I suggest you check some newspaper headlines. You will see “Christian person…” did something bad. “The Pope…” said something bad.I think you mean communism. No atheist I know talks about causing harm to others.
It’s not an option and here’s why: wars are fought primarily to gain land and resources. There is no money in peace. The founding principle of weapons research and development is “to avoid technological surprise.” More recently, the previously unspoken part saw release: “and create technological surprise.”
Thanks for the detailed reply. I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis myself. The USA is a bona-fide democracy, and its citizens to have the power to elect leaders who would carry out Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament. So it certainly is an option. Your reply does not make clear why that would not be true, and also does not give any reasons why it is not desireable. The fact that the Cuban Crisis almost led to a global nuclear war would seem to support my idea.**
I agree there are bad people in any community. My point is more that spouting people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot who were bad but did not use atheism as a base for their deeds. Atheism doesn’t have any kind of foundation on which to build things that would produce the horrors those men caused.I suggest you check some newspaper headlines. You will see “Christian person…” did something bad. “The Pope…” said something bad.
What you will never see is “Atheists rob and kill owner of convenience store.”
Sorry to put it that way, but that’s a fact. To say there are no bad people in the atheist community is the same as saying there are no bad people in any community, regardless of race, ethnicity, religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Ed
That’s not factual. After his capture in 1939, the commander of Polish forces was taken to the Lubyanka Prison in Moscow. His Blessed Virgin Mary pin fell to the ground, to which one of his guards/escorts said: “You think that *itch is going to help you in here?”I agree there are bad people in any community. My point is more that spouting people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot who were bad but did not use atheism as a base for their deeds. Atheism doesn’t have any kind of foundation on which to build things that would produce the horrors those men caused.
I know about the war you are talking about. I received my draft card just as it was winding down. The history of that war goes all the way back to the surrender of Japanese forces in World War II. The history of its origin and desirability, or purpose, has been obscured. All of the relevant information is available now. There was no reason for it but patriotic young men went to serve their country without full knowledge. Without knowing that the cover story was exactly that.**I was a willing participant in a war that caused the deaths of over three million people. I later found out that this war was an illegal war and that it had nothing to do with the either security of the USA or with the welfare of the local inhabitants.
While I was recuperating at a USMC field hospital I noticed a young soldier using a common profanity that was overheard be a Catholic Priest. The Chaplain’s reaction surprised me by its ferocity. But I never heard any chaplain, Catholic or otherwise, complain about either the illegality or the immorality of that unnecessary war.
So my conclusion is that religion did not help in any way to prevent that tragedy.
Religion ought to help us avoid the coming world-wide nuclear disaster if we would only follow its precepts. **
Always treat others as you would like them to treat you.
We would certainly like the Russians to stand down their nuclear armed ICBMs. So, according to our Lord’s Sacred Teaching, we do that for them.
To those who say that such an action might be detrimental to our future well-being, we offer this reply:
That is why I am telling you not to worry about your life. . . .
Can any of you, for all his worrying, add one single cubit to the span of his life?
Set your hearts first on His Kingdom first, and on His Righteousness…
So so not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Kennedy’s irrational and dangerous policy here threatened to blow up the entire world in a devastating nuclear war. A more reasonable plan would have been to solve the issue by diplomacy. After all, the US had missiles in Turkey near the border with Russia and Khrushev did not threaten to blow up the whole world because of that.In 1962, US spy planes had spotted Russian missiles on the island of Cuba. Troops were immediately mobilized on the east coast and sent to Florida under total secrecy until they arrived. President Kennedy, in a televised address to the country, made it clear that an attack against the United States would result in an attack on the Soviet Union and an attack against Western Europe would be regarded as an attack against the United States and would draw the same response. Fortunately, President Kennedy, working with his brother, then US Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, worked out a solution to a crisis that could have resulted in World War III at that time.
Oh yeah, that makes sense…take away all higher standards to live by that teach love and good will to others just because some extremists have and will continue to use religion as a reason to do terrible things and to kill in the name of their god and everyone will be more moral as atheists? I doubt it. Not that there are not moral atheists but what makes them think that a lot of people who are peaceful adherents to their religious beliefs would not be mass killers as atheists? Maybe religious beliefs and a belief in God keeps more people in line than it makes people cross the line. I have known people that if they had not converted, they might be a immediate danger to everyone around them. Imagine that on a bigger scale. More people probably have killed in the name of greed than anything else in the world. How will no religions change that?First off, most of these popular atheists offer a solution to violence that is simply too far fetched. They basically say, “If there were no religion…” the world would be a better place. Most of these are asserting the world would be much more peaceful without religion. That is debatable and so they debate. But it is also extremely useless. Do they really think they are doing any damage at all to religion by sitting on TV in a fine suit while saying the Sunnis and Shiites would be better off if they were not religious. Who is going to go there and spend their life converting any of them to atheism? Charles Dawkins? Sam Harris? Those guys are only brave enough to go on TV so far. I can offer a magic solution that is just as useful. “Everybody should agree and believe the same thing.” World peace!
