My point was that while it still needs to be wielded, it doesn't need to be wielded by any one group in particular...and since it can be used universally, ultimately, it is more dangerous, because more people have the potential to abuse it. Technology has vastly increased the scale of potential harm for every group to cause...my entire point was that is unfair to blame religion solely, because religion is not the sole group that has used technology for harm.

Yes, read the Old Testament of the bible, it's full of condoning and even encouraging violence.

I would rather pose the question: Does any religion not condone the use of violence under all circumstances?
Buddhism maybe? Some forms of Hinduism? Don't know enough about that to answer the question myself.

I think in the Christian bible the only one who never says anything condoning any form of violence is Jesus of Nazareth himself. Although he did act pretty harshly against those desecrating the main Jewish sanctuary. And some remarks I think can be interpreted either way (whether any act of violence should be left to god, or if his followers could commit them on behalf of god's will).

What all (major?) religions do however is limit and restrict the use of violence severely. At last within the religious community itself (against infidels this may be a completely different matter).

Fundamentalist Jainism. Jains wouldn't hurt a fly (literally!)

Thanks for the explanation.


No worries I never blame the religions solely for it all. I do not expect ALL wars to stop when religion fades.

I'll agree on the religion part. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether it is more dangerous because it can be used by anybody, or less dangerous because in order to do harm it must be used by somebody. Probably the two sides of the same coin.

I've met some very violent atheists in my time... I've met some Pagans that accepted any religious practitioner accept Catholics (Catholics stole the date from Easter from the Pagan's Spring Equinox... which is akin to saying they stole the concept of the "sky" from the Chinese...).

There are nuts and wacko's in any faith... they are armed to the teeth with every belief's stereotype in the book. And by and large they are a surprisingly small but vocal minority. Yes, when they get power and a soap box bad things happen, but all religions teach goals of peaceful living and accepting of life. As Canadian Comedian Steve Smith (AKA Red Green) once said "I'm pulling for you, we're all in this together."

Tell me what you would consider a good person doing bad. Nearly every single human being believes themself to be a good person, or at least not a bad person. But there are people who do horrible things. That's what I'm trying to say. But I want to know what you consider a good person doing wrong.



The US dropped the bombs on Japan because Japan made it clear that they would never surrender. They were willing to throw women and children at our soldiers. They were teaching children to fight in school. They would have fought to the point of annihilation. When the US dropped the bombs on Japan, the Japanese realized that any further loss of life would be had at a high and probably meaningless cost. That's why they surrendered.

Further, there have been situation since then when the US felt the threat of nuclear weapons being aimed at it, yet has not launched any nuclear weapons since. It's because the US people and government realize the potential for utter annihilation that comes with lauching nukes. The US has gained experience since it dropped the bombs on Japan, and it is unlikely that it will drop more bombs except for in utterly dismal circumstances.

I'm not trying to belittle the loss of life that occurred in Japan, but it was the lesser of two evils under the circumstances.

yeah, and we were SO rational about the dosage in that regard. two of their major cities up in smoke.



im pretty sure it wouldve taken only ONE to get them to throw up their hands--since evidently they WOULD surrender, and it wouldnt be when Never came, would it?
and, thats wrong. they were not willing to throw women and children at our soldiers. that, my friend, is whats called propaganda, and youd be wise to read up on a culture before you decided to believe in it.

we havent needed to launch any nuclear weapons because everything else in our arsenal does the trick just fine. we're the youngest nation out there, yet we average a major war every 10 years. so you dont think we're a bit, oh i dont know, HOSTILE and quick to jump into a fight? i do.
you cant very well speak for the people and government, either. ive seen plenty of people who openly declared that the US should nuke the middle east. nukes are also pretty expensive. dont you think that might have something to do with it? hmmmmmm. as far as i can tell, the US government has had no problem with annihilating its enemies. just look back in history, and youll see just how woe stricken they are about loss of human life.

and there is where i shake my head sadly. no, there is always a better solution, if one is willing to search for it. being the " lesser of two evils " does not take away that it was evil.

First, how do you know it wouldn't have taken two bombs? It's impossible to look back at history and know exactly how things would have happened if something had gone differently. What's done it done, and the US has learned from it. Keep in mind that this happened right after the atomic bomb was discovered. Humans had never wielded that much power, and so it is possible to make mistakes or misjudge. It doesn't make it more excusable, but it does make it more likely to be learned from.



No I can't speak for the government, but neither can the extremists who don't actually have any governmental power. The people who want to nuke the Middle East are extremists and, no matter how much the news covers them and their crazy ideas, they are a minority.

And you misinterpret my beliefs on the matter if you truly think that something being the lesser of two evils means that I think it isn't evil. I don't believe in "get out of jail free." I think there are consequences for everything and that people should atone for their bad actions even if it was the only action they could have taken. And yes, it is often possible to find a better solution, but in many cases, by the time the "better solution" is found, it is too late to implement. I honestly don't know what the other options would have been, and I doubt that you do either, but if we had continued a land war, there would have been dramatic losses on both sides. What I'm trying to say is that I think the US has atoned and moved past this. I think that our government and our people are aware of the horrors and evils of atomic war, and thus the atomic weaponry that we possess has far less likelihood of being used than that of certain other nations.

