Are you an atheist? (4 Viewers)

[Bladerunner]

@Bladerunner

YES. The stupids are motivated by religion, as I said.
But the true cause of this war is the OIL, not the gods.


Maybe, but is a try. Better than to become modern slaves in a "democracy" controlled by USA.
Tell me that this population has no fear after the big towers fall down, and I'll say that you lie.


Agree, but this is not quite "simply".
Maybe is simply for Americans to bomb Iraq or Yugoslavia because what you name "innocent people" because they are from New York, become "collateral victims" if they are not Americans.

It is a war here. And the gods are not guilty.
Or, maybe, they are because they have putted a great lake of oil under the Arabian's sand ? Is you who should have an answer for this because this problem is in your area of skills

***
Mihail,Economics are rarely the main reasons that a war is started. It may very well be the so-called 'powder behind the bullet' but it is not the main reason. Power, Greed and Hate are the precursor to most wars. As in WWII Europe, Hitler had a vision (one might say) that the German (Arian) people were far superior to all others. He then used the bad economics in the country at this time to move the population toward war. The poor economics were brought on by WWI and there was nobody that would or could step into fill that void. Had they done so as we did in 1945, there might not have been a WWII and 50 million people might not have lost their lives.

Oil in the middle east is POWER struggle. He who controls the oil controls the power to destroy other counties and affect much of the world especially Europe. Thus the problems in the middle east is not economically based.

***
"Maybe, but is a try. Better than to become modern slaves in a "democracy" controlled by USA. "

*Simply tell your countries leaders to throw us out, close down our bases and quit taking our money. We consider your country and others soverign nations. We will leave peacefully. Of, course if someone attacks you, we will not come to your aid. If you need money, you might look back to Russia for it. Who knows you might like their democratic slavery even better.

*******
"Tell me that this population has no fear after the big towers fall down, and I'll say that you lie."

* NO, there was fear. A fear of a different type. It did not stop our way of life. Like a mosquito it was for all intents and purposes an awakening and then of course death for the mosquito.

*******
"Maybe is simply for Americans to bomb Iraq or Yugoslavia because what you name "innocent people" because they are from New York, become "collateral victims" if they are not Americans."

* It would seem that 'collateral and innocent' have the same meaning. Ah ....Another time maybe!

 

[Mihail]

@Bladerunner
If you say... then should be true. Just I tired to debate this subject.

 

[scott-atkinson]

I agree with Mihail on this, Religion in many peoples eyes is the cause of many wars, but in reality Religion is not the cause it is the effect used in religious countries to motivate the masses to fight, which often blinds the real agenda behind the conflict.

In countries like the USA, UK, and other more developed rich capitalised countries, religion is not used as a motivator, because religion is the minority, and not the majority, therefore the term Terrorism is used to define the enemy and motivate the masses to fight...

 

[Bladerunner]

@Bladerunner
If you say... then should be true. Just I tired to debate this subject.

A good debate Mihail: There is one more item you and I both forgot. For me setting here in the comfort of my home relatively free from harm, I would have a different view than you would based on these factors alone. I know not what or how you live but I spent approx. 2 years in Germany in the early 60's and their situation at the time was not the best. I can only imagine.

No, I am not mad because you can see the terrorist side. However, I think your vision is slightly shewed. The 'French Resistance' from WWII would in modern thinking be a terrorist group. 'Freedom Fighters are trying to get out from under and should be applauded. I say this because they have good intentions at first that usually turn into another dictatorship. Correct me if I am wrong, leaders in Yugoslavia peformed 'ethnic cleansing' (genocide) against a weaker (Muslim) people in the 1990s. Somolia and other countries in Africa have done the same.

There are a lot of difference in the so-called terrorist of yesteryear and those today. Islamic Terrorist want the whole world to be under their rule. Their Religion is a complete government system that includes controlling social issues. It also dishes out punishment according to their Koran (Curan). Look to Iran. Run by a Mulah (religious leader) who controls the every day lives of every Iranian under the promise of death if anyone strays.