**President Kennedy was under tremendous pressure to authorize the US military to invade Cuba. All of his advisors strongly advocated that action with the possible exception of Commandant USMC.Kennedy’s irrational and dangerous policy here threatened to blow up the entire world in a devastating nuclear war. A more reasonable plan would have been to solve the issue by diplomacy. After all, the US had missiles in Turkey near the border with Russia and Khruschev did not threaten to blow up the whole world because of that.
Ed, I understand your concerns. But I do not think that idea of Russia invading the USA is believable. My point is that our nuclear armed ICBMs are not enhancing the safety of our country. Instead they are putting us at great risk.It’s not an option and here’s why: wars are fought primarily to gain land and resources. There is no money in peace. The founding principle of weapons research and development is “to avoid technological surprise.” More recently, the previously unspoken part saw release: “and create technological surprise.”
Simple scenario. Your country is about to be invaded. The invader sends a message: “Surrender or we will launch a nuclear missile against one of your cities.” You have unilaterally disarmed. You have no nuclear weapons. The other country invades yours. You are warned that any resistance will result in tactical nuclear strikes against any military targets in your country. There is no war. The occupiers move in, no one dies and all of your industrial buildings, farmland, livestock and other infrastructure and resources now to belong to the invader. A message is sent to the public: “Any person or group that resists by killing or attempting to kill our men will be executed, on the spot, or tracked down and executed.”
War isn’t about fear, it’s about expanding your sphere of influence and capturing resources, including men, equipment and personnel that can increase your land holdings. You now have, for example, The Russian Federation becoming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, again, as we are seeing in the Crimea and the Ukraine.
Simple questions:
Why are other countries developing faster, stealthier, next generation aircraft?
Why are other countries developing humanoid robots that can carry weapons?
Why are other countries deploying laser defenses that can destroy drones and missiles?
Imagine all of World War II being fought by the Allies using World War I era aircraft while the Germans create the world’s first cruise missile, the world’s first ballistic rocket (with a one ton warhead) and the world’s first combat jet aircraft. Who wins?
Hitler gets his lebensraum - living room - by destroying World War I era tanks and his aircraft can fly above the maximum effective height of World War I antiaircraft guns. Germany takes over Europe and Russia.
Ed
In fact, Kennedy, as part of the deal, agreed to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey. Both President and Robert Kennedy solved the problem with diplomacy.Kennedy’s irrational and dangerous policy here threatened to blow up the entire world in a devastating nuclear war. A more reasonable plan would have been to solve the issue by diplomacy. After all, the US had missiles in Turkey near the border with Russia and Khrushev did not threaten to blow up the whole world because of that.
Military planners in the US would never agree.Ed, I understand your concerns. But I do not think that idea of Russia invading the USA is believable. My point is that our nuclear armed ICBMs are not enhancing the safety of our country. Instead they are putting us at great risk.
I might not be so insistent on this idea if I didn’t see a global nuclear war described in Holy Scripture:
Psalm 9:15-16 describes the world’s dilemma of having multiple nuclear armed nations:
The nations have sunk into a pit of their own making,
they are caught by the feet in the snare they set themselves.
YHWH . . .has trapped the wicked in the work of their own hands.
Isaiah 2:19,19,&21 describe the only defence against an incoming nuclear attack:
Go into the hollows of the rocks,
into the caverns of the earth,
at the sight of the terror of YHWH,
at the brilliance of His majesty . . .
Isaiah 66;15-16 & Jeremiah 25:31-32 describe the launching of ICBMs:
**For see how YHWH comes in fire,
His chariots like the tempest,
to assuage His anger with burning,
His threats with flaming fire.
For by fire will YHWH execute judgment,
and by His sword against all mankind.
The victims of YHWH will be many,
For YHWH is indicting the nations,
arraigning all flesh for judgment . . .
See! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation,
a mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the world.**
Jeremiah 25:31 graphically describes the outcome (see signature below.)
Our choice is a simply one: stand down our nuclear weapons, placing our trust in our Creator, or be subjected to the horrors of global nuclear war.
All very true , Ed. But we make lots of noise about the evil of abortion, why not at least do the same for this issue?Military planners in the US would never agree.
