Adam and Eve...

[Autosaver]

My biggest beef with religion is that they don't teach you about evolution, at least not the correct way.
Remember that 4chan troll image I posted? That is basically what they say in Church, believe it or not. It is like they don't want you to know about evolution and the teachers make it seem like a theory made from a 3 year old. :/

Oh, and it is pretty hard to argue with an atheist when you barely know what their theory is. D=

Yes, I'm a Chirstian. Just if you were wondering.

[Waffle]

Creationism seems to be more American orientated. I was in a Christian school for 7 years where we prayed every day to Jesus and had to study the bible, along with visiting Christian temples frequently, and never was evolution something that was denied. They simply mentioned it in science class for what it was and nothing more.

I can only assume those that deny evolution are being either stubborn or are legitimately mentally retarded.

[Sharky]

Also to say that all 'Gods' are the same seems rather ignorant. No, they are not. Otherwise they would not differ, would they? And no, Greek religion is not dead.

I'm not saying all gods are the same, not in that respect anyway.
But they are all the same in the sense that they are a product of people not understanding the world around them.

You go back far enough and god was everything, why the sun came up, why the grass grew, how humans got here. The more we understand about our universe/world the less God became until now it's sort of a stubborn idea that is lingering like a bad smell and holding society back.


AutoSaver my belief is very simple, it is that we are not advanced enough to understand the reason that all of this happened yet. There are some very good theories out there but I don't really subscribe to any of them whole heartedly. It's even possible, (though imo extremely unlikely) that there was an intelligent designer... But it certainly wasn't a Christian, Muslim or any other god from any religion people follow today. When you think for yourself it's very easy to pick holes in pretty much every religion going, quite easily.

[Waffle]

Are they misunderstandings or personifications of human traits to aspire to?

I think it depends more on an individual's view of Gods. Figuring out they do not exist does not really change what they mean.

For example, do you think anyone actually believes Britannia exists? The Goddess figure of Britain, I mean. Or do you think it is symbolism?

Symbolism is what I see most Gods as, not actual beings. That is where religion becomes creative, in contrast to the insanity you see in other religions where they literally expect you to believe in their myth to the point of worshipping and dying/murdering for it.

[Emmett The Crab]

Beleif and faith give life to gods.  We create our own afterlife.  That's what I believe.   I believe god is everything, and we are all a part of it.

[Ben]

Cool that. Too bad I am not American. The post I responded to was not even an American example. If you want a mosque next door then go ahead and build it, I do not care. Just keep it in America and Saudi Arabia.

If you do not want a generalized answer to your post then don't post in generalities. Your posts read like Nazi propaganda, hate to tell ya man. My country allows for freedom of religion; no idea where you're from, but that's how it works where I live. What's done in Saudi Arabia and who they allow to worship there has nothing to do with my country or the Muslims in my country. 

While you are at it, maybe remove all your AMERICA FREEDOM BASES from my country? Even Muslims would appreciate that, I bet!

They probably would, LOL, but that has nothing to do with this topic. I do always find it funny though how quickly the Arab League for example demanded our help in Libya despite their supposed "hatred" of our military. France is the same way. They begged for our help in that conflict too. I certainly don't support all the foreign policy decisions my country makes, but it's funny to me how many people seem to hate the American military until they find themselves in need of our help...

Actually he attacked the Norwegian Labour Party for being Marxist. It was a political attack, not a religious one. I am aware he was Christian and disliked Muslims, but it was not the core reason for his actions. Additionally I am not even a Christian, so it has nothing to do with me.

Call it what you will dude, lol.....politics, not religion, are at the heart of Al Qaida's actions as well, they merely use religion as a pretext for their actions in order to gain followers. The stash of weed and porn found at Bin Laden's compound doesn't demonstrate a man of as "pure faith" as how he claimed he was to his followers, that's for sure, lmao. 

Untrue. Check my Cyprus example. In Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Turkey I can also easily think of examples of non-Muslims being attacked regularly.

With the exception of Turkey, those are all 3rd world countries man.....not a great demonstration of the civilized Muslim world. The United Arab Emirates (Dubai) is an example of a peaceful and prosperous (mostly) Muslim nation.

