Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
johac
---
Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
Sam HarrisMon Jan 2,11:25 AM ET
Most people believe that the Creator of the universe wrote (or dictated)
one of their books. Unfortunately, there are many books that pretend to
divine authorship, and each makes incompatible claims about how we all
must live. Despite the ecumenical efforts of many well-intentioned
people, these irreconcilable religious commitments still inspire an
appalling amount of human conflict.
In response to this situation, most sensible people advocate something
called "religious tolerance." While religious tolerance is surely better
than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear
of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing
ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive. It has
also obliged us to lie to ourselves repeatedly and at the highest
levels about the compatibility between religious faith and scientific
rationality.
The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly)
zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious
dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of
science. It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: either
a person has good reasons for what he believes, or he does not. When a
person has good reasons, his beliefs contribute to our growing
understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and
"soft" science here, or between science and other evidence-based
disciplines like history. There happen to be very good reasons to
believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941.
Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks
credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely upon
"faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both
idiotic and grotesque that is, until the conversation turns to the
origin of books like the bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of
Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of
the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human
ignorance.
Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to
knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to
believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to heaven
on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our
rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the
license that religious people give one another to believe such
propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and
religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately
consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness
to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more
consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower.
Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global,
civil society. Religious faith faith that there is a God who cares what
name he is called, that one of our books is infallible, that Jesus is
coming back to earth to judge the living and the dead, that Muslim
martyrs go straight to Paradise, etc. is on the wrong side of an
escalating war of ideas. The difference between science and religion is
the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in
the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of
principle. I believe that the antagonism between reason and faith will
only grow more pervasive and intractable in the coming years. Iron Age
beliefs about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc. continue to impede
medical research and distort public policy. The possibility that we
could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is
real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront
Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying,
and it is increasing by the day. We are doing very little, at the level
of our intellectual discourse, to prevent such possibilities.
In the spirit of religious tolerance, most scientists are keeping silent
when they should be blasting the hideous fantasies of a prior age with
all the facts at their disposal.
To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need
to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience. The
distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding
our ethical intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our
conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being rigorous about
what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of
meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of
the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to
mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity
birth, marriage, death, etc. without lying to ourselves about the
nature of reality.
I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come
about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find
reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and
genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we
will have no need for divisive religious myths. Only then will the
practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian,
Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous
obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing
the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.
---
http://tinyurl.com/9tdlr
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
Elroy Willis
> The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical
> prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one
> day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is
> also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day.
Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
getting hold of nuclear weapons?
I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
anyway and found it frightening.
http://www.lastbestchance.org/
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Rick
>Science vs. religion. Fact vs. 'faith'.
>
>---
> Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
True eliminationism rears it's ugly head.
- Rick
johac
Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter of
time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical
>> > prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one
>> > day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is
>> > also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day.
>>
>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>>
>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>> anyway and found it frightening.
>>
>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>
>That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter of
>time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
The "bad guys" already have the bomb.
Fred Stone
news:jhachmann-310D4...@news.giganews.com:
> In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes
>> > biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood
>> > that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or
>> > biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the
>> > day.
>>
>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>>
>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>> anyway and found it frightening.
>>
>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>
> That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
> materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter
> of time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
They're working on it, and the UN is fiddling around as usual.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_4_06_AB.html
Oh, wait, that's the Iranians.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"If al Qaeda is calling you, we want to know why. I think that's
reasonable." - G. W. Bush
Elroy Willis
> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>> The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes
>>>> biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood
>>>> that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or
>>>> biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the
>>>> day.
>>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>>> anyway and found it frightening.
>>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>> That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>> materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter
>> of time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
> They're working on it, and the UN is fiddling around as usual.
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_4_06_AB.html
> Oh, wait, that's the Iranians.
I was curious how many nukes Israel might have, and did some reading
yesterday, and estimates are from 100 to 200 fully functional bombs.
I doubt they'd ever use 'em, but I'm not so sure groups like Al Qaeda
would follow the MAD mentality if they only had one bomb. They might
realize they'll never catch up, so might go ahead and use the first
one they have. I'm just wondering what their target city would be.
Any guesses?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Fred Stone
news:7k6qr1lqp0dh7t2ve...@4ax.com:
> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
>>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>>>> The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes
>>>>> biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood
>>>>> that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or
>>>>> biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the
>>>>> day.
>
>>>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>>>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>
>>>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>>>> anyway and found it frightening.
>
>>>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>
>>> That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>>> materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter
>>> of time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
>
>> They're working on it, and the UN is fiddling around as usual.
>
>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_4_06_AB.html
>
>> Oh, wait, that's the Iranians.
>
> I was curious how many nukes Israel might have, and did some reading
> yesterday, and estimates are from 100 to 200 fully functional bombs.
>
Of course they aren't saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had
even more. Certainly enough to slag most of their neighbors if it comes
to that.
> I doubt they'd ever use 'em, but I'm not so sure groups like Al Qaeda
> would follow the MAD mentality if they only had one bomb. They might
> realize they'll never catch up, so might go ahead and use the first
> one they have. I'm just wondering what their target city would be.
> Any guesses?
>
Tel Aviv would be a likely target, without a doubt.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israel used one or several nukes
on Iran's nuclear facilities. The threat of an Iranian bomb is that
serious, and the mad mullahs pretense of "peaceful nuclear power" is as
hollow as a Democrat's promise.