Got any thoughts along this line Mihail?


Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner\

 

[Mihail]

@Bladerunner

Got any thoughts along this line Mihail?

Not too much because the answers already are in my previous posts.

In one of this posts I asked (quoted from the top of my head) "What happen when the non-atheist take the political power ? " And I answered: Inquisition.
No you show me a modern Inquisition in Iran. Ruled by Allah's word unlike the the ancient Inquisition that was ruled by Lord's word.
You will say, for sure, that the Bible was misinterpreted. OK. What can stop me to think that the Koran isn't ?
I seen few days before this movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Khan
And I believe that not the Koran (=Allah) is behind the terrorism. Do not understand that this movie has changed my mind. The movie was a confirmation to what I think.

Correct me if I am wrong, leaders in Yugoslavia peformed 'ethnic cleansing' (genocide) against a weaker (Muslim) people in the 1990s

It is what you know from yours newspapers. It is what yours leaders tells you. And you feel better because "you" have saved this "poor" people.
Why you ask me about that ?
Read yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

But, step by step, we go away from the thread's title.
Let me make one step down: Have you seen this movie ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMG_–_Oh_My_God!
What is your opinion ?

 

[scott-atkinson]

The 'French Resistance' from WWII would in modern thinking be a terrorist group.\

The French had a Resistance....!!

I thought the Nazi'z waltzed into Paris catching the French with their trousers round their ankles...

 

[Bladerunner]

@Bladerunner
Not too much because the answers already are in my previous posts.

In one of this posts I asked (quoted from the top of my head) "What happen when the non-atheist take the political power ? " And I answered: Inquisition.
No you show me a modern Inquisition in Iran. Ruled by Allah's word unlike the the ancient Inquisition that was ruled by Lord's word.
You will say, for sure, that the Bible was misinterpreted. OK. What can stop me to think that the Koran isn't ?
I seen few days before this movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Khan
And I believe that not the Koran (=Allah) is behind the terrorism. Do not understand that this movie has changed my mind. The movie was a confirmation to what I think.
It is what you know from yours newspapers. It is what yours leaders tells you. And you feel better because "you" have saved this "poor" people.
Why you ask me about that ?
Read yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

But, step by step, we go away from the thread's title.
Let me make one step down: Have you seen this movie ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMG_–_Oh_My_God!
What is your opinion ?

****

"But, step by step, we go away from the thread's title."

I disagree, If it is about religion then it is about Atheism as well as it is a religion also.

****
"Let me make one step down: Have you seen this movie ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMG_%E2%80%93_Oh_My_God!" What is your opinion ?

*Please don't give our lawyers any more ideas on how to get rid of Christianity?

****
The Inquisition(s):
Medieval Inquisition is defined by French historian Jean-Baptiste Guiraud (1866-1953) as "... a system of repressive means, some of temporal and some others of spiritual kind, concurrently issued by ecclesiastical and civil authorities in order to protect religious orthodoxy and social order, both threatened by theological and social doctrines of heresy".

According to historian Thomas Madden, the Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people, but rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had committed theft or vandalism. Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. One needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.[2]
Madden argues that while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition

******
"Ruled by Allah's word unlike the the ancient Inquisition that was ruled by Lord's word."

* Who wrote the Koran? Quran, in Arabic, could only have been written by ONE of 3 possible sources: 1. the Arabs 2. Mohammad (peace be upon him) 3. God (Allah)

http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_who_wrote.htm

The bible has some 66 books (39 old Testament, 27 new Testament)of which had different authors in most cases.
I think you will like the reading of Who Wrote the Kuran---will give you some in site on the religion itself.

******
It is what you know from yours newspapers. It is what yours leaders tells you. And you feel better because "you" have saved this "poor" people.
Why you ask me about that ?
Read yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

* Again it matters not to me but looking at history, had we stopped Hitler from trying to annihilate the Jews, probably 50 million people might have lived. These would have included probably your ancestors. Instead, we looked the other way, said to ourselves it could not happen that nobody could be that evil and guess what; 6,000,000 Jews died. Could Kosovo, Somalia and others be another WW in the mix? Rem. After WWI, it was stated that we fought that war to end all wars. Ha!

