Lest we forget

This is a sensitive subject, and I know people who were in these camps.

Not only were Jews there, but any group that the Nazi's did not want around, including people like some of the people in this forum, me for instance. My personal views would have caused me to end up in one of the Nazi camps, something to think about.

Nevertheless, I am turned on by some of the situations that existed in there, and I am willing to admit it. I have dad to come terms with much worse in my journey into who I am. So, I can understand and appreciate the role play aspects that are involved, but we have to remember two things.

1. That role play is not the real thing.
2. That the real thing should never be allowed

That said, the same thing is happening in different part s of the world. My personal faith tells me that this is an unavoidable and intricate part of human nature, yet if we do speak out against it we are condoning it

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Just something to think about and remeber when we lay back in our comfortable beds and think that it cannot happen here.

Rhabbi,

thank you, but i also believe Jews were by far and away the greatest majority of victims and only Jews as far as I know were victimised by the "Night Of Broken Glass" , I heard never heard or read of any non jewish areas being attacked on that night, please correct me if i am wrong,and apologise for not knowthe German spelling of ther name of that night

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

You're forgetting that 300 years ago Europeans where doing exactly the same thing as the Arabs are doing now to each other, to other religions and to women. You are treating the Arabs, (and Persians) like they will always be like this. In the 13'th century the Arabs where the enlighetened people and the Europeans where the retards. 500 years of currupt Ottoman rule wiped out any head start they had.

---

No, I'm not forgetting. True, during the dark ages in Europe the Arab nations were more advanced in sciences and mathematics. The difference is, back then you couldn't kill 2000 people by running a horse drawn coach into a building. Or spread radioctive dust over hundreds of square miles of urban areas with a few pounds of explosives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

...and you're just wrong in that they have always been like this. There's an evolution and we in the West started our journey towards democracy and enlightenment 300 years ago and the middle-east started in the 1950'ies. Just comparing their culture to ours as is just isn't fair. You've got to give them some time to catch up. 50 years is not a lot in these circumstances. It takes many more generations for these values to catch on, and I'm sure they will. They did here and there's no reason it couldn't over there. Don't forget that we take on many values from our parents and the changes in values between generations are very gradual.

---

First you said that they were more enlightened than the Europeans, now you say we have to give them time to catch up? In other words, they have Devolved.
Personally, I don't care which religion they practice, or who they can con into practicing with them. Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs. What I object to is their trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the world through violence and terrorism.(And yes, I know the Roman Catholic Church is just as guilty of this historically.) In my opinion, if your religion is so screwed up that you must force people to accept it, it isn't a religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

...and don't judge them to harshly. We still aren't free from sin and have plenty of problems. Just the fact that women and men don't have equal oportunities or pay, or that we still have rampant racism. USA has increasing numbers turning to religion. How's that for belonging to an enlightened age? Who's up for throwing the first stone? We aren't at some final stage of enlightenment. We are just as the people in the middle-east right in the middle of evolving our culture to something new. Evolution is constant and ever changing.

---

It's my understanding that religion in the US is in decline. Except for the very vocal religious right wing fanatics, most people of faith are more interested in their personal form of worship than in organized religion. A quote from the remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" comes to mind. The Arab character says, "Faith brings people together, religion drives them apart."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

I'm with you on the space plan. Too many religious freaks down here for my taste.

---

Anyone ready to book a flight to Alpha Centauri? Shouldn't take more than 10,000 years to get there!

I think that you are right about the Jewish neighborhoods being the only one's victimized that night, though I could be wrong. Like you, I cannot recall the German name, but I am sure that someone here Can.

I was not trying to minimize the suffering that the Jews went through, it is just that so many people only know about the Jews. The Nazi regime also rounded up other undesireables, like sexual devients, gypsies, and anyone who would not cooperate with there pogroms.

Kristallnacht - German for Night Of Broken Glass,

i am not trying for 1 seond to minimize what happeed to others, i know there were other the Nazi's killed, but not 3 million "others" the Jews literaly lost an entire generation of people and what is scarier then this is Hilter came within 45 days of conquering the whole world

And amazingly enough I know alot of people who still contend what happened never did, they contend the file photos and films and all are defense department films made to look like it happened, 1 person i know even said "Sure many few few hundred, but there is no way in H***L 3 million

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

Kristallnacht - German for Night Of Broken Glass,

i am not trying for 1 seond to minimize what happeed to others, i know there were other the Nazi's killed, but not 3 million "others" the Jews literaly lost an entire generation of people and what is scarier then this is Hilter came within 45 days of conquering the whole world

---

According to Wikipedia:
5 to 7 million Jews, based on Nazi documentation, with total murdered coming to 9 to 11 million, "though some estimates have been as high as 26 million."