The neighboring arab states should be just as worried about the radicals
getting nukes: they're right in the fallout pattern.
Scott Richter
> Science vs. religion. Fact vs. 'faith'.
>
> ---
> Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
If you liked this article, check out the audio recording of Sam Harris'
outstanding lecture at the LongNow Foundation given last month entitled
"The View from the End of the World":
<http://longnow.org/shop/free-downloads/seminars/>
(Scroll down to the end of the page for the link.)
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in
<snip>
>> I was curious how many nukes Israel might have, and did some reading
>> yesterday, and estimates are from 100 to 200 fully functional bombs.
> Of course they aren't saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had
> even more. Certainly enough to slag most of their neighbors if it comes
> to that.
>> I doubt they'd ever use 'em, but I'm not so sure groups like Al Qaeda
>> would follow the MAD mentality if they only had one bomb. They might
>> realize they'll never catch up, so might go ahead and use the first
>> one they have. I'm just wondering what their target city would be.
>> Any guesses?
> Tel Aviv would be a likely target, without a doubt.
What if they had five? Which five cities would they be?
> And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israel used one or several nukes
> on Iran's nuclear facilities. The threat of an Iranian bomb is that
> serious, and the mad mullahs pretense of "peaceful nuclear power"
> is as hollow as a Democrat's promise.
If they revealed they had 100 bombs, then it could become peaceful,
and they could join the MAD mentality, eh?
> The neighboring arab states should be just as worried about the radicals
> getting nukes: they're right in the fallout pattern.
Can oil become contaminated with nuclear fallout?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Matt Silberstein
<elroy...@swbell.net> in
<e76rr15mao4ie8uk4...@4ax.com> wrote:
>Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in
>
><snip>
>
>>> I was curious how many nukes Israel might have, and did some reading
>>> yesterday, and estimates are from 100 to 200 fully functional bombs.
>
>> Of course they aren't saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had
>> even more. Certainly enough to slag most of their neighbors if it comes
>> to that.
>
>>> I doubt they'd ever use 'em, but I'm not so sure groups like Al Qaeda
>>> would follow the MAD mentality if they only had one bomb. They might
>>> realize they'll never catch up, so might go ahead and use the first
>>> one they have. I'm just wondering what their target city would be.
>>> Any guesses?
>
>> Tel Aviv would be a likely target, without a doubt.
>
>What if they had five? Which five cities would they be?
Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo. That is a sufficient threat
to stop an "Islamic" nuclear attack on Israel.
>
>> And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israel used one or several nukes
>> on Iran's nuclear facilities. The threat of an Iranian bomb is that
>> serious, and the mad mullahs pretense of "peaceful nuclear power"
>> is as hollow as a Democrat's promise.
>
>If they revealed they had 100 bombs, then it could become peaceful,
>and they could join the MAD mentality, eh?
>
>> The neighboring arab states should be just as worried about the radicals
>> getting nukes: they're right in the fallout pattern.
>
>Can oil become contaminated with nuclear fallout?
In the ground? Of course not. The ground can easily get too hot to
continue pumping, but the stuff underground is as protected as it
gets.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
erikc
>johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
>news:jhachmann-310D4...@news.giganews.com:
>
>> In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>
>>> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes
>>> > biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood
>>> > that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or
>>> > biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the
>>> > day.
>>>
>>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>>>
>>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>>> anyway and found it frightening.
>>>
>>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>>
>> That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>> materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter
>> of time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
>
>They're working on it, and the UN is fiddling around as usual.
>
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_4_06_AB.html
>
>Oh, wait, that's the Iranians.
I thought it was the Pakistanis.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
erikc
It's a choice, pRick. Eliminate religion or eliminate humanity _in_toto_. No
middle ground. I choose eliminate religion in favour of humanity.
Elroy Willis
> in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in
>> <snip>
>>>> I was curious how many nukes Israel might have, and did some reading
>>>> yesterday, and estimates are from 100 to 200 fully functional bombs.
>>> Of course they aren't saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had
>>> even more. Certainly enough to slag most of their neighbors if it comes
>>> to that.
>>>> I doubt they'd ever use 'em, but I'm not so sure groups like Al Qaeda
>>>> would follow the MAD mentality if they only had one bomb. They might
>>>> realize they'll never catch up, so might go ahead and use the first
>>>> one they have. I'm just wondering what their target city would be.
>>>> Any guesses?
>>> Tel Aviv would be a likely target, without a doubt.
>> What if they had five? Which five cities would they be?
> Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo. That is a sufficient threat
> to stop an "Islamic" nuclear attack on Israel.
You actually think Al Qaeda would a-bomb Mecca or Medina? Two of the
top-three holiest Islamic cities? Jerusalem, maybe, but not Mecca or
Medina.. It'd be seen as blasphemy or worse, wouldn't it?
>>> And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israel used one or several nukes
>>> on Iran's nuclear facilities. The threat of an Iranian bomb is that
>>> serious, and the mad mullahs pretense of "peaceful nuclear power"
>>> is as hollow as a Democrat's promise.
>> If they revealed they had 100 bombs, then it could become peaceful,
>> and they could join the MAD mentality, eh?
>>> The neighboring arab states should be just as worried about the radicals
>>> getting nukes: they're right in the fallout pattern.
>> Can oil become contaminated with nuclear fallout?
> In the ground? Of course not. The ground can easily get too hot to
> continue pumping, but the stuff underground is as protected as it
> gets.
I was wondering what would happen if someone blew up a nuclear weapon
in the middle of an established oil field. Lots of smoke and fire,
obviously, but I wasn't sure about the remaining oil underground..
