So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

QUOTE: "Dogs provided an early warning system...."

Yes. well, so do Geese, but you wouldn't choose either as an alternative to matrimony. Or would you?

Who can tell, these days?

I thought you could at least understand abuse and thoughtfullness, however, my apologies for thinking you are a little less bright than I thought you were and a lot, lot less bright than YOU think you are.

All you deal in is a lot of quotes gleaned from the internet, I do not think for one minute you understand 90% of them.

You could give me any subject on earth and within a short time I could give details etc; that would indicate that I was fully conversant with the subject but in fact not be aware of the meaning of half of it, the same applies to Tosh, just a Troll.

I thought you could at least understand abuse and thoughtfullness, however, my apologies for thinking you are a little less bright than I thought you were and a lot, lot less bright than YOU think you are.

Yet again I have not a clue what you are babbling on about, why did god create malaria was my last question to you, is this your answer ?

Completely ga ga, IQ of a lettuce.

I have given an answer to the question previously.

The reply was not to you but Shirina, regarding abuse etc;

So please just get someone to explain matters to you before going into a fit of pathetic nonsense, I have already explained to you the problem with people like you who have no sense but I will keep trying to give you a chance to say something that matters.

God did not create any disease, diseases were and are still being caused by the actions of man,

I'm still waiting for polyglide to explain how mankind "misused" the Yersinia pestis bacterium in 1348 that caused the Black Death.

Man did not misuse any disease, he caused them through abuse of that which he had to hand.

There are more children, often not out of junior school who have sexual deseases than ever before.

Every day we learn of more deseases in both animal and vegitable life.

None are caused by evolution but by man.

Of course once created by abuse then it is possible for them to evolve and cause evn more problems. ALL MAN'S fault.

Dogs are special. They are not just domesticated, or even just tame. If you get a dog as a puppy and love her or him, not “it”, that dog will put her or his life on the line to protect you and yours. That’s why they’re called police dogs, not police cats or police cows.

I don't think a dog should be called a cow or a cat regardless of its occupation.

Dogs attack and kill children despite being loved and fed, they are not that special.

There have been several very disturbing events in the past few weeks concerning attacks by dogs.

One young lady was bitten to death by three out of control dogs whilst in the house looking after them.

Several other people have reported being attacked by dogs.

I have kept all kinds of animals and some species would not hurt a fly choose how much provocation they received whilst others are totally untrustworthy.

I have a dog which is a cross between a llapso and a toy dog, it looks exactly like a mere cat and I would do anything to make it happy it is firmly a part of the family.

However, it like all dogs, has a personallity of it's own and can show decent when he feels like it.

All animals can do the same, some more than others.

The art in keeping any animal is to familiarise yourself with the animals natural requirements and try as near as possible to meet them.

You will, as with humans, I will not mention Tosh, find the exception to the rule and there is no way of anticipating this, which can involve unacceptable behaviour.

find the exception to the rule and there is no way of anticipating this, which can involve unacceptable behaviour.

As with humans the blame must lie with Satan.

The blame lies with mankind for not believing in Satan.

Have to go Tosh, Misty my dog will be missing me and I prefer his intelligence to yours.

The blame lies with mankind for not believing in Satan.

So dogs misbehave because they do not believe in Satan, interesting.

Try the blue pill.

Man did not misuse any disease, he caused them through abuse of that which he had to hand.

First of all, you specifically said that Mankind "misused" diseases. That is precisely the word you used. Once again, you are engaging in moving the goal posts as a means of obfuscation and deflection away from a question you apparently cannot answer. Any rational person, even other believers, can see the transparent ludicrousness of your assertion, as if Mankind's "sins" miraculously spawn hitherto unknown viruses and bacteria. Did President Clinton's indiscretion with Monica Lewinsky, for instance, magically poof the Ebola virus into existence? Even typing such an idea, even in jest, caused me to begin losing IQ points. It is a positively and utterly stupid idea.

Secondly, I pushed the date of 1348 in my questioning because it was impossible for Mankind to have manufactured biological toxins (or otherwise "misused" pre-existing viruses and diseases) due to the obvious fact that neither scientific knowledge or technology was up to the task. Any "cause" attributed to Mankind in 1348 could only be inadvertant at best - often due to an ignorance brought about by the primacy of religion in those days. For instance, the Romans were a very clean people who bathed regularly with a custom of meticulous hygiene. Then, when Rome fell and Christianity asserted itself, the Western world forsook the idea of bathing because a) it was a disgusting Roman, pagan custom and b) Christian morality simply couldn't stomach the idea of public bath houses where people might see each other naked. The result was an entire civilization living in filth and yes, that brought about unspeakable plagues. As historian Simon Sharma said, "Elizabeth I took a bath once a month - whether she wanted to or not."

Even during the era of the famed Nostrodamus in Renaissance Italy, religion still gripped civilization in a stranglehold. One could not receive a degree in medicine without first receiving a degree in theology. Thus no science could be performed without first being filtered through the blindness and ignorance of religious superstition. When science was at odds with superstition, the latter always came out on top. We still see this kind of backwater thinking in regards to the Big Bang and evolution today thus proving Santanna's immortal words, "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

There are more children, often not out of junior school who have sexual deseases than ever before.