******
Anyway, my friend as you requested we will end this here and get back to your basic Atheism below!

What are we? Were we created or did we evolve? What is our purpose in life? Does God exist? From where do we derive our morals? Are there moral absolutes? Why is there suffering in the world?


Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Mihail]

@Bladerunner.
Just a smile for your "argues".
And for sure I can't argue against the God's word and book
It is a pain to read this "holly" book (as argue: so many believers that have never read it)

I smile again when you present us the Inquisition.
So, in your opinion, the Inquisition was the salvation. Ha ha. This was good. Very good.

As usually yo show us only a part of the story (as well as you tried with Sodom and Gomorrah).
Again is me who should force my English in order to tell the rest of the story:

Yes. The Inquisition, as organization, has very human intention at the beginning. The main intention was to educate the illiterate priest and monks (BTW: who has write the Bible ? ).
What happen after the initial debut ? We know.

But, when you say that is "you" (I understand: you, the Americans) that saved the Jews in WW2 I laugh.
Let's take a look to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II .

It is generally considered to have lasted from 1939 to 1945, although some conflicts in Asia that are commonly viewed as becoming part of the world war had begun earlier than 1939

...the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom.

In June 1941, the European Axis launched an invasion of the Soviet Union

In December 1941, Japan joined the Axis, attacked the United States

There are more than two years from the start of the war when USA become one of the combatants.

The Axis advance was stopped in 1942. Japan lost a critical battle at Midway, near Hawaii, and never regained its earlier momentum. Germany was defeated in North Africa and, decisively, at Stalingrad in Russia

In 1944, the Western Allies invaded France

Five years from the beginning

During 1944 and 1945 the United States defeated the Japanese Navy and captured key Western Pacific islands.

... and saved the Jews from this islands.

The war in Europe ended with an invasion of Germany by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union culminating in the capture of Berlin by Soviet and Polish troops

For sure, the Americans troops not participate at this battle because they saved the Jews in this time

----------------------------------------------------------------
So, my friend, the Americans have saved a lot of Jews in the Hollywood's movies.
----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Mihail]

@AB
I don't know enough history to debate this.
What I know is that, the 200 years of American's history are full with "fight", "conquer", "kill", starting with the natives from America (the red peoples).

To not be misunderstand:
I don't say that the Americans don't fight in WW2. And I don't say that they not provide a grate aid in defeated the German fascism.
Just I say that are not they that saved the Jews. Because they hadn't have (have haven't / haven't have ???? How is the grammar here ? Thank you.) the necessary time to accomplish this task

And always the Americans seems to "forget" the Russians when speak about this great conflicts (WW1, WW2).
Again, do not understand that I love the Russians. Why ? Because: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Non-Aggression_between_Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union from where I'll quote:

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries

 

[Bladerunner]

The French had a Resistance....!!

I thought the Nazi'z waltzed into Paris catching the French with their trousers round their ankles...

Your right!... Was after the fact and they were called French Underground!

 

[Bladerunner]

@Bladerunner.
Just a smile for your "argues".
And for sure I can't argue against the God's word and book
It is a pain to read this "holly" book (as argue: so many believers that have never read it)

I smile again when you present us the Inquisition.
So, in your opinion, the Inquisition was the salvation. Ha ha. This was good. Very good.

As usually yo show us only a part of the story (as well as you tried with Sodom and Gomorrah).
Again is me who should force my English in order to tell the rest of the story:

Yes. The Inquisition, as organization, has very human intention at the beginning. The main intention was to educate the illiterate priest and monks (BTW: who has write the Bible ? ).
What happen after the initial debut ? We know.

But, when you say that is "you" (I understand: you, the Americans) that saved the Jews in WW2 I laugh.
Let's take a look to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II .
There are more than two years from the start of the war when USA become one of the combatants.

Five years from the beginning

... and saved the Jews from this islands.