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Matt Silberstein
<fire...@airmail.net> in <davqr11chq8l44073...@4ax.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:24:22 -0600, "Rick" <pl1_alp...@juNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>johac wrote in message ...
>>>Science vs. religion. Fact vs. 'faith'.
>>>
>>>---
>>> Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
>>
>>True eliminationism rears it's ugly head.
>>
>>- Rick
>>
>
>It's a choice, pRick. Eliminate religion or eliminate humanity _in_toto_. No
>middle ground. I choose eliminate religion in favour of humanity.
Yeah. I mean, we have only had religion for pretty much the entire
time we have had humanity, it is obviously one or the other.
Matt Silberstein
<elroy...@swbell.net> in
<klcrr1dd3vv9tu7m3...@4ax.com> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
>>> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in
>
>>> <snip>
>
>>>>> I was curious how many nukes Israel might have, and did some reading
>>>>> yesterday, and estimates are from 100 to 200 fully functional bombs.
>
>>>> Of course they aren't saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had
>>>> even more. Certainly enough to slag most of their neighbors if it comes
>>>> to that.
>
>>>>> I doubt they'd ever use 'em, but I'm not so sure groups like Al Qaeda
>>>>> would follow the MAD mentality if they only had one bomb. They might
>>>>> realize they'll never catch up, so might go ahead and use the first
>>>>> one they have. I'm just wondering what their target city would be.
>>>>> Any guesses?
>
>>>> Tel Aviv would be a likely target, without a doubt.
>
>>> What if they had five? Which five cities would they be?
>
>> Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo. That is a sufficient threat
>> to stop an "Islamic" nuclear attack on Israel.
>
>You actually think Al Qaeda would a-bomb Mecca or Medina? Two of the
>top-three holiest Islamic cities? Jerusalem, maybe, but not Mecca or
>Medina.. It'd be seen as blasphemy or worse, wouldn't it?
I thought the "they" was Israel, not al Qaeda.
>>>> And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israel used one or several nukes
>>>> on Iran's nuclear facilities. The threat of an Iranian bomb is that
>>>> serious, and the mad mullahs pretense of "peaceful nuclear power"
>>>> is as hollow as a Democrat's promise.
>
>>> If they revealed they had 100 bombs, then it could become peaceful,
>>> and they could join the MAD mentality, eh?
>
>>>> The neighboring arab states should be just as worried about the radicals
>>>> getting nukes: they're right in the fallout pattern.
>
>>> Can oil become contaminated with nuclear fallout?
>
>> In the ground? Of course not. The ground can easily get too hot to
>> continue pumping, but the stuff underground is as protected as it
>> gets.
>
>I was wondering what would happen if someone blew up a nuclear weapon
>in the middle of an established oil field. Lots of smoke and fire,
>obviously, but I wasn't sure about the remaining oil underground..
Nothing much would happen to it radiation wise.
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I was curious how many nukes Israel might have, and did some reading
>>> yesterday, and estimates are from 100 to 200 fully functional bombs.
>
>> Of course they aren't saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had
>> even more. Certainly enough to slag most of their neighbors if it
>> comes to that.
>
>>> I doubt they'd ever use 'em, but I'm not so sure groups like Al
>>> Qaeda would follow the MAD mentality if they only had one bomb.
>>> They might realize they'll never catch up, so might go ahead and use
>>> the first one they have. I'm just wondering what their target city
>>> would be. Any guesses?
>
>> Tel Aviv would be a likely target, without a doubt.
>
> What if they had five? Which five cities would they be?
>
New York, Washington D.C., Boston, Miami, and Tel Aviv.
>> And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israel used one or several
>> nukes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The threat of an Iranian bomb is
>> that serious, and the mad mullahs pretense of "peaceful nuclear
>> power" is as hollow as a Democrat's promise.
>
> If they revealed they had 100 bombs, then it could become peaceful,
> and they could join the MAD mentality, eh?
>
Who, the mullahs? If they get *any* bombs they'll use them. No question.
>> The neighboring arab states should be just as worried about the
>> radicals getting nukes: they're right in the fallout pattern.
>
> Can oil become contaminated with nuclear fallout?
>
No. Though the wells and refinery infrastructure would require
decontamination and reconstruction before it could be used again.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Point the finger and make a fuss
before someone points the finger at us."
Fred Stone
news:23brr15ub967ko3ev...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:17:45 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
> <elroy...@swbell.net> in
> <e76rr15mao4ie8uk4...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>> I was curious how many nukes Israel might have, and did some
>>>> reading yesterday, and estimates are from 100 to 200 fully
>>>> functional bombs.
>>
>>> Of course they aren't saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
>>> had even more. Certainly enough to slag most of their neighbors if
>>> it comes to that.
>>
>>>> I doubt they'd ever use 'em, but I'm not so sure groups like Al
>>>> Qaeda would follow the MAD mentality if they only had one bomb.
>>>> They might realize they'll never catch up, so might go ahead and
>>>> use the first one they have. I'm just wondering what their target
>>>> city would be. Any guesses?
>>
>>> Tel Aviv would be a likely target, without a doubt.
>>
>>What if they had five? Which five cities would they be?
>
> Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo. That is a sufficient threat
> to stop an "Islamic" nuclear attack on Israel.
