Go Back   GameTavern > House Specials > Happy Hour
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Re: Religions
Old 12-01-2011, 05:53 PM   #1
KillerGremlin
No Pants
 
KillerGremlin's Avatar
 
KillerGremlin is offline
Location: Friggin In The Riggin
Now Playing: my ding-a-ling
Posts: 4,566
Default Re: Religions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S View Post
Politically, this has been common knowledge for a very long time. Many believe this is because democrats tend to be 1) less religious, and 2) view government programs as charity (consciously or subconsciously).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html
Thank you for the link. My only food for thought response would be to factor in the amount of civilian casualties and wars caused by Republicans vs. Democrats. Look at the Middle East...for example. On the other hand, Obama clearly has a war agenda, so maybe it goes both ways. But charity is more than just giving people money. When you add civilian causalities and war into the equation, who really comes out on top?

Early Christianity was spread via war. Look at the Spanish Inquisition or what we did to the Native Americans. Christianity, actually....Catholicism....has a lengthy history in Europe. The Martin Luther revolution was the result of BAD RELIGION. Catholics are responsible for many wars and deaths throughout European history. Not to mention how often religion was abused by kings and other nobles. Remember, to date, the earth was flat, the earth was in the center of the universe, and God created the universe. Since then we've discovered the earth is not flat, we aren't in the center, and we came from the Big Bang. We haven't figured out what happened pre-Big Bang. So you can go two directions: God created us, or science still needs to fill in the gap.

None of that proves or disproves the existence of God, but when you consider the amount of causalities and war that are the result of religion, even religion's charitable contributions seem to weigh fairly against the destruction caused by religion.

Again, none of this really proves or disproves the existence of God. But, I have to ask:

I wonder if the big personalities in the science community wouldn't be so cynical or anti-religion if historically religion wasn't so anti-science. So much so in fact that many historical science figures died at the hands of religious men. I know in Physics class we were reminded what happened to people like Copernicus, or the Library of Alexandria. Need I remind you that Copernicus has done way more to advance human civilization than the Catholic church.

I think the science community is far more anti-religion than anti-God. And they've earned their jaded patch. I mean seriously, if you're a scientist you have every right to own a "fuck religion" mentality.

But it's a complicated gray area issue. Here is why: You have organizations like the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is fucking awesome, they help a TON OF PEOPLE out. But they are also anit-gay. For me, I have to refer people to Salvation Army for free resources all the time. I'm partially conflicted because I disagree with the anti-gay stance, so I'm in serious moral contention because I'd rather help people. I see the positives, like the Catholic church assisting in Africa. And then I see Pope Douchefuck the III telling the people not to wrap their shit. Seriously, Pope? AIDS!!!???!!

It's all the holes in the mythology that keep me away from religion....I'm open to spirituality and find that my own journey and questions are a rewarding experience. Organized religion has the faults of any major institution, only MORE SO because it is founded and based on antiquated and retarded ideas.

The notion of God or Spirituality should remain separate from both science and organized religion. I'm down with some higher power or some connected conscious. I'm open to that notion. I can't get aboard religion, I've seen way too much hurt caused by religious institutions. I'd like to think if there is a God, he set the universe in motion and grabbed a bucket of Popcorn. And some lube. Because he is watching you undress.
  Reply With Quote

Re: Religions
Old 12-01-2011, 10:00 PM   #2
Professor S
Devourer of Worlds
 
Professor S's Avatar
 
Professor S is offline
Location: Mount Penn, PA
Now Playing: Team Fortress 2, all day everyday
Posts: 6,608
Default Re: Religions

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin View Post
Thank you for the link. My only food for thought response would be to factor in the amount of civilian casualties and wars caused by Republicans vs. Democrats.
I think wars are a muddier comparison because they can be considered just or unjust, while charity is simply a moral good. But using your new comparison, let's compare the casualties of the Iraq wars that were the responsibility of Republicans to the civilian casualties created in WWII and the Korean and the Vietnam Wars under Democrats... I don't think we actually have to pull up the numbers, do we? In WWII alone a Democrat authorized the use of nuclear weapons... twice. Want to compare the use of smart bombs with carpet bombing, fire bombing and napalm?

I happen to agree with the use of the weapons considering the times, but by your terms Democrats are the greatest offenders BY FAR.
__________________

Last edited by Professor S : 12-01-2011 at 10:12 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Re: Religions
Old 12-01-2011, 10:46 PM   #3
KillerGremlin
No Pants
 
KillerGremlin's Avatar
 
KillerGremlin is offline
Location: Friggin In The Riggin
Now Playing: my ding-a-ling
Posts: 4,566
Default Re: Religions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S View Post
I think wars are a muddier comparison because they can be considered just or unjust, while charity is simply a moral good. But using your new comparison, let's compare the casualties of the Iraq wars that were the responsibility of Republicans to the civilian casualties created in WWII and the Korean and the Vietnam Wars under Democrats... I don't think we actually have to pull up the numbers, do we? In WWII alone a Democrat authorized the use of nuclear weapons... twice. Want to compare the use of smart bombs with carpet bombing, fire bombing and napalm?

I happen to agree with the use of the weapons considering the times, but by your terms Democrats are the greatest offenders BY FAR.
My only response to that would be that World War 2 was a response to Nazi Germany and was more out of self-defense. Vietnam and the Korean War were both effed, so I can't disagree there.

The War on Iraq had some religious context, but I think deep down we all know that it wasn't really about religion. And Obama hasn't had any staunch opposition to messing with the Middle East, so boo on him. He seems just as pro-war as any Democracy-spreadin' American Politician.

So I respectfully appreciate that Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. Ideally I wish both parties would stay the hell away from religion.

Also, random tangent, but what the fuck? "Effed" is a word now? It's not coming up on my browser spell check...it's defined if you Google search for it, and it has a Wikipedia thingy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effed

That's fucking awesome! I use "effed" in professional settings all the time.
  Reply With Quote

Re: Religions
Old 12-01-2011, 11:15 PM   #4
KillerGremlin
No Pants
 
KillerGremlin's Avatar
 
KillerGremlin is offline
Location: Friggin In The Riggin
Now Playing: my ding-a-ling
Posts: 4,566
Default Re: Religions

Is anyone here knowledgeable of history?

I've always wanted to ask: Did Hitler plan to win, or just stir up a whole lot of shit?

Was there any journals or documents recovered where Hitler stated a clear manifesto or something?
  Reply With Quote

Re: Religions
Old 12-02-2011, 08:27 AM   #5
Professor S
Devourer of Worlds
 
Professor S's Avatar
 
Professor S is offline
Location: Mount Penn, PA
Now Playing: Team Fortress 2, all day everyday
Posts: 6,608
Default Re: Religions

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin View Post
Is anyone here knowledgeable of history?

I've always wanted to ask: Did Hitler plan to win, or just stir up a whole lot of shit?

Was there any journals or documents recovered where Hitler stated a clear manifesto or something?
I'm not a historian by any stretch, but I can safely say Hitler was a true believer in his cause, and he absolutely intended to win. By the way, if he had listened to his generals he probably would have won. Engaging a war on 3 fronts is madness, and attacking Russia was the nail in the coffin even though, again, his military almost pulled it off even though Hitler was diverting supply trains to transport Jews for execution.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Re: Religions
Old 12-09-2011, 11:22 PM   #6
Bond
Cheesehead
 
Bond's Avatar
 
Bond is offline
Location: Midwest
Now Playing:
Posts: 9,314
Default Re: Religions

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin View Post
Is anyone here knowledgeable of history?

I've always wanted to ask: Did Hitler plan to win, or just stir up a whole lot of shit?

Was there any journals or documents recovered where Hitler stated a clear manifesto or something?
Look up Hitler's work with Albert Speer on Welthauptstadt Germania. Dude intended to win.

I tried to find a video for you, but all I found was Neo-Nazi propaganda. Here's a picture:

  Reply With Quote

Re: Religions
Old 12-02-2011, 08:22 AM   #7
Professor S
Devourer of Worlds
 
Professor S's Avatar
 
Professor S is offline
Location: Mount Penn, PA
Now Playing: Team Fortress 2, all day everyday
Posts: 6,608
Default Re: Religions

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin View Post
My only response to that would be that World War 2 was a response to Nazi Germany and was more out of self-defense. Vietnam and the Korean War were both effed, so I can't disagree there.
I agree that the reasons for entering WW2 were far less muddled than Vietnam or Korea, but the discussion was based on civilian casualties during the war and not the justification; military methods and not politics. WW2 methods were BRUTAL to civilians.

Again, the times considered and technology available, I'm not fully disagreeing with the methods used during WW2. Well, I have to disagree with the use of firebombing in Japan. The US targeted civilians in these campaigns, burning down most of the country in the process (most Japanese homes were made of wood at the time.) Firebombing was far more horrific than even the nuclear bombs.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:45 AM.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern