Lest we forget

[ElectricBadger]

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.

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."

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.

[TomOfSweden]

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.

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.

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

[Ozme52]

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.

(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...)

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.