>
You forgot Tehran. Ahmadinejad thinks he's going to bring on the Mahdi,
the twelfth Imam.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Fred Stone
news:p7vqr19b4o1bhmv74...@4ax.com:
The Pakistanis already have the bomb, and the ruling party is sensible
enough to realize what will happen if they use them. The Iranian mullahs
*want* that to happen. They think they can bring back the twelfth Imam.
And no, this isn't a joke.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Michael Gray
It would not measurably add to the natural radioactive properties that
are inherent in underground mineral oils.
Michael Gray
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:06:38 -0600, in alt.atheism , erikc
><fire...@airmail.net> in <davqr11chq8l44073...@4ax.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:24:22 -0600, "Rick" <pl1_alp...@juNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>>johac wrote in message ...
>>>>Science vs. religion. Fact vs. 'faith'.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>> Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
>>>
>>>True eliminationism rears it's ugly head.
>>>
>>>- Rick
>>>
>>
>>It's a choice, pRick. Eliminate religion or eliminate humanity _in_toto_. No
>>middle ground. I choose eliminate religion in favour of humanity.
>
>Yeah. I mean, we have only had religion for pretty much the entire
>time we have had humanity, it is obviously one or the other.
And we've had nuclear weapons since humanity began as well,
have we Matt?
What abvout the ability to engineer massively lethal viruses?
Or make deadly nerve gas?
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns9742D18FE...@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
I can't see the Iranians accepting the threat to Mecca and Medina.
Matt Silberstein
<fle...@newsguy.spam.com> in
<2pirr1l9vprop57je...@4ax.com> wrote:
I see. So religion is what is going to use those weapons to kill
everyone. Sure, that makes sense.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical
>> > prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one
>> > day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is
>> > also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day.
>>
>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>>
>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>> anyway and found it frightening.
>>
>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>
>That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter of
>time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
The bad guys have hundreds stockpiled now.
--
Fundies and trolls are invited to shove
a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
stoney
<fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
And have twice used it.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
D.C. or N.Y.
stoney
Yep, that's Christianity for you.
johac
stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:44:31 -0800, johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
> > Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>
> >> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical
> >> > prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will
> >> > one
> >> > day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is
> >> > also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day.
> >>
> >> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
> >> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
> >>
> >> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
> >> anyway and found it frightening.
> >>
> >> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
> >
> >That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
> >materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter of
> >time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
>
> The bad guys have hundreds stockpiled now.
Depends which 'bad guys' you mean. The article above refers to al Qaeda
and presumably other terrorist groups. It's not certain that they have
anything yet, but should the opportunity arise, they will jump at the
first chance that they get.
johac
scottri...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
Thanks! That was a good lecture. I need to order his book "The End of
Faith". I t hsould be a good read.
johac
Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
> >> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>> I was curious how many nukes Israel might have, and did some reading
> >>>> yesterday, and estimates are from 100 to 200 fully functional bombs.
>
> >>> Of course they aren't saying, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had
> >>> even more. Certainly enough to slag most of their neighbors if it comes
> >>> to that.
>
> >>>> I doubt they'd ever use 'em, but I'm not so sure groups like Al Qaeda
> >>>> would follow the MAD mentality if they only had one bomb. They might
> >>>> realize they'll never catch up, so might go ahead and use the first
> >>>> one they have. I'm just wondering what their target city would be.
> >>>> Any guesses?
>
> >>> Tel Aviv would be a likely target, without a doubt.
>
> >> What if they had five? Which five cities would they be?
>
> > Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo. That is a sufficient threat
> > to stop an "Islamic" nuclear attack on Israel.
>
> You actually think Al Qaeda would a-bomb Mecca or Medina? Two of the
> top-three holiest Islamic cities? Jerusalem, maybe, but not Mecca or
> Medina.. It'd be seen as blasphemy or worse, wouldn't it?
Probably some major Western city first.
>
> >>> And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israel used one or several nukes
> >>> on Iran's nuclear facilities. The threat of an Iranian bomb is that
> >>> serious, and the mad mullahs pretense of "peaceful nuclear power"
> >>> is as hollow as a Democrat's promise.
>
> >> If they revealed they had 100 bombs, then it could become peaceful,
> >> and they could join the MAD mentality, eh?
>
> >>> The neighboring arab states should be just as worried about the radicals
> >>> getting nukes: they're right in the fallout pattern.
>
> >> Can oil become contaminated with nuclear fallout?
>
> > In the ground? Of course not. The ground can easily get too hot to
> > continue pumping, but the stuff underground is as protected as it
> > gets.
>
> I was wondering what would happen if someone blew up a nuclear weapon
> in the middle of an established oil field. Lots of smoke and fire,
> obviously, but I wasn't sure about the remaining oil underground..
The oil should be OK, but the ground and equipment above would be
contaminated and it could be years before the wells could be worked
again.
Rick
>On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:24:22 -0600, "Rick" <pl1_alp...@juNOSPAM.com>
wrote:
>
>>johac wrote in message ...
>>>Science vs. religion. Fact vs. 'faith'.
>>>
>>>---
>>> Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
>>
>>True eliminationism rears it's ugly head.
>>
>>- Rick
>>
>
>It's a choice, pRick.
Is there some sort of disease that causes this juvenile behaviour among
atheists? Maybe in addition to a religion gene, there's an atheist gene that
produces anti-social behaviour.
>Eliminate religion or eliminate humanity _in_toto_. No
>middle ground. I choose eliminate religion in favour of humanity.
- Rick
Michael Gray
>On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:35:14 +1030, Michael Gray
><fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:44:31 -0800, johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
>>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>
>>>> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical
>>>> > prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one
>>>> > day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is
>>>> > also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day.