Really? How insteresting. So, all of the sudden, history now matters? After all, how can there even be an "ever before" if you are not comparing today with yesterday? Which, by the way, makes me wonder just what statistics you are using to make such a claim. I suppose they kept careful track of STDs in Medieval Europe, did they? If you wish to see more substantive statistics, you should research the studies done that show a positive correlation, if not causality, between religiosity and high rates of teen STDs and pregnancy. It would seem the more religious a nation is, the higher the rates of both. Oh, I know ... you'll deny it, rationalize it, and dismissively wave it away. Evidence and facts, to say nothing of history, are not among your strengths.

None are caused by evolution but by man.

Please explain two things:

First, explain the mechanism by which Man causes these diseases. How does it happen?

Secondly, explain in greater detail this vague assertion that Mankind is abusing that which God supposedly gave us. What, precisely did God give to us and how were we supposed to use it?

I've given you loads of free passes on these two points, but the honeymoon is over.

I don’t trust cats either.

How do you not "trust" a cat? Are you afraid your feline housemate will make off with the silverware and towels when you're not looking?

The fact is - there are no news reports of people being mauled to death by a housecat which is far more than I can say for dogs. Quite often when a friend or neighbor arrives, the cat will slink behind the couch where it will remain until the "intruder" leaves. A dog, on the other hand, will bark, snarl, even lunge and bite if not carefully controlled and well trained. At the barest minimum, visitors will have to deal with a dog's nose in their crotches.

Perhaps even more important, I find the love of a cat to be far more genuine. A dog's love and loyalty is the result of pack hierarchy with the human being the alpha. When a dog rolls over to expose his belly, it isn't because he wants his tummy patted. It's because the dog is showing his submissiveness. I believe, too, that one reason why dogs are far more popular with men than cats is because men like the control they have over dogs, that feeling of having power over the animal, and the animal, in his own way, admitting to it. Cats would never do such a thing and regards you as an equal, not as a master. I like that.

I also like dogs, too, for they have their own appeal. As a pet owner, however, I much prefer the independence of a cat to the servile nature of a dog.

Cats regard you as an equal

My two don't! They see me as their servant.

QUOTE: "I believe, too, that one reason why dogs are far more popular with men than cats is because men like the control they have over dogs, that feeling of having power over the animal."

Maybe that explains why equine stables are packed with female human devotees.

Maybe that explains why equine stables are packed with female human devotees.

Heh, take it from a female, most women (and girls especially) are enthralled with a horse's beauty and grace rather than any power we may have over them.

My two don't! They see me as their servant.

Just blow up a few balloons and stick them to the cat's fur ... they'll quickly realize you have the power of static electricity and they do not. That tends to bring their feline egos back down to earth.

I cannot recall which post Snowyflake asked why we should not believe in Santa as well as God.

Well Santa along with Desperate Dan and Superman are all fictional characters produced for the amusement of children and can be confirmed as such.

God on the other hand can be verified as existing by all his works that are available for anyone to see and there is no evidence whatsoever that he does not exist.

Well Santa along with Desperate Dan and Superman are all fictional characters produced for the amusement of children and can be confirmed as such.

They are fictional characters from books as is God. God is a fictional character in a story. God is no more real than Thor, Zeus, Ganesh or the thousands of other Gods/gods/god in stories around the world. God is not real. One cannot see, smell, taste, touch or hear God. Therefore he does not exist.

God on the other hand can be verified as existing by all his works that are available for anyone to see and there is no evidence whatsoever that he does not exist.

Prove that God is verified as the source of 'all his works'? Prove that God created the universe. I want verifiable evidence that God exists and did the things you claim he does.

Well Santa along with Desperate Dan and Superman are all fictional characters produced for the amusement of children and can be confirmed as such.

How do you know?

Prove that Santa, Desperate Dan, and Superman are fictional.

Where's the tumbleweed icon when you need one. The believers are leaving the last 2 questions unanswered.

Surprised anyone?

God on the other hand can be verified as existing by all his works that are available for anyone to see

The Bible is true because it says its true.

and there is no evidence whatsoever that he does not exist.

According to your warped logic God did not exist before the Bible was written.

God on the other hand can be verified as existing by all his works that are available for anyone to see

Science on the other hand has verified that all that is available for anyone to see does not involve magic. God is unecessary for processes to continue.

and there is no evidence whatsoever that he does not exist.

You cannot touch, taste, smell, hear or see God. That is evidence enough for most rational people.

As I say a wasted education

Do you want the name of those who created Desperate Dan?

I have given you a web site to visit to prove how far you are out in the state of both the past and present regarding the state of the world and you are just as far out in almost everything you say.

I have given you a web site to visit to prove how far you are out in the state of both the past and present regarding the state of the world and you are just as far out in almost everything you say.