Mecca.. you mean that city created by non-Muslims who were then slaughtered by Muslims with everything they owned stolen?

Okay...how about the Christians killed by Roman rule? How about the millions slaughtered by the Christians in the Crusades? Again, you act like these problems are exclusive to the Muslim faith. It's true that Islam is practiced (and used to govern) in countries that happen to be INCREDIBLY poor and backwards. Using those countries to brand all Muslims with a label is rather ignorant and I'm surprised to see someone with such eloquent posts making such a dumb generalization.

(Again, I'm neither Muslim nor Christian.)

The mention of 'fairy tales' are again like I posted about before, simply Jewish folk stories. Why Christians and Muslims pay attention to them I cannot understand, they are specific to Jews and no one else.

lmao to classify the Old Testament as "Jewish folk stories" is pretty ridiculous.....if one is a follower of  an Abrahamic religion, to ignore the Old Testament would be to disregard a huge chunk of those religions. Most people who consider themselves faithful to one of those religions believe that the stories are sacred, or, at the very least, work important to the themes of the religion. Since they deal with the alleged creation of humanity, I don't see at all how they're "specific to Jews."

[Sharky]

Is that how the Americans are swinging it?

Because in truth, unlike Iraq there was good reason to go into Libya but the Americans backed down. It wasn't that the Americans were epically needed but it would have been nice to see a bit more support.

When the Americans finally did start to act holy shit what a mess they made... It was like the Iraq war all over again. A US plane crashed... So then Libyan civilians rushed out to help them rescue them and what happened? The Americans came in with a gunship and shot at, killed and wounded the people they are there to protect. The people who were saving the American pilots! It was a bloody mess…

So yeah everyone has grounds to hate the American military, nothing reminds the world how shit they are like any conflict they are in... They make up the numbers... Which is nessisary in war, but they have a unique way to be shit at everything. =3

[Ben]

Is that how the Americans are swinging it?

Well no, actually America largely did not favor intervention in Libya. I think American citizens are for the most part tired of war, and are tired of being dragged into these conflicts by people who clearly then don't appreciate our help.

Because in truth, unlike Iraq there was good reason to go into Libya but the Americans backed down. It wasn't that the Americans were epically needed but it would have been nice to see a bit more support.

Dude the world went into Libya for the same reason America (and yes, England) went into Iraq; France gets a large supply of oil from Libya, and an unstable dictator losing control of himself and killing his people poses great risk for France's ability to continue to get oil from the country. There's nothing stopping this guy from losing his mind and sealing off his country or destroying his oil wells or whatever. When a crazed and desperate dictator is in charge of arguably the world's most important resource, it becomes in the interest of those who benefit from that resource to interfere. That's why France demanded our help and that's why we demanded their help to go into Iraq. The difference is that they said "fuck you" to us and yet we, like an ally, supported them. Despite the fact that we don't get our oil from Libya, so our involvement was pretty effing nice of us. Europe is the main continent who benefits from Libyan oil; the US certainly doesn't, so why does Europe need our help for all their problems?

If you think France demanded the world join them in Libya because they feel sorry for the Libyan people, that's just naive thinking on your part. (They certainly didn't give two craps about the Iraqi people back in 2003, lol...) America went into Iraq to remove an unstable dictator who was in charge of a large portion of the world's oil. Our motives were disguised by our dumbass president to be "all about the Iraq people," and "fighting terrorism" when in reality, it was about resources. Libya is the same way, and you're kidding yourself if you think it isn't.


Don't get me wrong, though, Iraq was a mistake made by our dumbass president and Libya I feel is a cause that's much more legit and that we can WIN. But the free world's motives for entering these countries is strictly for resources, man, and it's always been.

When the Americans finally did start to act holy shit what a mess they made... It was like the Iraq war all over again. A US plane crashed... So then Libyan civilians rushed out to help them rescue them and what happened? The Americans came in with a gunship and shot at, killed and wounded the people they are there to protect. The people who were saving the American pilots! It was a bloody mess…

Do you have a source for this, lol? Just curious. Not saying I think it's impossible or anything but I'd love to know the details. And yeah, dude, shit happens in war. When you have tons of troops suddenly entering and escallating conflict, miscommunication and other issues happen, war is a tragic scenario, humans are not perfect, and shit does go wrong. If people feel that the American military is so incompetent then they should just take care of their own stuff themselves.