>>>>
>>>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>>>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>>>>
>>>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>>>> anyway and found it frightening.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>>>
>>>That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>>>materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter of
>>>time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
>>
>>The "bad guys" already have the bomb.
>
>And have twice used it.
Pommy-land blew my backyard up with a nuke, some time back,
and contaminated it for millenia hence.
That will give you a hint of where live.
The yanks aren't the only "bad guys".
(Interesting to note that the "bad guys" are back in bed with each
other, raping Iraq.)
Michael Gray
>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:44:31 -0800, johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>
>>> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical
>>> > prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one
>>> > day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is
>>> > also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day.
>>>
>>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>>>
>>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>>> anyway and found it frightening.
>>>
>>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>>
>>That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>>materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter of
>>time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
>
>The bad guys have hundreds stockpiled now.
Hundreds?
Try thousands:
"It is estimated that the United States has more than 7,200 nuclear
warheads deployed in its strategic forces, over 1,600 in its
non-strategic forces, and over 10,000 in stockpile. US strategic
forces include 601 ICBMs, 448 SLBMs, and 295 nuclear bombers."
Michael Gray
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I'm glad we agree on the clear facts.
Fred Stone
True, but are they sane enough to understand that they cannot preempt
that threat by striking at Israel?
Scott Richter
> I see. So religion is what is going to use those weapons to kill
> everyone. Sure, that makes sense.
Do suicide bombers "make sense"? Does the Holocaust "make sense"?
Matt, I would encourage you to listen to Sam Harris' lecture, which I
posted elsewhere in this thread (reposted below). The combination of
WMDs and religious fervor is one of the most frightening dangers facing
the world today.
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns974369531...@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
I don't see them as insane at all.
Fred Stone
I don't know what else to call them when they start making the kinds of
statements that their President has made.
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns9743822B4...@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Seriously wrong. I think that when we dismiss large groups of people
as insane or monsters then we start to disconnect from reality
ourselves.
Fred Stone
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/01/irans-lets-roll-
beginning.html
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns97438EC1...@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
That does not support a conclusion that they are crazy. The Iranian
desire for nukes is rational in several ways. Dangerous to us, but
treating them as insane won't help. And I very much hope that this
blog is wrong in the predictions.
stoney
<fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
after being in a hefty '69' with each other.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>In article <bvurr1t4jg110mc4q...@4ax.com>,
> stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:44:31 -0800, johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
>> > Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>
>> >> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical
>> >> > prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will
>> >> > one
>> >> > day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is
>> >> > also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day.
>> >>
>> >> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>> >> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>> >>
>> >> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>> >> anyway and found it frightening.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>> >
>> >That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>> >materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter of
>> >time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
>>
>> The bad guys have hundreds stockpiled now.
>
>Depends which 'bad guys' you mean.
The U.S. mainly, and Britain.
> The article above refers to al Qaeda
>and presumably other terrorist groups. It's not certain that they have
>anything yet, but should the opportunity arise, they will jump at the
>first chance that they get.
Without hesitation.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
stoney
<fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:11:32 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:44:31 -0800, johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com>
>>wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>>>In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
>>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>
>>>> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical
>>>> > prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one
>>>> > day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is
>>>> > also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day.
>>>>
>>>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>>>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>>>>
>>>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>>>> anyway and found it frightening.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>>>
>>>That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>>>materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter of
>>>time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
>>
>>The bad guys have hundreds stockpiled now.
>
>Hundreds?
>Try thousands:
I wasn't sure how much was affected by the Salt treaty.
>"It is estimated that the United States has more than 7,200 nuclear
>warheads deployed in its strategic forces, over 1,600 in its
>non-strategic forces, and over 10,000 in stockpile. US strategic
>forces include 601 ICBMs, 448 SLBMs, and 295 nuclear bombers."
>
>http://www.nti.org/h_learnmore/h2_factoids.html#2a
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
stoney
>On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:06:38 -0600, in alt.atheism , erikc
><fire...@airmail.net> in <davqr11chq8l44073...@4ax.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:24:22 -0600, "Rick" <pl1_alp...@juNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>>johac wrote in message ...
>>>>Science vs. religion. Fact vs. 'faith'.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>> Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
>>>
>>>True eliminationism rears it's ugly head.
>>>
>>>- Rick
>>>
>>
>>It's a choice, pRick. Eliminate religion or eliminate humanity _in_toto_. No
>>middle ground. I choose eliminate religion in favour of humanity.
>
>Yeah. I mean, we have only had religion for pretty much the entire
>time we have had humanity, it is obviously one or the other.
Religion has been responsible for much inhumanity.
Fred Stone
The desire to possess nuclear weapons is only one of the factors
involved in my diagnosis of their mental illness. Their public
statements to the Western media and their own internal media indicate
severe paranoia and delusions of grandeur.
Matt Silberstein
<sto...@the.net> in <6svtr19l4s6tfd5ap...@4ax.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:19:17 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:06:38 -0600, in alt.atheism , erikc
>><fire...@airmail.net> in <davqr11chq8l44073...@4ax.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:24:22 -0600, "Rick" <pl1_alp...@juNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>johac wrote in message ...
>>>>>Science vs. religion. Fact vs. 'faith'.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>> Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
>>>>
>>>>True eliminationism rears it's ugly head.
>>>>
>>>>- Rick
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's a choice, pRick. Eliminate religion or eliminate humanity _in_toto_. No
>>>middle ground. I choose eliminate religion in favour of humanity.