Please post it again. I can't find the link. Thanks poly

If you are in England you cannot smell, taste, see etc. many things in the world but you know they exist.
You use ridiculous to attemp to prove the ridiculous.

Try a little harder.

The site was for Shirina.

If you are in England you cannot smell, taste, see etc. many things in the world but you know they exist.
You use ridiculous to attemp to prove the ridiculous.

Does England have special things that are different to the rest of the world? Give me an example.

Carbon monoxide? Well, I have a little monitor that tells me whether or not it is there. The monitor is designed to provide evidence of the existence of Carbon monoxide.

Love? Love has physical and biological evidence to show that it exists. When someone loves you, they show you in a million different ways. That's evidence. Blood tests and babies are evidence that love exists.

Thoughts? Tosh answered that one.

What evidence do you have that God exists? Nothing. When you design the God detection monitor, let me know ok?

As I said, ridiculous.

Can you see the Grand Canyon from England?

Do you want the name of those who created Desperate Dan?

How do you know that those who 'created' Desperate Dan aren't getting their material from the real Desperate Dan? Isn't that how Paul, Luke, Matthew, etc. got THEIR material?

I have given you a web site to visit

Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of it. Is there a link directly to those 250 "major" conflicts?

to prove how far you are out in the state of both the past and present regarding the state of the world

Ours is the most peaceful time in history: Steven Pinker

JAIPUR: We live in violent, turbulent times-perhaps the most dangerous in human history, right? Wrong. At least that's what Steven Pinker would argue.

That claim may have seemed bizarre at first, but not once Pinker started listing one interesting statistic after another. He pointed out that death caused by violence as a percentage of all deaths has declined dramatically over the centuries. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. Similarly, the murder rate of medieval Europe was over 30 times what it is today. And there are more chances of Americans dying in a bathtub (one in 950,000) than in a terror attack (one in 3.5 million), according to a paper published by John Mueller and Mark Stewart.

LINK

The average annual battle death toll has dropped from nearly 10,000 per conflict in the 1950s to less than 1,000 in the 21st century. And the number of deadliest wars - those that kill at least 1,000 people a year - has fallen by 78 percent since 1988.

The irony here, polyglide, is that the military technology you fear so much is one of the root causes of why wars are not nearly as destructive as they once were. In WWII, for example, it took 1,000 bombers to hit a single factory in Germany with an average of 93% of the bombs missing the target and landing somewhere else - like schools, homes, hospitals, etc. In fact, it was the inaccuracy of both navigation and bombing in those days that escalated the European air war to carpet-bombing entire cities.

Today, a single flight of four aircraft can drop a handful of precision guided munitions on that same German factory, hit it unerringly, and not harm a single hair on a civilian's head. Alternatively, a single cruise missile can seek out that factory from 1,000 miles away, fly right through the front door, and destroy it, again with no collateral damage.

Before roughly 1980, wars were like boxing matches that slogged on for years. Today, wars are like knife fights - quick and decisive. The US and its allies defeated Iraq, which had the 4th largest military in the world, in less than a month; ground operations were over in 100 hours. More Americans died in one day landing in Normandy than died in the entire 10 years fighting in Iraq today. More Americans died in the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 than died in the entire 10 years of Vietnam.

The Battle of Verdun in WWI saw 714,000 casualties. The US Civil War - over 600,000 dead. Napoleon lost 580,000 invading Russia.

Modern wars are far less deadly.

Can you see the Grand Canyon from England?

A person in England can fly to Arizona and see the Grand Canyon. It is well-photographed and videoed and tens of millions of living people have seen it.

Can you see God from ... anywhere?

Can you see the Grand Canyon from England?

I can see pictures of it from my computer. I know it exists because I've been there, flown over it and it's on maps.

What's your point?

You are unable to make heads or tails of anything that you do not agree with, the site gives accurate details of the present and past state of the world you are only too keen to accept the ramblings of scientists theories but when confronted with verifiable stastitics you cannnot understand them.

No suprise there then.

You want verification, ask the author.

If you cannot see the point you are far more lacking than I thought.

It just shows a total lack of common sense a far more desirable quality than any degree.

It just shows a total lack of common sense a far more desirable quality than any degree.

Oh I agree totally. Common sense is what built rockets to go to the moon and the CERN Hardon Collider. Yep, yessirre however did we manage without common sense. Who needs degrees and knowledge and tried and tested theories when we've got good old common sense.

Let me perform brain surgery on you. With just common sense I can get that enormous tumour out of your head.

As usual you cannot understand what is said and go off at a tangent [that means going off the subject].

If you are stood in a remote place without any aids whatsoever you could not see 99% of the world. Nor smell it, yet you know it is there.

So do not be so stupid.

Without the use of common sense in the manufacture and discovery of everything there would be nothing worthwhile.

If you are stood in a remote place without any aids whatsoever you could not see 99% of the world. Nor smell it, yet you know it is there.

I know the world is there because there is evidence for it. There is no evidence that God exists.

Why do you find this such a difficult concept to grasp?