...oh wait, they can't, because then it would be THEIR people dying instead of ours. Of course. It's so easy for European nations to try to call the shots and demand the world's help in their oil disputes when they have the United States to do all their fighting for them.  And then it's America who looks bad in the eyes of the rest of the world when things don't go well over there, of course.

[Sharky]

Point A:
What was the last conflict you were 'dragged into'... Just wondering... I'm pretty sure that the people of Iraq would have been a ton more thankful if the war in 2003 and the following years hadn't been handled so badly.
Seriously the Americans were (accidentally) bombing hospitals, schools, TV crews, even each other... It was a bloody mess and it has been since. I don't see why anyone would appreciate what Iraq is today.

Point B:
I fully understand the real motives for wars like Iraq and Libya, nobody goes in just for the good of others. But Libya was British and French lead and the British get almost all of their oil from Norway/North Sea. We also joined you in Iraq and whilst we do get Oil from Iraq it's a small amount compared to America... It was also the British putting pressure on America to join in Libya not just the French.

Point C
It touches on it in this report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12816226

If people feel that the American military is so incompetent then they should just take care of their own stuff themselves.

...oh wait, they can't, because then it would be THEIR people dying instead of ours. Of course. It's so easy for European nations to try to call the shots and demand the world's help in their oil disputes when they have the United States to do all their fighting for them.  And then it's America who looks bad in the eyes of the rest of the world when things don't go well over there, of course.

I find this argument really poor... Half of Europe went into Iraq and Afghanistan when America declared war and we still have our dead coming back from those wars... Thankyou very much. Just because France decided not to go into Iraq suddenly America stopped importing from them and started calling everything with 'French' in the title 'freedom' like 'freedom fries'... What kind of cunty childish move is that? Talk about trying to bully another nation into war.

All the British and French have done is to ask America to step it up a bit in Libya where they are clearly not interested in putting any effort in because it doesn’t directly benefit them.

[Ben]

Point A:
What was the last conflict you were 'dragged into'... Just wondering... I'm pretty sure that the people of Iraq would have been a ton more thankful if the war in 2003 and the following years hadn't been handled so badly.
Seriously the Americans were (accidentally) bombing hospitals, schools, TV crews, even each other... It was a bloody mess and it has been since. I don't see why anyone would appreciate what Iraq is today.

As is what happens in all wars. It was badly-handled because we were not fighting soldiers, we were fighting insurgents who had no problem blowing themselves up. Little combat training can effectively prepare soldiers for that type of enemy.

Again, I am *not* defending the Iraq War, man. Yeah it was incredibly stupid. You can understand why America was hesitant to jump into another Middle Eastern war. As far as Iraq, the VAST majority of troops were American soldiers. Again, it's understandable, it was our war. But I feel like it takes a lot of nerve for especially France (and I'm 1/4 French!) to demand our help in what's really their conflict after how they reacted to our Middle East War. (And yes, the "Freedom Fries" thing was silly.)

Libya's the same exact thing.....Saddam Hussein killed his people in the same way that Libya's dictator did. And yet that was unacceptable to France that we entered Iraq and yet here they are, ordering us into Libya because now it benefits *them.*

Point B:
I fully understand the real motives for wars like Iraq and Libya, nobody goes in just for the good of others. But Libya was British and French lead and the British get almost all of their oil from Norway/North Sea. We also joined you in Iraq and whilst we do get Oil from Iraq it's a small amount compared to America... It was also the British putting pressure on America to join in Libya not just the French.

Neither Britain nor France gets the MAJORITY of their oil from Libya but they are a source of oil. Europe benefits greatly from a peaceful and cooperative Libya.

All the British and French have done is to ask America to step it up a bit in Libya where they are clearly not interested in putting any effort in because it doesn’t directly benefit them.

lol by "step up" you mean "take over" the conflict.....because that's basically what happened. Even if you hide behind the "NATO" thing....NATO is basically America under a different name.

[Sharky]

You were fighting soldiers in Vietnam and that was a complete fuck up too, in fact you lost... just sayin'.

I think the French had every right to deny going to war in Iraq, the reasons for it were extremely poor, if you remember back to 2003 the Americans were saying that they have confirmation that Saddam has WMD's and yet he didn't... There was a lot of miss information which lead to that war. If I had it my way the British wouldn't have gone in either, none of Europe would have.

Afghanistan yes, but guess what?! The French did go to Afghanistan! French forces have been involved in the ongoing War in Afghanistan since 2001 and are still there... What prompted this? The 9/11 attacks on America did... So yeah I think the French have the right to ask America to step it up and the British most freaking certainly do!

Also, dude... You clearly need to read up about NATO, that statement is just ridiculous...

[Ben]

You were fighting soldiers in Vietnam and that was a complete fuck up too, in fact you lost... just sayin'.

I think the French had every right to deny going to war in Iraq, the reasons for it were extremely poor, if you remember back to 2003 the Americans were saying that they have confirmation that Saddam has WMD's and yet he didn't... There was a lot of miss information which lead to that war. If I had it my way the British wouldn't have gone in either, none of Europe would have.

Afghanistan yes, but guess what?! The French did go to Afghanistan! French forces have been involved in the ongoing War in Afghanistan since 2001 and are still there... What prompted this? The 9/11 attacks on America did... So yeah I think the French have the right to ask America to step it up and the British most freaking certainly do!

Also, dude... You clearly need to read up about NATO, that statement is just ridiculous...

France was right to avoid Iraq however they were wrong to yell at us for wanting to avoid Libya. It wasn't our conflict to get involved in just like Iraq wasn't theirs.

Regarding NATO, you should do some reading up on it yourself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/03/22/america-owns-the-war-in-libya-whether-we-like-it-or-not.html

The conflict in Libya is almost totally American. None of the other allies in the supposed "NATO" alliance are doing squat.

[Sharky]

Regarding NATO, you should do some reading up on it yourself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/03/22/america-owns-the-war-in-libya-whether-we-like-it-or-not.html

The conflict in Libya is almost totally American. None of the other allies in the supposed "NATO" alliance are doing squat.

I'm sorry but that article was absolutely laughable... First of all I've never heard of 'the daily beast' I doubt anyone here has... Clearly not a reputable news outlet, anyone can write online.

Secondly, this really says absolutely nothing about the Americans owning NATO, not sure where you are getting that from. America has no more say in NATO than anyone else. In fact the main NATO HQ is in Europe.

Finally that entire article is extremely childish, yes America does spend an absolute bomb on their military (pun) and does supply weapons/bombs but if you count Europe as a whole instead of trying to count individual countries which are equal to the size of American states Europe has supplied far more and done far more actual combat in Libya. The French alone has flown 35% of NATO's strikes in Libya so far.

In this article he states things like:

The U.S. has supplied nearly half the aircraft involved in Operation Odyssey Dawn,

What he doesn’t tell you is that this is the name for the US part of enforcing a no-fly-zone over Libya… But the catch is Spain, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Canadians, Norway and the United Arab Emirates were all also involved. I don’t think ‘nearly half’ in your own operation is anything to shout about. Not to mention soon after the Americans handed over command of their operation to British and French and assumed a support role.

The British took on Operation Ellamy, The French Operation Harmattan, and Canadians Operation Mobile. These were all flown alone.

Either way, America is involved in Libya, yes… A big role compared to countries that they dwarf in size and military presents? Yep (kind of a given really) but still not the kind of role they are expected to take.

[Ben]

America's size doesn't mean they should be expected to take the lead role in every single conflict that people want their help in. America may have handed the operation over to NATO but they're still stuck (as you point out) doing the majority of the work in this conflict.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the size of America. So what if we have states bigger than France? France has a hell of a better economy than us now and unlike us, France can actually afford to be in this conflict.

[Waffle]

What happened to this being the religion topic?

I thought it was a spin-off of the politics topic.