For sure, the Americans troops not participate at this battle because they saved the Jews in this time

----------------------------------------------------------------
So, my friend, the Americans have saved a lot of Jews in the Hollywood's movies.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Mihail my wayward friend (lol, a joke), our definitions of what I said are two different things.

Let me try to explain better. You would do well to not use the movies as your factual history, they are a bunch of liberals who want to rewrite actual history.

** The info on the Inquisition was what historian(s) thought. However according to them, the church leaders were calling everyone Heretics and executing them in the name of God. The inquisition enabled them a trial of sorts to defend themselves. You and me both would have been Heretics in those days for I too speak out against the church in some instances. Jesus may be my savior but he has not told me to defend the churches regardless of their standpoint.
***
You speak of my post of Sodam and Gamorrah. I simply reply to allegations that Glaxiom had put forth were unfounded at least in Bible scripture. Your interpretation may be different and that is OK. At least you have a brain to decide. God gave that to you!
****
You info on WWII is correct. However your comprehension of my postings needs a little work. Yes, the War started in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Yes Russia and Poland as our allies capture Berlin. Just rem that we (all allies) had bombed Berlin a total of 314 air raids with 85 of those coming in the last twelve months of the war. Roughly HALF of all livable housing was destroyed and many thousand Berliners were killer. It was joint effort, not just the USA. BUT it is a fact that without our resources and our willingness to fight for a people (European and Russians) who we did not know and in some cases did not like, helped defeat Hitler. Otherwise you would probably be speaking German now.

YOU WRONG! about what I said. "HAD we stopped Hitler from trying to annihilate the Jews" Read this again. HAD

In 1939, the liberals in our country had decided that regardless of what happened in Europe, we would not be drawn into "THEIR" war. So we waited. Believing we were weak, Japan attack our Islands (now our state) in the Pacific. This put us in the war on the Pacific side. After continuous sinking of our ships in the Atlantic including commercial ones, we jumped in the European war. WE DID NOT SAVE ANY OF THE 6 MILLION JEWS KILLED NEITHER DID EUROPE!

If we had helped in the beginning (1939), WWII was not likely to happen and the 50 million people that died in the war (250,000 Americans and the forty-one million Russians, mostly civilians) might have lived. This I put on the liberals head totally. They seem to never learn that weakness is a prelude to being conquered. There will always be playground bullies around like 1942 Japan and 1939 Hitler. I can think of two to three bullies on the worlds playground and that is Iran and China. If Putin of Russia has his way, the Soviet Union might re-emerge.

Have a Nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Mihail]

@Bladerunner
Your last post is better than the previous

I am here (in this threat) with a single reason: to learn more English.
A way to do that is to challenge you
So, please, help me with this (see #3545)
Thank you.

I'll return here but just now I have some troubles: http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1321134#post1321134 that burned me.

All the best

 

[Bladerunner]

@Bladerunner
Your last post is better than the previous

I am here (in this threat) with a single reason: to learn more English.
A way to do that is to challenge you
So, please, help me with this (see #3545)
Thank you.

I'll return here but just now I have some troubles: http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1321134#post1321134 that burned me.

All the best

The "Red people" were called back then 'Red Skins' because of the dirty red color of their skin. Probably a diet from a mid western area noted for it iron and hot sun.

"Just I say that are not they that saved the Jews. Because they hadn't have
(have haven't / haven't have ???? How is the grammar here ? Thank you.) the necessary time to accomplish this task"

Should be this: (They did not save the Jews because they did not have the necessary time to accomplish this task).'

[(did) past tense--I did, he did, they did]; [(do) Present tense---I (do), He (does), they (do)]

[(AM, Is, Are)--I am(single), He is (single), They are (plural)]

[All of the above are verbs ( A verb expresses existence, action or occurrence; not just action)]

The verb in English is usually used after the noun or pronoun.

Noun (Bladerunner), Pronoun (he,she,I, they ), etc.

He/she is a programmer; I am a programmer, They are programmers

Hope this helps.