I don't think this takes into account the millions of civilians killed on the Russian Front by the advancing German armies.

And if Hitler had allowed his generals to prosecute the war Russia would have been knocked out in 1941 with the fall of Moscow, although most scholars believe that Stalin would have kept his army fighting from the Urals. But with the bulk of Soviet industrial and farm lands in German hands it would have been a tough fight. The German army was halted by the Russian winter withing sight of the Kremlin! The month that they lost because of Hitler's poor decisions cost them the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

... and what is scarier then this is Hilter came within 45 days of conquering the whole world

---

How do you figure that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

According to Wikipedia:
5 to 7 million Jews, based on Nazi documentation, with total murdered coming to 9 to 11 million, "though some estimates have been as high as 26 million."

I don't think this takes into account the millions of civilians killed on the Russian Front by the advancing German armies.

And if Hitler had allowed his generals to prosecute the war Russia would have been knocked out in 1941 with the fall of Moscow, although most scholars believe that Stalin would have kept his army fighting from the Urals. But with the bulk of Soviet industrial and farm lands in German hands it would have been a tough fight. The German army was halted by the Russian winter withing sight of the Kremlin! The month that they lost because of Hitler's poor decisions cost them the war.

---

Right you are... including and maybe especially the decision to lay seige to Stanlingrad... because of its name and "importance" in Hitler's mind... instead of bypassing it and proceeding into the Crimea where all the oil reserves were... the oil the Third Reich needed to continue their advances into Russia and elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

No, I'm not forgetting. True, during the dark ages in Europe the Arab nations were more advanced in sciences and mathematics. The difference is, back then you couldn't kill 2000 people by running a horse drawn coach into a building. Or spread radioctive dust over hundreds of square miles of urban areas with a few pounds of explosives.

---

That's fair, but you still have to give evolution time to work. I mean, you have to. There's no other way you or anybody else can do anything about it. We are part of the same planet and there's no way we can avoid each other. The globalisation is speeding up. There's loads of muslims in USA. One in ten Swedes where born in an other country or their parents where. We've got a huge mosque in central Stockholm. Arabs and the Arab culture is everywhere now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

First you said that they were more enlightened than the Europeans, now you say we have to give them time to catch up? In other words, they have Devolved.

---

Not devolved but froze. They thought they had the worlds most advanced and enlightened culture, (which was true at first). They where Europes and the regions only culture that allowed followers of other religions to stay and live, which for the time was extremly progressive. They had big churches and synagogues that where under the protection of the sultan. What went wrong is that the evolution of the culture stopped and Europe wizzed past them. The same thing that happened to the Roman empire where the "barbarians" ended up having a far superior culture.

If history teaches us anything it's that whenever people become chauvinist about their culture it stops evolving and in time becomes obsolete. Let's try to avoid that ok?

With superior culture I mean the most tollerant culture that allows for the maximum amount of diversity and still holding together. According to the US researcher Richard Florida, cultures like this have historically always been and are always the richest and most technologically advanced cultures in the world.

He floated the concept of gay-index as a way to measure this. Cities that are gay friendly, ie has the highest proportion of openly gay citizens has invariably the highest per capita income. Tollerance makes money. I agree with him 100%. In other words, a cultures superiority can be measured in money. I like things that can be measured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Personally, I don't care which religion they practice, or who they can con into practicing with them. Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs. What I object to is their trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the world through violence and terrorism.(And yes, I know the Roman Catholic Church is just as guilty of this historically.) In my opinion, if your religion is so screwed up that you must force people to accept it, it isn't a religion.

---

I don't think Islamic terrorism is about trying to convert anybody. It has to do with what muslims consider is the "holy lands" and about attacking any un-believer that dares invade or colonialise it. That's at least what Osama said was his driving force and a good summary of what Islamic terrorisms main philosopher said, Qutb.

Peace has made precious few headlines in the world,but it's the one thing most common people desire above anything else.If only these guys so intent on blowing themselves up along with the whole world would open their minds for a few seconds and talk to the people the presume to fight for...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by himind

Peace has made precious few headlines in the world,but it's the one thing most common people desire above anything else.If only these guys so intent on blowing themselves up along with the whole world would open their minds for a few seconds and talk to the people the presume to fight for...

---

To be fair. Most muslims aren't suicide bombers. Pretty far from all. And most of them don't suport it. The public outcry of Imams against Osama after 911 was massive and backed by every major Imam in the whole world. Except in Gaza. None of the other Imams could afford not to. Lets just get things in perspective. The only Imams who suport Al Qaeda and Osama are crazy fanatics, even in the eyes of the muslim world. Saudi Arabia has had democratisation reforms as a result of 911 and they have aknowledged that they have problems and are trying to deal with it, (since they're the country who's the most responsible for 911).

