Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,484 comments
  • 1,109,435 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,050 51.4%

  • Total voters
    2,041
God as the arsonist firefighter.
No, no, God only deals with the nice things and it'd be the devil who sends all the illnesses and substandard medical staff. Why, oh why is this so hard to understand? Perhaps because He is also responsible for the birth of Lucifer when He created the heavenly host? Oh, well, mysterious ways.
 
Last edited:
No, no, God only deals with the nice things and it'd be the devil who sends all the illnesses and substandard medical staff.
The alternative explanation is God also does the bad things as a test of your faith that he's the good guy.
 
The alternative explanation is God also does the bad things as a test of your faith that he's the good guy.
You mean that guy whose family he wiped out before covering his skin in boils? I thought that was Satan's idea. The Almighty must've been feeling particularly suggestible that day.
 
Is killing large numbers of civilians in a war a crime or a sin?

My father was directly involved in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that knowledge troubles me when I think about it.
It troubles you because of your connection to your father and your concern about what it means about him personally? Or it troubles you because you think that you are somehow responsible for his actions?
 
Last edited:
It troubles you because of your connection to your father and your concern about what it means about him personally? Or it troubles you because you think that you are somehow responsible for his actions?
First of all it troubles me that huge numbers of civilians were killed. "No man is an island..."
 
Is killing large numbers of civilians in a war a crime or a sin?
You're going to have to define what a sin is before going on a waffling tangent.

We already know it's a war crime. It's not an either/or question.
 
Original sin is an interesting, weird, and immoral way to blame infants for the crimes of their fathers.
My father may have committed war crimes or sin when he directly participated in the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over 100,000 civilians were instantly killed. However, since the winners make the rules, it was never adjudged a war crime. So does that fact make it not a war crime? Or does a war crime persist even if it was was suffered only by the defeated aggressors, the enemy? Does history say it might? Original sin, also known as inherited guilt, ancestral guilt or even karma, may be the (cosmic?) mechanism by which war crimes are expiated by winner and loser alike. My father died young from radiation exposure suffered in Texas.
 
My father may have committed war crimes or sin when he directly participated in the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over 100,000 civilians were instantly killed.
The more centrally planned an economy is, the more difficult it is to distinguish between civilians and soldiers. Undoubtedly there were many civilians killed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What's a "war crime" and what's not comes down to a lot of specifics about the actual situation. I will say that it's easy to distinguish Hiroshima and Nagasaki from some other kinds of instances where civilians are harmed or brutalized, and that is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not selected to intentionally harm civilians or to maximize civilian casualties. The civilians killed in those bombings were "collateral damage", rather than the target. Those cities were military targets, even though collateral damage was high (even extreme). This is not the same as some of the Russian strikes in Ukraine, where civilians, in some cases, are the literal target - the intent being to demoralize the population rather than to actually harm the military strength of the opposition. And I don't mean just any kind of demoralization (like convincing an enemy that they cannot win militarily), I mean demoralizing them because of the pain and suffering you're inflicting on the civilian population.

If you want to make the case, and I haven't tried, you'd be looking for evidence that civilians were the intended target, or that civilian casualties was positive contributing factor in the selection of those targets (there is some evidence for this). And you'd want to make that case based on what your father actually thought.

However, since the winners make the rules, it was never adjudged a war crime.
Hopefully from the above you'll see that it's more complicated than that. I know you like to think this sort of thing, but it's really a misguided notion in an era of information.
Original sin, also known as inherited guilt, ancestral guilt or even karma, may be the (cosmic?) mechanism by which war crimes are expiated by winner and loser alike.
Explain to me how you are guilty of someone else's actions. Are you still guilty if you're adopted or it's a step parent? If not, how much of your DNA confers guilt, and by what mechanism does it do so? Is it specific genes that confer guilt? Like eye color, or height? Or is it just a threshold of genetic inheritance that allows the guilt to flow? If so, could you get guilt from a grandparent or a great grand parent if you shared enough genetics? If it's some kind of soul-based guilt, exactly what causes a transfer of guilt between souls? Is it familiarity? Can you get guilt from a sibling or child? How about a friend? Or is it genetics again, if so, we're back to the question of adoption or step parents. Does your soul inherit some guilt from the souls whose DNA was used to create you? Can you get guilt from the soul of a parent you've never met?

When I talk about guilt above, I don't just mean how you feel. I mean original sin, or some actual mechanism by which you must atone for something.

You've got a lot of work ahead of you.
 
Last edited:
If you want to make the case, and I haven't tried, you'd be looking for evidence that civilians were the intended target, or that civilian casualties was positive contributing factor in the selection of those targets (there is some evidence for this). And you'd want to make that case based on what your father actually thought.
If I recall, Nagasaki was added as a potential target for an atomic bomb after they removed Kyoto due to it's cultural significance to the Japanese people. That tends to lend support to the idea that they were not looking to create damage above and beyond what was strictly necessary to get Japan to surrender.
 
If I recall, Nagasaki was added as a potential target for an atomic bomb after they removed Kyoto due to it's cultural significance to the Japanese people. That tends to lend support to the idea that they were not looking to create damage above and beyond what was strictly necessary to get Japan to surrender.
It's my understanding that Nagasaki was not the primary target, but switched to at the last minute due to conditions (weather?). They had a hierarchy of targets and some method by which to rank them, and I've not seen anywhere that that ranking was anything like "maximum population". Nagasaki was not an optimal terrain to kill civilians, it was picked because of its waterways which were somehow important for naval activity.


"The Target Committee appointed by President Harry Truman to decide which Japanese cities would receive the Little Boy and Fat Man atomic bombings did not place Nagasaki among their top two choices. Instead they identified Kokura as the second target after Hiroshima. In Kokura, a city of 130,000 people on the island of Kyushu, the Japanese operated one of their biggest ordnance factories, manufacturing among other things chemical weapons. The Americans knew all this, but strangely had not targeted the city yet in their conventional bombing campaign. That was one of the reasons the Target Committee thought it would be a good option after Hiroshima.

The third choice, Nagasaki was a port city located about 100 miles from Kokura. It was larger, with an approximate population of 263,000 people, and some major military facilities, including two Mitsubishi military factories. Nagasaki also was an important port city. Like Kokura and Hiroshima, it had not suffered much thus far from American conventional bombing."


"Over Kokura, clouds and smoke from nearby bombing raids obscured visibility. The Americans could see parts of the city, but they could not site directly on the city arsenal that was their target. Sweeney flew overhead until Japanese antiaircraft fire and fighters made things “a little hairy,” and it was obvious that sighting would be impossible. He then headed for his secondary target: Nagasaki. In Kokura, meanwhile, civilians who had taken shelter after the air raid signal heard the all-clear, emerged, and breathed sighs of relief. None of them knew then, of course, how close they had come to dying."


Looks like Nagasaki was switched to because the military target couldn't be identified positively.
 
Last edited:

“God allows us to experience the low points of life in order to teach us lessons that we could learn in no other way.”


― C.S. Lewis
 

“Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the Earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.


― Bertrand Russell
 

“God allows us to experience the low points of life in order to teach us lessons that we could learn in no other way.”


― C.S. Lewis
I primarily just browse and lurk in this thread, but I gotta say, this take is diabolically dumb. Such a statement implies that a lot of heinous acts/things, such as the murder of loved ones, rape, theft, genocide, terminal disease, etc., are allowed to happen to "teach us lessons," implying that such horrible acts are ultimately supposed to good things somehow.

If "God" is real, and they choose this path despite having the alleged power to stop such acts from happening, then quite frankly, they're a massive 🤬 among other things.
 
Last edited:
I primarily just browse and lurk in this thread, but I gotta say, this take is diabolically dumb. Such a statement implies that a lot of heinous acts/things, such as the murder of loved ones, rape, theft, genocide, terminal disease, etc., are allowed to happen to "teach us lessons," implying that such horrible acts are ultimately supposed to good things somehow.

If "God" is real, and they choose this path despite having the alleged power to stop such acts from happening, then quite frankly, they're a massive 🤬 among other things.
Reminds me of that Stephen Fry response to the question of what he'd do if he found out when he died that God existed.
 
The person who created this forum has got us all on a God rant. So what else is there to talk about the almighty being? Ah yes, the ten commandments. Never break one of them.
 
The person who created this forum has got us all on a God rant. So what else is there to talk about the almighty being? Ah yes, the ten commandments. Never break one of them.
So... you're Jewish?
 
Actually yes, me and my family are Jewish. And ancestors.
I'm a bit curious then why you attend church and write out the word "god" then. Those are two things Jews do not do. But in any case, Chag Sameach.
 
I'm a bit curious then why you attend church and write out the word "god" then.
Especially as churches routinely blow right through second (or first if you read a different version of the perfect word of the lord) Commandment.

That chap up there stapled to a plank? That'll be a "graven image".
 
People who sing on airplanes should be thrown out the exit doors at 35,000ft.
bQtZCCq9k8Oi5uhH1Qc0OYa1Y84=.gif
 
Through god all things are possible /s

But ya, I guess you can't open a door that swings outwards on a craft moving 500+ mph.
It's actually the inwards bit first that's the issue.

Thanks to the pressure differential between inside and out at altitude, you'd need to overcome about ten tons of force to pull the door in against the air pushing it out. You couldn't even break the seal.
 
Then the answer is simple... we throw the Christian with the guitar at the door for 3 and half hours, until the plane lands, then we throw him out at 20 ft.
 
Back