Have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[Mihail]

The "Red people" were called back then 'Red Skins' because of the dirty red color of their skin. Probably a diet from a mid western area noted for it iron and hot sun.

"Just I say that are not they that saved the Jews. Because they hadn't have
(have haven't / haven't have ???? How is the grammar here ? Thank you.) the necessary time to accomplish this task"

Should be this: (They did not save the Jews because they did not have the necessary time to accomplish this task).'

[(did) past tense--I did, he did, they did]; [(do) Present tense---I (do), He (does), they (do)]

[(AM, Is, Are)--I am(single), He is (single), They are (plural)]

[All of the above are verbs ( A verb expresses existence, action or occurrence; not just action)]

The verb in English is usually used after the noun or pronoun.

Noun (Bladerunner), Pronoun (he,she,I, they ), etc.

He/she is a programmer; I am a programmer, They are programmers

Hope this helps.

Have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

Thank you very very very ..... much for this.
Nothing help me more now than the English lessons.

 

[Fifty2One]

English is a difficult language to learn

 

[Mihail]

English is a difficult language to learn

Really ?
Of course that it is not easy but have you tried Romanian ?
We have a very complicated grammar.
And a lot of words with the same pronunciation (sometimes also with the same syntax) but very different meaning.

And I found French more difficult, even I study it for more than 10 years, in the school.

 

[Dick7Access]

Really ?
Of course that it is not easy but have you tried Romanian ?
We have a very complicated grammar.
And a lot of words with the same pronunciation (sometimes also with the same syntax) but very different meaning.

And I found French more difficult, even I study it for more than 10 years, in the school.

Hey Mihail,
Here is something else to remember when learning English that makes it a little more difficult.
Inflection can also change the meaning of a word. Example: A form of yes in the US is yeah. A exclamation of “Yeah, right” with the inflection on the word “right’ would mean you agree with the statement of the person you are conversing with. With the inflection on the word “Yeah” means you disagree with them.
Remember, also that this forum has members from Great Britain, Australia, America, Canada and possible some from many more countries were the main language is English. That being a fact, some words have a different mean for the same word. Example: USA Baby diaper, GB Nappy. GB Booth of the car, US trunk of the car. GB guys, if I got those words wrong for GB please straighten me out for Mihs sake. While we are at it can we hear from the Aussie’s and the Cannuck’s on word differences?

 

[Mihail]

@D7A
Before to try to fully understand your post I like to say that that in my previous post I quoted (from the top of my head) one of my teacher for French.
He was (hope that he still IS - there are 30 years from that beautiful days) from Paris (Montmartre).
He's name ? Jean Jacques... Somehow but, for sure, not Rousseau. Funny is that I remember only his nick: Rousseau, of course . Of course that this guy know more foreign (for he) languages, not only the Romanian. He has said us that the Romanian language was very hard (for he) to learn because... see my previous post.

A bit about me and the English language:
I have "learned" English for 4 years, in the school (at age 10-14 years; 1972-1976).
Then, after 1990, I started to translate the help files from the computer in order to teach myself some programming.
Unfortunately, the computer don't speak to me. It only write for me. And only at the present tense.
So, now, I have a vocabulary restricted to the computers area, I can read better than I write, I write better than I speak and I speak a lot better than I understand if someone else speak to me.

One more thing:
If I listen a non native English speaker, usually I understand at least the idea, if not every word.
But, when I listen a native English speaker, I rarely understand the idea (only from very short sentences) because I understand (maybe) one word from ten.

If someone has some advices, he/she will be more than welcome.

Finally, I like to say a big THANK YOU to all those that helped (and, I hope, will help) me with this.

For all of you, HAVE A NICE DAY !!! (in Romania is the morning now).

 

[nanscombe]

For the sake of Anglo American relations here is a List of words (A - L) having different meanings in American and British English courtesy of Wikipedia. It's quite long, there is also part M - Z.

Here's a bit of Canadian while we are at it... Canada-UK Dictionary

 

[Mihail]

Hi, Nigel. How are you.
From your post I'll store in my mind a single word: sake