It is not, "us" against "them". It's more of a class strugle. The poor uneducated losers in the world against the people with money. The problem is that the uneducated tend to pick the wrong targets for their rage. That is the major problem and we have it on both sides. Our uneducated blame Islam and their uneducated blame Western imperialism. Even though there off-course is some truth to it, it is as we all know far more complex.

Ozme52,
How do you figure that?

I was told this, I was told it is written in history books

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

According to Wikipedia:
5 to 7 million Jews, based on Nazi documentation, with total murdered coming to 9 to 11 million, "though some estimates have been as high as 26 million."

I don't think this takes into account the millions of civilians killed on the Russian Front by the advancing German armies.

---

And do not forget the civilians that were murdered by Stalin after the war. Right after the world vowed "Never Again" the Communist Government did the same thing that Hitler did, yet we ignored it because they were an ally during the war, and they soon had the Bomb. It is possible that more Jews were killed in Russia in the years after the war than in Hitler's extermination camps.

Sometimes it makes you wonder, why does a group o0f people that is so small stir up so much hate? Could it truly be possible that the Bible is right, the Jews were chosen by God, and the rest of the world wantas to wipe them out to prove that God does not exist.

There were some powerful stories that came out of the Holocaust to, the most stirring of which is "Schindler's List." Why would a womanizing profiteer take it upon himself to preserve the lives of 1100 factory workers? That is a question that makes no sense unless you factor something bigger than him into the equation.

try watching "Shoah"





fini

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

That's fair, but you still have to give evolution time to work. I mean, you have to...Not devolved but froze.

---

It seems to me that evolution HAS worked over the last thousand or so years: their culture has frozen, as you say, or gone backwards. Our culture has advanced. But cultural evolution and biological evolution work under different rules. And I believe cultural evolution works a lot faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

If history teaches us anything it's that whenever people become chauvinist about their culture it stops evolving and in time becomes obsolete. Let's try to avoid that ok?

---

My point exactly. One facet of the extremist Islamic beliefs seems to be that change is bad. Therefore, no progress.
I'm not an historian, so maybe my facts are off a bit, but I think one can safely say that the beginning of the fall of Arab culture began with the rise of Mohammadism. Once again faith degenerated into religion and the common man suffers while the priests/medicine men/Imams/what-have-you flourish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhabbi

Sometimes it makes you wonder, why does a group o0f people that is so small stir up so much hate? Could it truly be possible that the Bible is right, the Jews were chosen by God, and the rest of the world wantas to wipe them out to prove that God does not exist.

---

"I know we are the chosen people, but once in a while couldn't you choose someone else?" (Tevya, "Fiddler on the Roof", movie version)
Jews and Arabs have been fighting over the Holy Land since the Exodus, at least. Their hatred of one another has become almost ingrained in their philosophies. I think the early leaders of the Catholic Church have to bear a large part of the blame for Christian hatred of Jews. They needed to distance themselves from the Hebrew faith and making the Jews responsible for the death of Christ was one of the ways they went about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhabbi

There were some powerful stories that came out of the Holocaust to, the most stirring of which is "Schindler's List." Why would a womanizing profiteer take it upon himself to preserve the lives of 1100 factory workers? That is a question that makes no sense unless you factor something bigger than him into the equation.

---

Actually, I think it's a testament to the basic goodness of mankind. The vast majority of Germans knew nothing of what actually went on in the concentration camps. It wasn't until he started using slave labor that Schindler learned the reality of the "Final Solution". By working with the people in his factories he learned that they were not the subhuman animals that the Nazis portrayed them as. They were people, just like anyone else. It doesn't minimize the enormity of what Schindler did, but I think guilt was the primary driving force behind his actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

Ozme52,
How do you figure that?

I was told this, I was told it is written in history books

---

Cite your source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

It seems to me that evolution HAS worked over the last thousand or so years: their culture has frozen, as you say, or gone backwards. Our culture has advanced. But cultural evolution and biological evolution work under different rules. And I believe cultural evolution works a lot faster.


My point exactly. One facet of the extremist Islamic beliefs seems to be that change is bad. Therefore, no progress.
I'm not an historian, so maybe my facts are off a bit, but I think one can safely say that the beginning of the fall of Arab culture began with the rise of Mohammadism. Once again faith degenerated into religion and the common man suffers while the priests/medicine men/Imams/what-have-you flourish.

