Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
Perhaps a bitter comment coming from a bitter person? :D
Sometimes the truth is bitter, yes.
Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]You see, our Puritan settlers didn't take kindly to the Indians and successfully wiped out several tribes from the face of the earth. Sure, you can say it was about land, but if that were the only case why did they make sure every last one of them was dead?
There were people that had dedicated their lives to killing native americans because of their own personal hate but if you remember the origional conversation was talking about Ethnic Clensing of nations.[/quote:1h37e3ho]
Yes, how many indians are left now? Fifty thousand? One hundred thousand? So you don't consider it the ethnic cleansing of a nation if a few thousand are left on reservations? Sort of like the Kurdish refugee camps? Or is that different? I don't think it is.
Quote:
The puritains were some pretty bad peolple indeed. But once again I think killing them was only one method used for the whities getting what they wanted.
Well, the Puritans did not necessarily take over the Indian lands they purged. That is why I have a hard time believing it was about land conquest. It was more about irrational hatred and xenophobia--as all racism and religious intolerance boils down to.
Quote:
According to me(I always wanted to say that) not every last one of them is dead. I have personaly been to the Navajo and Hopi Indian reservation in Arizona.
Well, I said "every last one of them" in reference to the Puritans, and I don't think Arizona was a New England colony. But how many of those indians were there 200 years ago compared to today? The numbers are exponentially different.
Quote:
(referring to Mein Kompf)
[quote:1h37e3ho]Probably not as enthusiastically as you, but yes, I have. And that was my point exactly. Hitler fully planned on dominating the world and bringing the Aryan race to its rightful place on top. What I am asking is, if this situation is so similar to that one, where is Saddam's claims that the Iraqi people should be ruling the world? Or his attempts at trying?
You've stumped me on this one. I simply don't know. Maybe if Hitler wasn't in jail then the book would not have been written. (Obviously in that cozy cell he had some extra free time on his hands.) Maybe mike you should be a "supporter of the war guy" go in to politics convince the UN :lol: and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.[/quote:1h37e3ho]
I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult you but I can't understand what that last sentence even means.
Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]No, but you made the allusion to Hitler. All I'm asking is besides the letter H and the ethnic cleansing, how is European appeasement anything at all the same in this situation as it was 60 years ago. That is the question I'm still waiting for you to answer.
I wasn't refering to the appeasment. Since I don't want to type it again just go back and read the part about Germany crossing the rule about how much military power it should have and blah blah.[/quote:1h37e3ho]
Yes, ok, but are you sincerely comparing Saddam's military power to Hitler's? Hitler had state of the art battleships, submarines, state of the art aircraft, bombs and guns, tanks, and a huge standing army that was very loyal to him. Saddam Hussein's weapons consist of things from 20 years ago. The reason we're upset about his illegal purchases from Russia and France is not that he is amassing some huge force with sophisticated technology, it's that he's buying night-vision goggles and $10 radio jamming devices that will send our million-dollar bombs going the wrong way.
Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]Still, for your analogy to work one would have to believe that Saddam invaded Kuwait because he believed Kuwait belonged to Iraq and was taken away from him by his enemies.
Not really, remember my comment about the insane?[/quote:1h37e3ho]
No.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
In reality, Saddam accused Kuwait of slant-drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing their oil. A claim that has some merit to it in retrospect.
I hope you didn't interview saddam for that information or maybe you read abujale hamanika hamanika vanje alajo. Saddam's new book printed yesterday, title translated (My really really big plan.)
I don't know how an accusation is "information," but no, the information was the justification for the invasion. I never said it was true, I said that was the reason he gave for invading.
Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith?
Quote:
I consider a book full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies that is no more scientifically provable than all the other religious tomes in existance not something I put a whole lot of stock into. Also, I am not an atheist but an agnostic, however you are incorrect to say atheism is a leap of faith. This is a logical fallacy that redefines the word faith halfway through the argument (called equivocation). Faith in the scope of Christianity is a belief based entirely without scientific evidence. Faith in atheists is nothing more than deduction based on this same lack of evidence. You can say there is a Mountain Dew can floating around Mercury and I can deny it from a lack of evidence. However, the burden of proof is upon you, not me, as you are the one making the assertion.
Thanks that was just a long drawn out paragraph revealing that you still dont really know what faith is but thats okay. I A. don't want to start talking about religion with you. B. Don't really care at this point in time.[/quote:1h37e3ho]
Actually, I do know what the word faith means, which is why I explained that religious apologists have a way of redefining the word shadily for their own convenience.
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.[/quote]
Since you used the words "leap of faith" you cannot be talking about something that can be proved. Actually, let's just look up the definition of leap of faith--I use dictionary.com for all of these by the way, but if you have a better dictionary we can possibly use that--: "leap of faith
The act or an instance of believing or trusting in something intangible or incapable of being proved." If we assume this is what you meant, and I think it is, then faith is defined as believing in something that cannot be proven. I happen to prefer Mark Twain's definition that "faith is believing something you know ain't true," but the former will suffice.
Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]By the way, your argument is one called the AFD, or Argument From Design.
Great I will go tell my doctor I have AFD syndrome.[/quote:1h37e3ho]
Quote:
[quote:1h37e3ho]I don't believe in a God, but I do not deny one (or two, or five) exists. It is just more of a safe bet considering the total lack of evidence or divine presence.
safe bet according to who? :lol: [/quote:1h37e3ho]
According to about 10% of the US population.
Quote:
Personaly, I don't believe there are athiests in fox holes
That's probably because rational people don't start wars. They definitely don't consider six inches of enemy territory worth dying over. One of the reasons religion continues to succeed is because it is nothing more than a great placebo for misery and despair. When people are in a lot of pain they will believe in stupid nonsense that otherwise would seem ridiculous to them.
Quote:
(love that quote lol) but actually I don't think there are athiests. Everyone knows theirs a God. Some have just tried to run from it.
Er...right. Well, I have no idea why you would think something like that, especially considering you claimed to be interested in "the truth," but all right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike
Quote:
What exactly are you basing that accusation on? Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.
Actually I have not been able to read all the topics in this discussion and I don't know Rahul but if he is making you mad he is probably on to something :D
I don't know about to, but he's definitely on something.