>>
>>Yeah. I mean, we have only had religion for pretty much the entire
>>time we have had humanity, it is obviously one or the other.
>
>Religion has been responsible for much inhumanity.
Humanity has been responsible for much inhumanity. Religion plays a
role, so do lots of things. As I have said before, I think the mistake
was coming down from the trees.
erikc
>erikc <fire...@airmail.net> wrote in
>news:p7vqr19b4o1bhmv74...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 05 Jan 2006 12:18:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
>>>news:jhachmann-310D4...@news.giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> In article <b0snr1l49ltm7hja9...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>>
>>>>> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes
>>>>> > biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the
>>>>> > likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with
>>>>> > nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is
>>>>> > increasing by the day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>>>>> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>>>>>
>>>>> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>>>>> anyway and found it frightening.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>>>>
>>>> That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>>>> materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter
>>>> of time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
>>>
>>>They're working on it, and the UN is fiddling around as usual.
>>>
>>>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_4_06_AB.html
>>>
>>>Oh, wait, that's the Iranians.
>>
>> I thought it was the Pakistanis.
>>
>
>The Pakistanis already have the bomb, and the ruling party is sensible
>enough to realize what will happen if they use them. The Iranian mullahs
>*want* that to happen. They think they can bring back the twelfth Imam.
>And no, this isn't a joke.
Perhaps the CURRENT ruling party is sensible enough.
And I have read about the 12th imam. It is curiously like the return of jesus
christ to the jeezoids
I really cannot help but wonder if whoever dreamed up this shit really wanted
the human race to end up destroying itself. Because this is what I think it
is all leading up to.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
erikc
pRick, it is called a "survival instinct". Unlike psychos like yourself, we
actually want to live.
Rick
>On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 01:03:54 -0600, "Rick" <pl1_alp...@juNOSPAM.com>
wrote:
>
>>erikc wrote in message ...
>>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:24:22 -0600, "Rick" <pl1_alp...@juNOSPAM.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>johac wrote in message ...
>>>>>Science vs. religion. Fact vs. 'faith'.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>> Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
>>>>
>>>>True eliminationism rears it's ugly head.
>>>>
>>>>- Rick
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's a choice, pRick.
>>
>>Is there some sort of disease that causes this juvenile behaviour among
>>atheists? Maybe in addition to a religion gene, there's an atheist gene
that
>>produces anti-social behaviour.
>>
>>>Eliminate religion or eliminate humanity _in_toto_. No
>>>middle ground. I choose eliminate religion in favour of humanity.
>>
>>- Rick
>>
>pRick, it is called a "survival instinct". Unlike psychos like yourself,
we
>actually want to live.
I guess you come from the Pat Robertson School of Survival.
- Rick
- Rick
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns9743CAF2B...@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
I don't think the paranoia is all that misplaced and certainly not at
a mental illness level. We did discuss an axis of evil, we did invade
a neighbor for claims of actions that Iran has actually engaged in and
engages in. That is, Iran does give significant support to terrorism
and does have an active nuclear weapon program. Were both countries as
easy to attack Iran was much the better target. As for delusions of
grandeur, that is much the human condition, I don't see them at a
psychotic level.
johac
stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
True. So far only one country has used them.
>
> > The article above refers to al Qaeda
> >and presumably other terrorist groups. It's not certain that they have
> >anything yet, but should the opportunity arise, they will jump at the
> >first chance that they get.
>
> Without hesitation.
None at all.
Michael Gray
wrote:
I'll take objection to that sweeping assertion.
Britain has used a nuke to blow up a large area of my back-yard here
Australia, and France has destroyed large areas of pacific islands.
Both without the owners' consent, which must be acts of war at least
morally, if not technically.
So, the US does not assume the entire blame, in this case.
Fred Stone
> On 07 Jan 2006 00:50:59 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns9743CAF2B...@66.150.105.47>
> wrote:
>
>>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>news:adqtr1d5143sicqoi...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 06 Jan 2006 18:56:00 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns97438EC1...@66.150.105.47>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
>>>>news:8cetr150r0bro17r6...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06 Jan 2006 17:41:45 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>>>>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in <Xns9743822B494C5fstone69@
Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid.
:-)
But seriously, it's their paranoia that prevents them from bargaining in
good faith with the EU (if not with America) to control their nuclear
ambitions and channel them into peaceful means. Their delusional claims
about American aims in the region bear little resemblance to reality at
more than a superficial examination of our involvement in Iraq.
I think that Ahmadinejad is *beyond* the psychotic level.
Fred Stone
news:68aur191blrn5fuoj...@4ax.com:
Superficially, yes. But the Islamists are much more violent than the
average Christer.
> I really cannot help but wonder if whoever dreamed up this shit really
> wanted the human race to end up destroying itself. Because this is
> what I think it is all leading up to.
>
The two major eschatological religions: Christianity and Islam, have
been at each others' throats on and off for centuries. Both preach the
end of the world as something to be desired. The goofiest fundies see it
as something that they should specifically seek to bring about.
Elroy Willis
> erikc <fire...@airmail.net> wrote in
>> And I have read about the 12th imam. It is curiously like the return
>> of jesus christ to the jeezoids
> Superficially, yes. But the Islamists are much more violent than the
> average Christer.
The average Islamist isn't, so they say. :)
>> I really cannot help but wonder if whoever dreamed up this shit really
>> wanted the human race to end up destroying itself. Because this is
>> what I think it is all leading up to.