---

The fall of Arab culture sis not begin with the rise of Islam. IN fact for 2-4 centuries following the death of Mohammed, Baghdad was the cultural and technoligical capital of the world in many ways..Many of the ancient texts have reached us through Islamic scholars who preserved Arabic copies when the originals were burent in Constantinople.It's only later with the rise of the Seljuk Turks and other factions that Islam underwent a change and became more and moe xenophobic.Some Islamic scholars are of the opinion that this happened due to influence of the Crusaders,but I don;t think that would be an accurate description. But one thing I have to admit is tha tIslam does give out very conflicting signals,broadmindedness in some ways and extreme narrowmindedness in others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

It seems to me that evolution HAS worked over the last thousand or so years: their culture has frozen, as you say, or gone backwards. Our culture has advanced. But cultural evolution and biological evolution work under different rules. And I believe cultural evolution works a lot faster.

---

I think we agree with each other but just using different formulations. According to Richard Dawkins meme theory, cultural evolution can speed up if it allready has evolved somewhere else and there is a will to incorporate the new ideas. So there's scientific backing for your statement. Beating biological evolution in speed doesn't require much though. It's slooooooow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

My point exactly. One facet of the extremist Islamic beliefs seems to be that change is bad. Therefore, no progress.
I'm not an historian, so maybe my facts are off a bit, but I think one can safely say that the beginning of the fall of Arab culture began with the rise of Mohammadism. Once again faith degenerated into religion and the common man suffers while the priests/medicine men/Imams/what-have-you flourish.

---

I think you're wrong. The spread of monotheism and the extreme intollerance toward other religions and moral codes brought with it some very positive effects. The major effect was reducing xenophobia in trade. You knew you could trust others if they followed the same religion. It's regidity and inflexibility meant stable rules for trade. This was translated to big money and win-win within each region following the same religion. This is quite measurable.

Other positive effects are the monotheistic religions holy books. The rules needed to be written down to be permanent. You needed to read to understand them which enhanced literacy which we all obviously know is a great skill for book keeping, (= more money). Also measurable. There's a clear link between litteracy and BNP.

Islam is a development of Christianity. It's not a new religion. The religious text might not be all that different than the Bible, but it had one strength over it. There's no question that the Koran is the words of Mohammed. Every part of the new testament can be questioned. When Mohammed lived the versio vulgata, (ie the modern Bible) was only one of many variants of the new testament. Here's the info.

It's aparent that Mohammed wanted a more cohesive religion without really changing anything. I've read both the Bible and the Koran. They're pretty interchangable, (yes, I have a thing for religious history). Also when Islam first spread it wasn't meant to be the religion of the people. At first Mohammed had planned it to only be the religion of the ruling elite. Islam isn't anti-christian. It has never been. They embrace it as an integral part of Islam. Mohammed was first and foremost a great polititian and general. There are plenty of letters written in his own hand that have survived that we can read. We know his personal opinions. This is a major difference to christianity. We know absolutely nothing about Jesus other than what says in the Bible, and there was so many different versions of the Bible back then that it's easy to imagine that it could get very confusing.

I think it's more correct to say that the rise of Mohammedism is what made the Arab culture superior to the west European in so many ways. They embraced other religions more than Christians, which off-course meant that they had a greater inflow of ideas, (=more money according to Richard Florida).

I'd say the high-point of Arab culture was more likely something like 800-1200 during the rule of the Caliphate. In no other time in history did they crank out so many inventions western Europe could steal. Modern mathematics and our alphabet being the most significant. After that the area started to get invaded from every direction which ended it's period of inner stability. Under the rule of the Ottomans the Arabs lived under the yoke of a standard imperialistic police state which always sonner or later ends up being corrupt and hampering development. So development was painfully slow up until about 1920, at which time they'd lost any head start they had.

I don't think any ideas spread and become totaly dominant in a region if there's nothing to gain from it. But that doesn't mean that they can't linger a lot longer than what's useful. It's hard to see how being christian of muslim today will lead to any fiscal gains over the non-believers. We have laws that regulate trade so morality doesn't really count in that sector any longer. And people tend to like learning to read for other reasons than reading religious texts.

My very long rant here was just me trying to explain how religion has been great for the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Cite your source.

---

I was told this in school, apparently me teacher(s) were wrong

Many teaches say what they were told and do as the are required by the system.
very foolish way to teach.

This should become a whole other thread.

Growls at education system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

Many teaches say what they were told and do as the are required by the system.
very foolish way to teach.

This should become a whole other thread.

Growls at education system.

---

Did somebody mention Intelligent Design?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

How do you figure that?

---

This is the information I recieved on my post, hope this clears it up for you


the time they distroyed the heavy water plant ... (Heavy water was needed for nuclear bombs) they
were 45 days away from full production when the arm forces distroyed the heavy water plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Other positive effects are the monotheistic religions holy books. The rules needed to be written down to be permanent. You needed to read to understand them which enhanced literacy which we all obviously know is a great skill for book keeping, (= more money). Also measurable. There's a clear link between litteracy and BNP.

---

In much of the Christian world, literacy was restricted to the wealthy and the ruling elite. Very few middle class members were able to read Latin, and almost none of the poor. And the Church made sure that almost everything was written in Latin. Actually, I believe the Jews, and possibly the Arabs, were among the most literate in Europe and Western Asia. Almost every Jewish boy had to learn to read Hebrew so that he could read the Torah. I don't know about the Chinese or Japanese, but I expect that they were also very literate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

My very long rant here was just me trying to explain how religion has been great for the world.

---

While I will admit that religions in general have sometimes had a positive effect in the world, overall I believe they've done more to hold back progress and divide people than any other institution. While attitudes around the world have changed, and some aspects of religion have changed with them, I feel it is mostly because the churches could see that failure to change would result in loss of power. I was raised a Catholic and back in those days the church was just starting to allow Catholics to marry non-Catholics as long as any children were raised Catholic. But it was because people were doing it anyway, and saying to hell with the consequences. So they had all those potential Catholic children being raised in other religions. I believe it was even harder for Jews to marry outsiders, but I'm not all that familiar with any other religions.
But my point is that, in general, religious institutions resist change to the point of ridiculousness. It took the Vatican what, about 600 years, to admit that Galileo was right, and that the Earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Back in the early 80's I worked with a man who was a preacher in a small church. He believed that,since the Bible states there are four corners of the Earth, the Earth had to be flat. All evidence to the contrary was wrong or blasphemous. And Christian views on evolution in this country (USA) at least, are absurd beyond belief. And equally absurd are the fanatical atheists who want to erase God and Jesus and Christ from the American dictionaries. Children in school can get into serious trouble just by wishing their teachers a Merry Christmas instead of the sillier Happy Holidays.
Ah well. If only the rest of the world were like me. What a boring world THAT would be!
'Nuff Said!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

This is the information I recieved on my post, hope this clears it up for you


the time they distroyed the heavy water plant ... (Heavy water was needed for nuclear bombs) they
were 45 days away from full production when the arm forces distroyed the heavy water plant.

---

Goes to show how some teachers like to "impress" their students with over blown statements that don't hold water... heavy or otherwise.

That would assume those first, early large scale heavy water plants could actually produce enough weapons grade materials to make a bomb. It assumes the first bomb and/or bomb tests worked (I don't believe the first few Manhatten Project test firings worked. The first few only scattered their detonation materials across the desert... and we only actually officially set off one bomb with fissionable materials...) It assumes that the Luftwaffe could have delivered such a weapon... and it assumes that the allied forces might have capitulated after the first explosion...

After all, we had only accumulated enough material to create and deliver two bombs on Japan... and it took two explosions... and that's all we had available in our arsenal... and likely all we would have had for up to another year. Atomic weapons were expensive and we could actually do more damage during a fire-bomb raid.

Don't forget, Tojo didn't want to surrender despite the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The emperor, Hirohito, used the A-bombs as his rationale to finally, successfully override the Imperial Army hierarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

In much of the Christian world, literacy was restricted to the wealthy and the ruling elite. Very few middle class members were able to read Latin, and almost none of the poor. And the Church made sure that almost everything was written in Latin. Actually, I believe the Jews, and possibly the Arabs, were among the most literate in Europe and Western Asia. Almost every Jewish boy had to learn to read Hebrew so that he could read the Torah. I don't know about the Chinese or Japanese, but I expect that they were also very literate.

---

Yes, and these few litterate created masterpieces. Thomas of Aquinas would never have happened without the church. I'm sure of it. He was a monk who devoted his entire life to proving gods existance but all he did was to make it clear that god probably doesn't exist. It just took 700 years before people caught on and started putting two and two together. Or Schopenhauer did. People have extreme subconcious fears of breaking with the social norms. Even the people who try their hardest to do it rarely do. Just look at the Indie pop kids. They all try so hard to be different they all look the same.

Freeing your mind and thinking in new ways is extremly rare and far apart. It can take centuries before there comes a guy with a new idea. When did atheism have it's big breakthrough? 150 years ago, and we've still got religious people around. Aristotle gave us the logical system with which we today can invalidate all the supernatural claims of any religion. This was 2300 years ago. Ideas catch on so extremly sloooooow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

While I will admit that religions in general have sometimes had a positive effect in the world, overall I believe they've done more to hold back progress and divide people than any other institution.

---

You still haven't answered why anybody would convert to christianity to begin with. Why and what could they gain from it?