Matthew 24:6 to 24:8
"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
"Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
“All these are the beginning of birth pains.”
Matthew 24:21
"For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now–and never to be equaled again.
22
“If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.”
It’s coming. Like it or not.
You live on an island with your family and no one else. You had a gun but threw it into a deep crevice. One day, a small group of men appear and they have guns. You have disarmed. “We will take this island and you will be our slaves and serve us.”
Ed
Going to link to a page. Can’t make a full blown response yet. rationalwiki.org/wiki/StalinThat’s not factual. After his capture in 1939, the commander of Polish forces was taken to the Lubyanka Prison in Moscow. His Blessed Virgin Mary pin fell to the ground, to which one of his guards/escorts said: “You think that *itch is going to help you in here?”
Atheism spawns any kind of State it may desire. The official state religion was atheism. It relied on men to reshape the world system. From marxist.com
"The Society of Militant Atheists, under Stalin’s orders, issued on May 15th 1932, the “Five Year Plan of Atheism” – by May 1st 1937, such as the “Plan”, “not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR, and the very concept of God must be banished from the Soviet Union as a survival of the Middle Ages and an instrument for the oppression of the working masses.”!
Ed
I can see how one could get a nuclear holocaust from this verse, but it could just as easily be something else too, some kind of natural event, asteroids, meteors, or it could be in the form of something totally unknown to us, sent by God, maybe similar to what destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. (Do we know how God destroyed these 2 cities?) I know it was some kind of fire, Im assuming something created by God for this purpose, but the point is, whatever it was, it was something the people did not have (like a weapon or missile).Isaiah 66;15-16 & Jeremiah 25:31-32 describe the launching of ICBMs:
**For see how YHWH comes in fire,
His chariots like the tempest,
to assuage His anger with burning,
His threats with flaming fire.
For by fire will YHWH execute judgment,
and by His sword against all mankind.
The victims of YHWH will be many,
For YHWH is indicting the nations,
arraigning all flesh for judgment . . .
See! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation,
a mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the world.**
There was a threat to start a nuclear war with Russia and blow up the whole world. If Khrushev had not been conciliatory, it could have been the end of the world. This was an immature, stupid and reckless way to deal with the missiles in Cuba, especially since the USA had them in Turkey on Russia’s border.In fact, Kennedy, as part of the deal, agreed to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey. Both President and Robert Kennedy solved the problem with diplomacy.
Ed
President Kennedy was under tremendous pressure to authorize the US military to invade Cuba. All of his advisors strongly advocated that action with the possible exception of Commandant USMC.
Instead he did negotiate a settlement and, to insure that such was accepted by the Russian military, he volunteered the additional stipulation that the USA would remove its IRBMs from Turkey within six months.
.
I think if you really analyze most wars, you’re going to find religion was little more than a convenient “marker” for good versus bad. Even the more legitimately “religious” wars, like the Thirty Years War or the Crusades had pretty significant economic underpinnings. The latter, of course, was as much about a pack of Christian princes hoping to gain control of one of the most valuable trade routes in the world; the Levant, where the goods of Europe, Asia and Africa all flowed.Stalin was studying in Tbilisi. to be a priest. I don’t see how anyone can deny that religious differences have played a role in promoting some wars.
Why should the United States have tolerated Soviet missiles less than 500 miles from Florida? And yes, the Americans had the Soviets encircled in a ring of alliances and nuclear weapons, thankfully. Wars, even cold wars, are not about being fair, but about winning; whether that is in the battle field or in diplomacy. What choice did Khrushchev have? He wasn’t going to start a nuclear confrontation over Cuba, and even Castro quickly became less than keen to have the missiles on his turf.There was a threat to start a nuclear war with Russia and blow up the whole world. If Khrushev had not been conciliatory, it could have been the end of the world. This was an immature, stupid and reckless way to deal with the missiles in Cuba, especially since the USA had them in Turkey on Russia’s border.
IMHO, it is more prudent to use diplomacy to solve problems peacefully, rather than threaten to blow up the whole world resulting in the massive killing of hundreds of millions of innocent people.Why should the United States have tolerated Soviet missiles less than 500 miles from Florida? And yes, the Americans had the Soviets encircled in a ring of alliances and nuclear weapons, thankfully. Wars, even cold wars, are not about being fair, but about winning; whether that is in the battle field or in diplomacy. What choice did Khrushchev have? He wasn’t going to start a nuclear confrontation over Cuba, and even Castro quickly became less than keen to have the missiles on his turf.
What the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated was 1. that nuclear weapons were an effective deterrent against even conventional military operations and 2. that the US’s naval dominance was unassailable.