> The two major eschatological religions: Christianity and Islam, have
> been at each others' throats on and off for centuries. Both preach the
> end of the world as something to be desired. The goofiest fundies see it
> as something that they should specifically seek to bring about.
From:
http://groups.msn.com/eschatology/14iraq12thimam.msnw
"The red dwarf stripped naked by OUR sun, it's core exposed in a
lightshow of Novae outbursts:
Matt24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso
readeth, let him understand:)
A cry (will come) from the sky (in such a way) that all the people
will hear it in their own languages; a face and a chest will appear in
the sky before the people in the centre of the sun; the dead will
arise from their graves so that they will return to the world and they
will recognize one another and visit one another."
=====
I wish it were possible to wish away all the doomsaying crackpots,
don't you? I don't want to kill them, or watch 'em burn in hell, I
just want 'em to go away forever, and quit infecting other people's
minds with their pathetic end of times drivel.
Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, Bishops, Popes, Imams, Psychics, etc,
all of them need to disappear before there can be any kind of peace
among all people.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
erikc
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[===]
>>http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/01/irans-lets-roll-
>>beginning.html
>That does not support a conclusion that they are crazy. The Iranian
>desire for nukes is rational in several ways. Dangerous to us, but
>treating them as insane won't help. And I very much hope that this
>blog is wrong in the predictions.
Here is an idea for Iranian atomic energy that might work. It is a
technological rather than a political approach that would allow Iran to have
nuclear power to run generators but not to make bombs.
http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-124-3-215-222
http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9820/thoriumscpt.htm
http://www.delhiscoop.com/story/2005/8/26/104048/110
http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/nuc/thrupdat.htm <-- goofy idea involving
a particle accelerator to activate the reactor.
The essence of the idea is to fuel nuclear reactors with thorium rather than
uranium. The idea was worked out and proven back in the 1950's, but was
abandoned specifically because thorium reactions do not leave behind any
useful explosive residues. Another desireable feature of such reactors is
that they can be used to get rid of existing plutonium by "burning" it up.
(This by itself is a sufficient reason for wanting to build thorium reactors)
Thorium, by itself is not fissile, but is considered "fertile", meaning that
when exposed to neutrons from some outside source, turns into U233 which is
fissionable and which is used to generate the power. Some of the neutrons
from the fissioning U233 convert the Th232 to U233 thereby sustaining the
cycle. Fuel rods are made by seeding the thorium with about 1 percent uranium
or plutonium, which allows them to be inserted directly into a reactor.
The nuclear fuel is more completely consumed than in a standard Uranium
reactor, thereby leaving behind fewer radioactive residues to be dealt with
and extending the periods between refueling.
The reactors themselves are of conventional design.
======
Several such reactors are being built around the world, mostly in India, the
former USSR, and the United States, primarily for research purposes. Begin by
offering them this safer and saner approach and see how they respond.
If they accept the proposal, then bring them into the research programme and
help them build commercial thorium reactors.
If they reject it, we can safely assume that they are really interested in
making bombs and not in lighting cities and homes, and we can adjust our
policies accordingly. But at least give them a chance to reveal themselves.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
That's why I said mainly.
>> > The article above refers to al Qaeda
>> >and presumably other terrorist groups. It's not certain that they have
>> >anything yet, but should the opportunity arise, they will jump at the
>> >first chance that they get.
>>
>> Without hesitation.
>
>None at all.
Bleeping superstition.
stoney
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:39:05 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
><sto...@the.net> in <6svtr19l4s6tfd5ap...@4ax.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:19:17 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:06:38 -0600, in alt.atheism , erikc
>>><fire...@airmail.net> in <davqr11chq8l44073...@4ax.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:24:22 -0600, "Rick" <pl1_alp...@juNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>johac wrote in message ...
>>>>>>Science vs. religion. Fact vs. 'faith'.
>>>>>> Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
>>>>>
>>>>>True eliminationism rears it's ugly head.
>>>>>
>>>>>- Rick
>>>>It's a choice, pRick. Eliminate religion or eliminate humanity _in_toto_. No
>>>>middle ground. I choose eliminate religion in favour of humanity.
>>>
>>>Yeah. I mean, we have only had religion for pretty much the entire
>>>time we have had humanity, it is obviously one or the other.
>>
>>Religion has been responsible for much inhumanity.
>
>Humanity has been responsible for much inhumanity. Religion plays a
>role, so do lots of things.
Religion plays one heck of a large role. The empty promise of eternal
life or eternal torture is monstrous motivation. That's the only point
I'm making.
>As I have said before, I think the mistake
>was coming down from the trees.
That may be.
erikc
Then we and other reasonable people need to make that happen. The means is up
for discussion, although I would favour applying some of the same
ministrations to them that they would like to apply to us.
erikc
Pat Robertson is a sickopath like yourself.
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> erikc <fire...@airmail.net> wrote in
>
>>> And I have read about the 12th imam. It is curiously like the
>>> return of jesus christ to the jeezoids
>
>
>> Superficially, yes. But the Islamists are much more violent than the
>> average Christer.
>
> The average Islamist isn't, so they say. :)
>
There is a distinction between the Islamists and the average Muslims.
The term "islamist" denotes those who wish to restore the Caliphate by
carrying on the jihad to subjugate the infidels.
>>> I really cannot help but wonder if whoever dreamed up this shit
>>> really wanted the human race to end up destroying itself. Because
>>> this is what I think it is all leading up to.
>
>> The two major eschatological religions: Christianity and Islam, have
>> been at each others' throats on and off for centuries. Both preach
>> the end of the world as something to be desired. The goofiest fundies
>> see it as something that they should specifically seek to bring
>> about.
>
> From:
> http://groups.msn.com/eschatology/14iraq12thimam.msnw
>
> "The red dwarf stripped naked by OUR sun, it's core exposed in a
> lightshow of Novae outbursts:
>
At least that one's billions of years off in the future.
> Matt24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
> spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso
> readeth, let him understand:)
>
> A cry (will come) from the sky (in such a way) that all the people
> will hear it in their own languages; a face and a chest will appear in
> the sky before the people in the centre of the sun; the dead will
> arise from their graves so that they will return to the world and they
> will recognize one another and visit one another."
>
It's amazing how many different things have been called the abomination
of desolation. :-)
> =====
>
> I wish it were possible to wish away all the doomsaying crackpots,
> don't you? I don't want to kill them, or watch 'em burn in hell, I
> just want 'em to go away forever, and quit infecting other people's
> minds with their pathetic end of times drivel.
>
> Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, Bishops, Popes, Imams, Psychics, etc,
> all of them need to disappear before there can be any kind of peace
> among all people.
>
I'm just not that optimistic, Elroy. People will be at each others'
throats no matter what sort of excuses they have to make up. Pacifism
just isn't natural.
wbarwell
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in
> news:vqtvr15rp2gcadacs...@4ax.com:
>
>> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>>> erikc <fire...@airmail.net> wrote in
>>
>>>> And I have read about the 12th imam. It is curiously like the
>>>> return of jesus christ to the jeezoids
>>
>>
>>> Superficially, yes. But the Islamists are much more violent than the
>>> average Christer.
>>
>> The average Islamist isn't, so they say. :)
>>
>
> There is a distinction between the Islamists and the average Muslims.
> The term "islamist" denotes those who wish to restore the Caliphate by
> carrying on the jihad to subjugate the infidels.
>
>>>> I really cannot help but wonder if whoever dreamed up this shit
>>>> really wanted the human race to end up destroying itself. Because
>>>> this is what I think it is all leading up to.
>>
>>> The two major eschatological religions: Christianity and Islam, have
>>> been at each others' throats on and off for centuries. Both preach
>>> the end of the world as something to be desired. The goofiest fundies
>>> see it as something that they should specifically seek to bring
>>> about.
This would make a good stupid religous novel. End of the world,
the Mahdi and the Messiah show up on the same day to claim
the Earth.
Snort!
--
"A dead religion is like a dead cat -- the stiffer and
more rotten it is, the better it is as a missile weapon."
- H.G. Wells
Cheerful Charlie
johac
stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
But only one has used them to directly kill other people.
>
> >> > The article above refers to al Qaeda
> >> >and presumably other terrorist groups. It's not certain that they have
> >> >anything yet, but should the opportunity arise, they will jump at the
> >> >first chance that they get.
> >>
> >> Without hesitation.
> >
> >None at all.
>
> Bleeping superstition.
Amen.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>In article <brb0s1hhbp3ku6dap...@4ax.com>,
> stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:45:45 -0800, johac <jhac...@sbcglobal.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
>> >> >> >> > The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes
>> >> >> >> > biblical
>> >> >> >> > prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we
>> >> >> >> > will
>> >> >> >> > one
>> >> >> >> > day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is
>> >> >> >> > also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Anybody else around here get a free copy of a movie about Al Qaeda
>> >> >> >> getting hold of nuclear weapons?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I got one in the mail and didn't even order it, but I watched it
>> >> >> >> anyway and found it frightening.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://www.lastbestchance.org/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That is scary. I haven't sen the movie but with all of the nuclear
>> >> >> >materials and weaponry in the world, I think that it's only a matter
>> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >time before the bad guys get enough to build a bomb.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The bad guys have hundreds stockpiled now.
>> >> >
>> >> >Depends which 'bad guys' you mean.
>> >>
>> >> The U.S. mainly, and Britain.
>> >
>> >True. So far only one country has used them.
>>
>> That's why I said mainly.
>
>But only one has used them to directly kill other people.
That's why I said mainly.
[]
Fred Stone
news:11s13fu...@corp.supernews.com:
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
>> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in
>> news:vqtvr15rp2gcadacs...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>
>>>> erikc <fire...@airmail.net> wrote in
>>>
>>>>> And I have read about the 12th imam. It is curiously like the
>>>>> return of jesus christ to the jeezoids
>>>
>>>
>>>> Superficially, yes. But the Islamists are much more violent than
>>>> the average Christer.
>>>
>>> The average Islamist isn't, so they say. :)
>>>
>>
>> There is a distinction between the Islamists and the average Muslims.
>> The term "islamist" denotes those who wish to restore the Caliphate
>> by carrying on the jihad to subjugate the infidels.
>>
>>>>> I really cannot help but wonder if whoever dreamed up this shit
>>>>> really wanted the human race to end up destroying itself. Because
>>>>> this is what I think it is all leading up to.
>>>
>>>> The two major eschatological religions: Christianity and Islam,
>>>> have been at each others' throats on and off for centuries. Both
>>>> preach the end of the world as something to be desired. The
>>>> goofiest fundies see it as something that they should specifically
>>>> seek to bring about.
>
>
>
> This would make a good stupid religous novel. End of the world,
> the Mahdi and the Messiah show up on the same day to claim
> the Earth.
>
I like it!
erikc
Yeah. Let them duke it out in the Ultimate WWE Smackdown. :)