Quote:

---

the time they distroyed the heavy water plant ... (Heavy water was needed for nuclear bombs) they
were 45 days away from full production when the arm forces distroyed the heavy water plant.

---

First off, the Germans were very, very far from doing anything threatening with nuclear weapons. They were struggling to create a prototype chain reactor when they were overcome by the allies, and they came close but failed. The Americans, meanwhile, had accomplished this in Dec. 1942 at the U of Chicago -- and still took 3 years to make bombs, even dedicating HUGE resources to it (~equivalent to $21.5 billion today, nearly as much as the ~equivalent $24 billion the US spent on all small arms for the entire war) -- and Germany was dedicating almost no resources to the program at all (the US built entire towns for the project, Germany assigned about 40 scientists). Finally, there is some controversy over whether Heisenburg, the head of the German project, was intending to ever create a bomb at all.

Secondly, the lack of heavy water wasn't a big deal; there wasn't enough being made in the entire world to enable any serious production, and while it's theoretically possible to achieve a chain reaction with heavy water it's really, really hard to do. Graphite is far superior and is what enabled American production.

Thirdly, it's very doubtful a couple of atomic bombs in the hands of the Germans at that late date would have accomplished anything. The blitz did far more damage than any bomb was likely to accomplish, and did little more than solidify the British resolve to resist.

To correct a few errors, though: there were no "live" (using fissionables) misfirings during the American program, although it was a huge concern. We also did have another bomb available when the war ended.

Quote:

---

Aristotle gave us the logical system with which we today can invalidate all the supernatural claims of any religion.

---

Although I'm not a believer, I will forward that logic is pretty worthless for disproving religious possibility. You can't prove something doesn't exist; and you can't prove that something you don't know about has no effect on anything. Indeed, the fact that we constantly find new forces and phenomena is actually a very strong argument in favor of the existence of "things beyond our understanding."

Quote:

---

You still haven't answered why anybody would convert to christianity to begin with. Why and what could they gain from it?

---

Hope is generally the biggest appeal, I would expect: we all fear death and the unknown it contains, and the promise of a heaven (and threat of a hell) are pretty strong motivators. In the same way, it gives a purpose to life, something everyone struggles with at some point. It also gives a morality and method for a stable society. Also, the existence of a benevolent being willing and able to work in favor of its followers was one of the original big selling points: precursors like Zeus were followed because their wrath was feared, not because they were swell personalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

Although I'm not a believer, I will forward that logic is pretty worthless for disproving religious possibility. You can't prove something doesn't exist; and

---

You're starting in the wrong end. Nobody ever proves that something doesn't exist. It's impossible. I hear it all the time in the religious debate and it's rediculous. This is me proving you're gay. I have no evidence you're not, so you must be gay. In logic it's called "argument from ignorance" and is a logical fallacy. Even Aristotle knew that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

you can't prove that something you don't know about has no effect on anything. Indeed, the fact that we constantly find new forces and phenomena is actually a very strong argument in favor of the existence of "things beyond our understanding."

---

Now it's getting interesting. Yes, there evidently is things beyond our understanding. A very valid point. But that's saying absolutely nothing. Litteraly. The error in supernatural religions is that they draw conclusions from this where the evidence is at best hearsay or according to science, pure fantasy. It gives no suport what so ever for god. Nothing.

Just saying it's a matter of faith isn't good enough. We all need evidence to believe. All of us. It's just that we often need to accept other peoples words as evidence rather than to work it out ourselves. Most of us do. I don't know for a fact that the world is round. I'm just hoping that science isn't lying to me. After we have gathered the evidence or collected explanations from authority figures we draw conclusions. This is how all people function.

Using supernatural religions as a way to explain the world is the old paradigm, because we today know that they don't have the answers. We can work that much out for ourselves. Religious people are turning to obsolete authority figures to explain the world. That is the basis for religion. When people stop it'll dissapear, but it doesn't seem like it's going to happen any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

Hope is generally the biggest appeal, I would expect: we all fear death and the unknown it contains, and the promise of a heaven (and threat of a hell) are pretty strong motivators. In the same way, it gives a purpose to life, something everyone struggles with at some point. It also gives a morality and method for a stable society. Also, the existence of a benevolent being willing and able to work in favor of its followers was one of the original big selling points: precursors like Zeus were followed because their wrath was feared, not because they were swell personalities.

---

[/QUOTE]

Yeah. Sadly you might be right. People needing a big daddy in the sky is an amusing thought. The proffesor, (a European proffesor. You call teachers proffessors in USA and I don't know what you call the heads of departments) of philosophy at Stockholm university has "christians are really childish" on his car. Funny.

edit: sorry for falling asleep. Now I'll activate my brain. You have explained why people might turn to religion as such. But not why people would turn to monotheism or christianity specifically? Which was my question to begin with. Why would somebody convert from, lets say mithraism or sol invictus, (the two dominant faiths of the time) to christianity. Especially if they in the begining where persecuted. It needs a bit more advanced argumentation.

