What can I say. While not an ultra-liberal Christian, I share Chris Hedges repugnance with self-exaltation and demonization of select groups, of the externalization of evil. As such, I'm extremely driven whenever rebuking the apologists of imperium.
Quite frankly, Japan was already experiencing defeat. I think even more diplomatic solutions could've easily ended the war.
Quote:
As for the middle east, nothing is going to stop the irrational hatred of the Jews [or of America either for that matter] amongst either Muslims or idiotic European types.
Here we see the much attested to radically anti-establishment moral clarity of Christianity. I've heard so much about it, but to see it is truly amazing. They say Christianity's the one religion that transcends tribalism and nationalism and they're right.
Thank god you can see the idiocy of those Arabs who detest America for using their region as a gas station. Thank god you can see how benevolent and idealistic US foreign policy has been. Those stupid Arabs, what, living in war zones partially due to US involvement are nowhere near as bright or clear thinking on the issue as a relatively (realitive to the third world) affluent American righteous Christian. You and likeminded individuals truly have the moral clarity to see past such stupidity that third worlders the world over cannot. You obviously see America as the flawless shining city on the hill that it truly is, not as evil foreign journalists, policy analysts, and social critics pretend it is. Thank goodness for your moral clarity.
Quote:
Even if you bomb them with antimatter photon torpedoes or whatever the heck else, they will never get the point. Why bother? Israel is powerful enough to take care of herself anyway.
Israel does indeed have the might to sack as many Palestinian villages as the far right in that country can hate. Thank goodness for Christianity's "The mighty shall inherit the earth" philosophy, which you so faithfully follow.
Quote:
As for Atheist buses and billboards, they'll do nothing. Just like Christian billboards do nothing. Really the public school system is the most effective method of indoctrination into this belief system, whether you like it being called a belief system or not.
I'm sorry to say, but the billboards aren't targeted towards getting theists to suddenly say "I've been wrong all these years! I might as well now join an atheist group." THe billboard is targeted towards people who are atheists already to join nontheist groups and perhaps its also trying to convince a few people that atheism ≠ immorality. But after seeing the moral clarity and humility with which you've denigrated hundreds of millions of people and your truly non-nationalist speeches I'm having second thoughts. Maybe the supposed moral humility of Christianity really is the only way.
Wow, clear eyes. I am so impressed by an Aspie using sarcasm to deride...
What can I saw. While not an ultra-liberal Christian like Chris Hedges, I detest moral self-exaltation and the externalization of evil. Therefore I'm extremely driven whenever rebuking the apologists for imperium.
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
16 Aug 2009, 6:24 pm
sinsboldly wrote:
I have the same problem with Atheists as I do with Christians, and that is both consider their way the only way.
I'm more likely to side with the atheists because they at least don't have their morals dictated to them by a man telling a scary story of a boogie man.
Nothing wrong with believing in god...but there's plenty wrong with promoting the idea of shared morality that extends beyond the basics (which are essentially covered by the 7 commandments).
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
16 Aug 2009, 6:35 pm
sinsboldly wrote:
I have the same problem with Atheists as I do with Christians, and that is both consider their way the only way.
Atheism is not believing god, and that's all. That you so bluntly clump all the atheists in the world together is sad.
Let me try that too: I have the same problem with Theists as I do with Stalinists, and that is both consider their way the only way.
Seems fair?
EDIT: Of course, there were many Christian Stalinists. 'Atheist' is a pretty stupid label anyway, as noone in their right mind would call themselves after their non-belief in something.
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
16 Aug 2009, 9:31 pm
sinsboldly wrote:
I have the same problem with Atheists as I do with Christians, and that is both consider their way the only way.
Oh and exactly what is "there way"? Is it Ronald Aronson's way of activism for the social welfare of many (altrusim) or Randian/LaVeyan egotism? There are quite a few ways of the very loosely nit atheist community.
If you mean to say that particular atheists find their particular ways the only way, even when arguing with atheists of a different persuasion (and equal ceritude)? If so, I'd like to search for some corrobarating evidence and perhaps investigations of this. I know at times I feel quite fanatical, but usually a bit of self-reflection clarifies that.
In terms of excepting distinct paths, while a lot of popular "New Atheists" subscribe to a liberal universalism, some atheists (who've been writing atheistic works a lot longer) don't. A fine example would be TANER EDIS:
Quote:
Perhaps the new atheists are not as attuned to the social realities of religion as they should be. Still, in the end, their case rests on moral sensibilities that characterize liberal-minded people. Freedom of inquiry, individualism as opposed to the stifling conformity of strong faith communities, a reasoned egalitarian ethic rather than deference to authority—these are the values that the new atheists stand up for.
...
Much new atheist moral rhetoric, however, draws on the tradition of Enlightenment moral universalism. That is more vulnerable to criticism. Critics such as John Gray, who consider communist crimes to be an outgrowth of Enlightenment moral universalism and utopianism, are not impressed with the new atheism. Indeed, Gray describes secular moral utopianism as a close cousin of the theistic missionary instinct, which is just as dangerous (2007). The new atheists rightly disassociate nonbelief and personality cults such as that of Stalin. But if they worry about the Torquemadas produced by the potential for persecution lurking in religion, then they cannot so easily brush aside the way secular ideals of salvation have led to figures like Stalin.
...
A description of the nature of morality that was informed by modern science would be more akin to moral pluralism (Gray 2000) than universalism. Not everything goes, but in any complex society, there will be multiple viable ways of life that sustain differing moral ideals. These ways of life will successfully reproduce themselves, and thinkers committed to each will very likely endorse these ways of life, even after being fully informed of alternatives. In other words, we should view moral life in terms of a moral ecology (Flanagan 2002). Just as there is no single successful species—self-reproducing ways of life—in biology, there is no single way to be rational in the social realm.
...
Much new atheist moral rhetoric, however, draws on the tradition of Enlightenment moral universalism. That is more vulnerable to criticism. Critics such as John Gray, who consider communist crimes to be an outgrowth of Enlightenment moral universalism and utopianism, are not impressed with the new atheism. Indeed, Gray describes secular moral utopianism as a close cousin of the theistic missionary instinct, which is just as dangerous (2007). The new atheists rightly disassociate nonbelief and personality cults such as that of Stalin. But if they worry about the Torquemadas produced by the potential for persecution lurking in religion, then they cannot so easily brush aside the way secular ideals of salvation have led to figures like Stalin.
...
A description of the nature of morality that was informed by modern science would be more akin to moral pluralism (Gray 2000) than universalism. Not everything goes, but in any complex society, there will be multiple viable ways of life that sustain differing moral ideals. These ways of life will successfully reproduce themselves, and thinkers committed to each will very likely endorse these ways of life, even after being fully informed of alternatives. In other words, we should view moral life in terms of a moral ecology (Flanagan 2002). Just as there is no single successful species—self-reproducing ways of life—in biology, there is no single way to be rational in the social realm.
Henriksson wrote:
'Atheist' is a pretty stupid label anyway, as noone in their right mind would call themselves after their non-belief in something.
People have been united by their lack or opposition to something at many points in history, especially when that "something" is quite powerful. Now atheism, generally, is highly correlated with one positive belief (metaphysical naturalism until otherwise shown). I'll admit that atheism is compatible with solipsism, but you don't see to many solipsistic atheists out there. Generally, the terms a lot more well known than metaphysical naturalisms, others may have pedantic problems with aspects of metaphysical naturalism, and its the surest way to build an organization of people commonly interested on a certain single issue (the acceptance of the irreligious).
17 Aug 2009, 6:34 am
sinsboldly wrote:
I have the same problem with Atheists as I do with Christians, and that is both consider their way the only way.
Atheists do not have a specific way. Atheists are defined negatively as those who reject a belief in a creator, central God who created everything and commands everything. Among atheists you find a variety of political and social beliefs. Some are pro-capitalist. Some are socialist. Some are collectivist. Both Stalin and Christopher Hitchen are atheists, yet they are so very different.
ruveyn
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
17 Aug 2009, 6:47 am
ruveyn wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
I have the same problem with Atheists as I do with Christians, and that is both consider their way the only way.
Atheists do not have a specific way. Atheists are defined negatively as those who reject a belief in a creator, central God who created everything and commands everything. Among atheists you find a variety of political and social beliefs. Some are pro-capitalist. Some are socialist. Some are collectivist. Both Stalin and Christopher Hitchen are atheists, yet they are so very different.
ruveyn
I see that you, as well as other posters, have missed my whole point. Being an Atheist pre supposes anyone that believes differently from their THEIST beliefs (or lack of them) are misinformed, ignorant of the facts or just plain wrong.
_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon
17 Aug 2009, 7:21 am
sinsboldly wrote:
I see that you, as well as other posters, have missed my whole point. Being an Atheist pre supposes anyone that believes differently from their THEIST beliefs (or lack of them) are misinformed, ignorant of the facts or just plain wrong.
That is a generic thing. Many people take the attitude that anyone who disagrees with them on anything must be feeble minded, numb skull or just whacked out. Being atheist or not has nothing to do with it.
ruveyn