1 [ sorry to edit your post to add the numbers, but, i figured itd make it easier to understand what i was replying to. ] that cuts both ways. how do you know it wouldve taken two? how do you know they WOULDNT have given up at one? youre only furthering my point that you have done no real research on the culture youre accusing of being such bloodthirsty, ever tenacious war mongers.

2 if it doesnt make it excusable, why mention it?

3 i never said that i thought that you think a certain way. obviously i would be a moron if i did, since NOBODY knows what anyone else is truly thinking. i could be thinking about chickens and pie right now. nobody knows.

4 so basically, better them than us. i see.

5 mmm, i dont think theyve atoned if the OTHER SIDE hasnt moved past it as well. it takes two to reach a reconciliation. consult any elderly japanese person about the nukes and they will give you this face because theyre too polite to chew you out about it.

6 yeah, which is EXACTLY why we still have nukes. oh, and thats the exact reason why we DEAL them to other countries. i mean, does anybody question where the bombs and such in iraq came from? not from thin air, people. not from thin air. and as far as im concerned, benevolent, well learned countries do not deal weaponry to others that they conclude may use them differently.

What does this have to do with atheism?

haha...yeah, sorry. well, it originally started with who is more likely to wield scientifically advanced weapons... o_O; morphed into that. oops.

A bad person doing bad is a person who will do bad anyway, without beeing influenced to do so. They would do bad anyhow.
A good person doing bad is someome who initially would not do bad but is taught, feared misguided or forced into doing something they would normally never do. Someone who is feared or misguided into a bad desicion is not nessecarily bad by nature, and can mean good yet do bad.

Moms failing to educate their teens about sex because the church tells them abstinence is good to teach to them do not realise they do bad. Numbers show they put their kids on a higher risk for a teen pregnancy. Yet they feel they do "good" instead of bad because of religion is teaching them that. They mean well but because of religion they make bad desicions for their kids.

Homophobes are the modern version of racists. People who are homophobe fueled by religion think they have "better" morals instead of seeing it as something bad. They are hatefull to other people and give their kids a crappy youths when they turn out to be gay later on. Some people are homophobe by nature, those would do bad no matter what, but many are just because of religion, and would not be otherwise. They do not mean bad but do bad because they are taught thats good.

People don't realise some things are bad because they are taught its "good", while some may actually do good instead of bad if the desicion was only up to them. These are very daily examples, which go for a lot of people, but much worse things can go and go in life under the same principle. Like suicide bombers, extremists, burkas etc. The stronger the influence the bigger the effect, thats why in more religious countries the results are worse. There are more influences than religions which make good people do bad, the main reason why I mention religion is because is a very widespread one, its strong and people don't consider it beeing bad because "everyone does it" That goes for a christian in a very christian environment but the same way for a muslim in a very muslim country.

Then I would say to you that Hitler youth were a good example of good people doing bad. I don't believe that the entire country was full of bad people, but the intentions of Hitler youth were obviously not good. They were swayed and brainwashed into doing wrong. It doesn't take religion to brainwash a person. All it takes is a person with strong convictions telling others, particularly children, that there is something wrong with them if they don't believe the same thing that the speaker does. This happens all the time, between politicians who tell people that their opponents are evil and not worthy of respect, to school teachers who mix their personal opinions into the curriculum. I had a teacher in 11th grade who was racist against whites and sexist against men and she taught it to the class. It was unbelievably scary seeing otherwise intelligent people nodding along when she called all men stupid. When she gave us an article that talked about "African science" as if it were some form of magic, people held discussion about it as if it weren't a ridiculous concept. These are opinions that could lead someone astray and make them make poor decisions. In politics, if you truly believe that another politicians political views are evil, you will probably become very hostile to people who do believe that politician's views. There are people who literally fight about politics. If you believe that all men are stupid, or white people are all evil, then you are likely to wrong men or whites at some point in your life. It doesn't take religion to mold the malleable brain of a child.

It happens in many cases. Young people are especially prone to beeing manipulated. For older people it may work as well if the leader is convincing and preferably has a scapegoat. Scapegoats do magic too. There is a n idiot in dutch politics who is anti muslim. He gets votes because he is anti-muslim, thats all on his political agenda, and because there are many problems with young muslim raised kids. There is an idiotic amount of criminals amonst the second generation of morrocos muslims. While he does not have he potential to grow like hitler does is a bad-hitler attempt and he has a following of sheep who strengthen eachother in their believes. The more there are the more dangerous they become.

Then obviously religious people and non-religious people are both capable of doing wrong, regardless of whether they are normally good people. That's all I'm trying to say. Religious and non-religious people are not separate species and they both include intelligent, reasonable people and not so intelligent people. People don't know the absolute truths of the universe, so it is quite possible for two otherwise intelligent people to have very different views on religion and morality.

I never said they weren't. Anyone can be deluded into evil. The problem with religion is thats its a well accepted delusion. Even though it does a lot of evil.

Buddha is a prophet. Much the way Muhammad and Jesus are prophets.

Gods are, for example, God/Yahweh/Allah, etc.

Prophet doesn't equal God.