God told them to isn't a valid argument :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

You still haven't answered why anybody would convert to christianity to begin with. Why and what could they gain from it?

---

I haven't the slightest idea why anyone would voluntarily convert to ANY religion. It is my view that all religions only perpetuate superstition, of one form or another. Most people are born into a religious group, the same group their parents where born into. This was the case with myself, but I stepped away from it.

People will join church groups, for social reasons primarily I think, and therefore enter into the religion promulgated by that church. Many of these groups perform good and honerable services to their community. But the propaganda which accompanies those services is pervasive.

And of course, there's always the "convert or die" method of recruiting new members. That's always filled the churches in the past. "God told them to" may not be valid, but "that soldier with the nasty sword told me to" will convert thousands!

thorne,
I haven't the slightest idea why anyone would voluntarily convert to ANY religion

the reason is some religions require both spouses to be of the same religion, so if they want to get married some spouses be it the female or the male may be required by that relgion to convert before marriage so the marriage is recongnized, example i believefor example that if a person is of say Muslim up brining, theirreligion may require a person to convert from say christianty or jewdism to Islam for the purposee of marriage, or even coonvert from a reformed version of the same religion to orthodox of the same
I am not defending any 1 religion, but an Orthodox Jew MUST marry and Orthosed Jew and not one who is of Reformed Jewdism

Similar to Catholosism, unlike most religions I have heard about, if you are catholic and wish to marry a cathilic you must go through church mandated cousling before the church wil regonize the union even if both spouses are Catholic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I haven't the slightest idea why anyone would voluntarily convert to ANY religion.

---

I do think it's important to understand though. Religious superstition still does a lot of damage. The subject interests me deeply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

It is my view that all religions only perpetuate superstition, of one form or another. Most people are born into a religious group, the same group their parents where born into. This was the case with myself, but I stepped away from it.

People will join church groups, for social reasons primarily I think, and therefore enter into the religion promulgated by that church. Many of these groups perform good and honerable services to their community. But the propaganda which accompanies those services is pervasive.

---

These are all nice reasons, but religions tend to make some remarkable claims. Believing things like that we go to heaven after we die isn't just superstition. That's standing all reason on it's head.

If that's all it takes to make people superstitious, then it should be super easy to get people off it? All we need is a scientific comunity club and having meetings where we read scientiffic reports together. Do you really think it's that simple?

Hmm... Maybe that's why Sweden is such an atheist country. We've had socialist comunity clubs for 140 years now where most workers got together in studygroups and studied science. I'm not kidding. It was organised by the unions. It's called ABF, (Arbetarnas Bildningsförbund, ie the workers education society). It's a theory. Anyhoo I'm just thinking aloud. The goal wasn't to get people off religion off-course but to get them more highly qualified jobs. It still may have worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

And of course, there's always the "convert or die" method of recruiting new members. That's always filled the churches in the past. "God told them to" may not be valid, but "that soldier with the nasty sword told me to" will convert thousands!

---

Yeah, but that doesn't in the least explain how religion still can survive today in the West. We're suposed to be the educated ones.

Religion feeds a deep seated insecutiry within most people.No matter how much we like to think ourselves as advanced,we have created asociety that puts excessive demands on its citizens,many of whom are unable to do all that is asked.For such people religion and preachers hold a special promise because they make them feel good about themselves.Of course,I'm talking about the overzealous ones here.Some people actually say,"this is as reasonable and undisprovable an explanation as any I've heard till now."To understand why so many kind of people take to religion is an exhaustive task..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

These are all nice reasons, but religions tend to make some remarkable claims. Believing things like that we go to heaven after we die isn't just superstition. That's standing all reason on it's head.

If that's all it takes to make people superstitious, then it should be super easy to get people off it? All we need is a scientific comunity club and having meetings where we read scientiffic reports together. Do you really think it's that simple?

---

First of all, I want to make sure we are differentiating between faith and religion. One can have faith in God, or Jesus, or Muhammad, or Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, without becoming entangled in an organized, or even disorganized, religion. Faith is simply a belief in something. I would venture to say that a very large majority of people have some form of faith, even without religion.
Religion is the codification of people's beliefs, setting everything down so that all of the members of the religion believe the same things. (I realize that this is a simlplified definition, but it's no less valid.) My quarrel is not with people's faith but with the religions which try to exploit those beliefs.
I have seen many people, struggling to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck, but still willing to put that money in the collection plate every week while the preacher is riding around in fancy cars,wearing expensive clothing and telling his flock that if they DON'T put that money in the plate they're going to hell!
History is filled with stories of religious groups killing other religious groups for no other reason than their different beliefs. And it's still going on today, all over the world.
As far as education is concerned, that doesn't necessarily eliminate the need for faith. But I do think it tends to separate people from the religious groupies. I feel that those with a good education tend to be more tolerant of other's beliefs and less inclined to take the word of a smarmy guy in a $500 suit as gospel.
But the vast majority of people in this world are brought up from infancy being taught a specific belief system. Overcoming that upbringing is very difficult. And, as you say, the need to believe that there is some kind of afterlife, something beyond the mundane world we live in, will always draw people to some form of belief system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

To correct a few errors, though: there were no "live" (using fissionables) misfirings during the American program, although it was a huge concern.

---

Actually EB... that's what I actually said.

Quote:

---

(I don't believe the first few Manhatten Project test firings worked. The first few only scattered their detonation materials across the desert... and we only actually officially set off one bomb with fissionable materials...)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

We also did have another bomb available when the war ended.

---

Are you sure? Our two bombs weren't even using the same technologies, we had so little in the way of fissionable materials. One was enriched uranium and the other plutonium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

My quarrel is not with people's faith but with the religions which try to exploit those beliefs.

---

I guess we're annoyed with different aspects of religion. I have a problem with adults clinging to childish notions of how the world functions.

People "exploiting" peoples faiths is just a natural development. Is NASA "exploiting" peoples belief in science that we can go to different worlds? Are the Greens "exploiting" that we believe in the global warming, (which finally last week got some serious proof backing it)?

We are social animals. We like doing things together and especially with people we have something in common with. If people believe in a supernatural god then they'll off-course like to hang out with others who share the idea. Off-course strong people are needed to hold them together. We can call them sect-leaders, popes, chairmen, doctors, proffessors or presidents. They all do the same thing but with different connotations but given power for different reasons.

Easy to say that but what about the innumerable sect-leaders who mislead their throng?It's human nature to from groups but shouldn't we take a long hard look at the kind of groups we're forming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by himind

Easy to say that but what about the innumerable sect-leaders who mislead their throng?It's human nature to from groups but shouldn't we take a long hard look at the kind of groups we're forming?

---

Now you're on thin ice. Please define misslead. A good start is to define the meaning/purpose of life. Moralism is always bad.

If you're asking someone to give up his life or to take lives for the sake of you rreligion,I guess you are being misled.I mean, look at Manson, or the Aum sect in Japan...There other examples too but those would come under the grey area in between.There's this religious leader in India whio tells his followers not to seek medical help because he claims to treat all illnesses with cucumber juice and such. Now you may argue that people are doing this of their own free will,but aren't they being misled?Does freedon=m include the freedom to be fooled and taken for a ride without anyone to help you out in this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by himind

If you're asking someone to give up his life or to take lives for the sake of you rreligion,I guess you are being misled.I mean, look at Manson, or the Aum sect in Japan...There other examples too but those would come under the grey area in between.There's this religious leader in India whio tells his followers not to seek medical help because he claims to treat all illnesses with cucumber juice and such. Now you may argue that people are doing this of their own free will,but aren't they being misled?Does freedon=m include the freedom to be fooled and taken for a ride without anyone to help you out in this?

---

You hit the nail on the head straight away. Thanks. Whether or not they're being fooled is the big question. But what if using that cucumber juice will lead to them going to heaven? Once you've opened the door to the possibility of the supernatural and a intelligent all-powerful being you've destroyed any platform from which to judge anybody. What if they are right and you wrong?

Since the whole basis of faith in religion requires that you don't scientifficaly scrutinize it, you have taken away your tools to attack the sects you are claiming are missleading others. Which religion is best or most correct? Which is most moraly upstanding?

If you judge those sects and you yourself are religious you are making claims that your gods moral code is superior to others. You have no basis for making this claim since you cannot prove whether your or the other god is the correct one. Naturally, because making a religious stand requires that you don't analyse evidence suporting the supernatural. See, it's a logical dilemma?

Or you could just say that you are right and they are wrong and base your prerogative on sheer numbers or superior fire-power. But then we're not discussing ethics any longer.

This whole dilemma evaporates if you call yourself atheist. Then we can judge them by how much actual damage they are causing. The biggest problem in the world today, I'd say is people activelly fooling themselves and ignoring evidence. The sects are just cashing in on the rampant ignorance.

hmm...I'm a bit tired. This looks tight at a glance, but please let me know if I've got any logical holes in this. I'm going to bed now. Good night world. :wave: