@Jormungandor I have absolutely no intention of arguing with you over the internet (because that's just plain pathetic) so I will make this my first and last comment, but do you seriously have nothing better to do that pick a fight with everyone you see that disagrees with you? Also, who in their right mind gets drunk while on the computer alone? This reeks of forever-alone patethic guy ._.'' You might not be 100% wrong, but you're not 100% right either. Deal with it, we have different opinions.
Hmm well personally I think men influenced other men by twisting words (that happened) to be religious into bending another human beings will.
Unfortunately we are easily bent by others generally as far as humanity goes, orweillian society is as rife today as it was in the past just under different banners we had the capitalism vs communism etc every bit as dangerous as any religious context.
South park had 3 different atheist factions fighting over the "truth" (hit the nail on the head)
if you really consider yourself a flaw, that is your problem! and why do you get abusive? a bit antropophobic are we? why can't you rely on human kindness, you are resorting to basic aggressive instincts! I don't like religion, but i do respect the universal decleration of human rights, if religions formally adhere to this, i don't have any probs with them. Sadly most religions do not recognise them and actively promote their hate-agenda: extremely "america hates fags!"??? Rational????
@Jormungandor well, the only thing i say (again) is: life expectancy 30 yrs for christianity vs 67.2 yrs for secular science. if someone is an idiot, i'd look in the mirror if i were you! But hey keep mumbling things in cold buildings on sundays!
@Jormungandor "If you prick us, do we not bleed" M.l.king is a black activist. It refers to my plead to let go of the racial arguement and to move on to the real divisive force, religion; the conflicts i mentionned can be boiled down to religious conflicts, nothing more or less, if that is irrational to you, that is your prob!
@Jormungandor oh let martin die in peace would you. I am the one stating that religion is a divisive force since dogma is absolute and discriminates between faithfull and non-adherents. Why do sunni bombers target shii pelgrims. Cause of dogma. Why did the troubles in N-Ireland exist? Dogma? Why did the FYR Yugoslavia implode? religious dogma? Spoke the same language, shared the same land, what motivated? RELIGION!
@Jormungandor sadly that is true, but we also used it to push up life expectancy from 30 yrs in the dark ages (when religion had dominion) to 67.2yrs now, so your bleeding analogy is somewhat croocked. And unfortunatly weapon development has been a constant through the ages (also under theocracy; does bushido eg mean anything to u in this regard?)
@Jormungandor, no off course religion is not the onlyse, it is just instrumental in the build up towards war. It is used as a force of discrimination and never ceases to discriminate between adherents and non-adherents. The beauty of science is that everything can be refuted by facts, since science is about facts. It is howeverfficult to disprove a complete fiction, like theists seem to demand of atheists. if science used the same logic as religion, we'd still be bleeding pple!
@Jormungandor Yes, yes, you are the winner blahblah XD If this is all it takes to make your day it's pathetic, besides I was trolling you at the end, also, this are the facts for you Drama Queen. My comment has 13 *thumbsup* (I wonder why) and the mistake was "expoerimentation", let's have a look at the keyboard... interesting, O and P are side by side, could it be that I pressed O by mistake and didn't notice it? Seems plausible isn't it Mr. I Make a Mountain From A Grain Of Sand?
Well, since I can't find my original comment to delete it to stop the harassment, I'll leave this. I asked an honest question for those who are atheists. Being atheists you seem to be more obsessed with God and His non-existence and blaming Him & religion on all your problems & the worlds problems for that matter. Who are you trying to convince of this extreme hatred against a non-existent God? Me or yourself? Please stop flooding my inbox, you are embarrassing yourself!
@Atheeizm Well, most atheists of the day also thought that. In fact, before it was a discovered fact, everyone (no matter what religion) thought that.
@Atheeizm That's a bit bold. Why don't you just go ahead and prove that what you perceive as reality is indeed real. Science operates on some assumption, or opinions. I will give you that most scientific things are based in more concrete ideas, but religion (at least Christianity) does not operate in the same manner as science.
@Atheeizm As Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, an astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican, would say, "Religion is knowledge moving toward understanding, Science is understanding moving toward knowledge." In other words, science starts with what we have, that's why it make sense. Religion does not make sense, because it is not always in our grasp completely.
@Atheeizm I'm not saying that Christianity is the 'perfect' truth, and I am not defending the bible as a scientific book (because it is not nor is/was that its purpose), but it is something I have faith in. If it was nothing more than a fact, then there would be no need for faith in it. So I have no problem with there being unanswered questions because they are petty compared to the good impact the gospels can have on peoples lives.
@NovaPrime001 The bible is not the scientific truth. This is somewhat of an understatement of nephilimic proportions. Your illustartion of the shortfalls of the clear and cohesive in Christianity is welcomed and refreshing. Of course I still cannot fathom how you reconcile this 'feeling' with the emergence of the rational and empirical. My statement was simply this: when you come in with a clear cache or an unloaded thesis (assumption in your words), the result is not placed in a foreground ...
Sadly only like 1% of "christians" believe the world is 6,000 years old. Its not a common belief, Ironically, most christians believe in everything scientists believe, we just have a God. And I'm sorry religion isn't the cause of everything bad asshole humans are we are the ones responsible for the planet. But I guess if blaming God makes you feel better.
@Antiks72 thats a good point, the exact one I was making. If you're an atheist just like the man above, stop blaming God and religion for wars, and blame mans stupidity instead. I guess its all in the verbage.
Man's stupidity is represented by religion, you see, human beings made elaborate stories and myths to explain phenomena such as; earthquakes, volcanoes, rain, eclipses, and so on.
Religions today are just an extension of of that concept. Its also funny how religion claims to give humans the thing they want most; eternal life, sounds like horseshit.
Also, don't act like religion never influenced pure evil. Inquisition, crusades, rape, torture, slavery, fuck ur god(s)
@Hamjam117 Personally I have seen rife stupidity in religion this is true however I have also seen smart people who simply choose to just believe as well as morons outside of it.
I.e. mugging little bastards in London, New york etc... no religious motive still scum
Greedy corporate businesses that steam roll people no religious motive
Suicide nutcases (Religious motive)
Evangelical tosspots (Religious or money? motive?) etc...
@loverlei79 "most christians believe in everything scientists believe"
A few centuries ago you would have logged on to you tube and typed "most christians believe in everything scientists believe except for the earth being round.. oh and a few other things..."
@Atheeizm I agree wholeheartedly. God lived in the sky, we looked, nope not there. We peeked above our atmosphere, not there either. We gaze out of our galaxy towards ancient star clusters, not there....NOW he's outside the universe or ALL AROUND us but invisible.. What is this? A game of hide and seek or something?
That's what to do if you are a supreme being who takes an active interest in human affairs..Run of and f@cking hide.
Thousands and thousands of hours of expoerimentation, observation, hard work and so on of the most brilliant minds in many fields of expertiese durings hundreds of years VS a 2 thousand year old book written by primitive superstitious people who thought the Earth was flat and didn't even know what caused lightning and thunder, written down by non direct eyewitness, copied from other copies, translated and translated again... I stick with Science guys and I leave fairy tales to children...
I like how atheists try to prove "there's no God", and how people who believe in God could just relax and enjoy. Don't know what's this all about.
Love Eddie. My favourite comedian. Liked him with make-up even more... and I don't know why, because I'm a straightest guy ever. Sorry, need a little twelve-and-maybe-some-more-hours nap.)))
@NearlyKnight since we put no preposition forward, (we just deny yours) logically we don't need to provide proof(you however do!), its like going to the bank: do you think they'll cash out when you say "i've got a million pound deposit"? and will you get mad if they don't fork it over when they are not able to disprove your claim without providing proof of it yourself? But by all means, keep deluding yourself! It is giving us an opportunity of a good laugh at your very petty person! LMAO!
@NearlyKnight LMAO you make a positive claim: there is a god, we say there is not. If i say there is an elf in my yard, is that true untill you are able to disprove that?
@evilminionnumber2 Elf is a folklore personage. God is the motive giver for the Universe. Human brain cannot understand the beginning and the end, it also cannot measure the time properly. We can build the theories how everything started but if we say, that Universe started from Big Bang... what caused it? Science is the key to God existence, but it will never prove his existence or vice versa. So this is the trick - you believe or you not. Simple enough. We are kids on the playground.
@NearlyKnight well part of the problem is the claim that the old bugger does poke around a bit in his creation and breaks a few laws of physics. theres not a lot to prove that that happens or has happened. Youre spot on that we cant speculate on something that lies outside of the universe. so why should we? why would it be wrong to say "dont bother"? Any arbitrary idea can be speculated in...doesnt mean it makes sense to do so.
@frilansspion well, it's human nature - search for the answers. We always bother)
And the whole science is speculation and theories. We observe, gather and make some conclusions, sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're right. It's never-ending process... and I think it's the way we created. Not by hammer or saw we're made, of course.
And I don't really get the part with breaking laws of physics, mate.
@NearlyKnight yep I agree about that. (of course some things are, or are very close to, facts) but its one thing to speculate from observations and one from nothing at all. then its just "imagining" things. youd have thought that all the complexities and wonders of the universe are enough to think about. by breaking of laws I meant IF one are talking about a personal intervening god; as in miracles and other influence. Some people argue for such a god, and its an issue you might raise.
@frilansspion Well, I'm not sure about the nature of miracles. Sometimes they made by one man's will, sometimes they happen just in people imagination. Because we see, what we want to see.
The main dilemma of God's existence is the transformation of the abiocoen into the living forms, what was the impulse? But we can't observe the God like a natural phenomenon of something like that. Maybe it's the main point of all discussions.
@NearlyKnight do you think so? Ive never understood why that is a problem at all. if one starts at the idea that the world IS governed by god somehow, why would one not accept that "way" of life being created? (probably because religious people on average are pretty thickheaded). and even if (when) assembly of amino acids and whatnot into more and more meaningful structures could be proved without a doubt I dont think many religious folk would reconsider. its not their thing. would you?
@frilansspion I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about God.
People stick to the things are comfortable to them. It's much easier, when you can let the others think about something difficult for understanding. Pay and pray - works since primitive state. I don't think I have right to teach others, what they should do, but my church is in my mind, I guess. And I'm ready to share my thoughts, if somebody wants to hear them.
@NearlyKnight oh ah right, I think I got the wrong end of the stick there then, and jumped to conclusions. sorry. but not 100% sure what your point is - people use it as a simplification of their lives, yes, easier to see in black and white than in grayscale or indeed color. but. youre "not talking about religion but about god" - how do you mean?
@NearlyKnight Both require an irrational belief in a concept that has been refuted over and over again! Your distinction is superficial, artificial and intellectually dishonest.
@NearlyKnight "for me": ever cared to explore the definition of subjective, perhaps? did you ever indulge in studying epicurus, perhaps you can finally offer an acceptable explanation after two millenia? It will get you a nobel prize for sure! Coherence and religion are like water and fire. Science extiguishes the fire of religion in an instant. Fact is that the whole theistic god concept is statistacally ridiculous and all the evidence points against it. Yet you believe! DUUUUUH
@godsadouchebag So you're the man, who represents the objective and undeniable to the humanity. Time to grab some pop-corn.
The only point of your eternally wise commentaries is "there's no God, it's proved". And you still haven't posted a single proof. Why should I believe if there's proof of God's non-existence?
@NearlyKnight "there's no God, it's proved". , no actually it is like i assume there is no god, no proof is provided of his existence. Usually a person putting forward a preposition is required to prove this, you claim a god, so provide proof, simple i'd say! The probability of his existence is in any way statistacally far less likely of winning the lottery every time during one year. Epicurus remark clearly rules out an active theistic god,too bad you can't understand that.
@godsadouchebag It wasn't claimed by me, first of all. It was claimed long time ago, and no thing takes its beginning from nothing. I just support this. The idea of God's non-existence is actually the answer to the idea to the God's existence. And not vice versa. Not a scientific proof, but not a sophism.
It's really bad, because I really don't get it. Maybe it's because of my lack of knowledge of English, but you can help me and describe it more detailed.
@NearlyKnight so if you just can assemble a time-line of idiots your fiction becomes truth? It stays simple, something is fiction untill proof is provided. God (in any denomination) is unproved, so it remains a fiction, this is how sanity works, i am sorry. And if you understand the true nature of a sophism, you should realise the god concept is a perfect example of this concept of "a fallacious argument"
@NearlyKnight that is where the elf/pixies in my backyard comes in! Every assumption is valid untill proven wrong? So you can fly? Try leaping of a building, I'd say. And it is nothing like the chicken and egg analogy! there are chickens and there are eggs in obvservable reality, that is no fiction, god is an unobserved fiction untill proof is provided, sorry that is a reality check!
@godsadouchebag Yeah, I get your point. But once again - the existence of God tries to describe the main thing - where did we come from. Conscience created by conscience, physical constants and etc. I'm not an agnostic, so maybe the way of "only observable is proved" is not for me.
@NearlyKnight i can relate to your interpretation, and as long as no absolutes in real life are derived from this conviction, i am fine with it! But yet we have to recognise that no theistic deity can explain our origins either,so your guess is as good as mine. But sadly i experience religion as a divisive, negative power in society, putting brother against brother and opposing the ideals of humanism, enlightenment and reasoning.
@godsadouchebag Well, the religion is like a weapon which killed its creator. It should teach people how to live in peace... and we still have religious wars.
@NearlyKnight when i read the explicit hate speech in most religious books and take note of all the religious rituals and habits in the past and present, i fear you are a bit of a romantic regarding the true nature of religion. It is and will always be a source of hate and, subsequently, violence against non-adherents, so in my view deist, neutral god is ok, but theist, active god is not acceptable.
@godsadouchebag Maybe it was created by these means, but it definitely shouldn't be like what we see now and through the history. And it's sad. Of course every man would be glad to see he's thoughts accepted, but they shouldn't interfere with other people's freedom. A principle for me.
@NearlyKnight The only way to make it work both ways is by denying massive factual proof, coherent theories and statistical laws. There are some 20000 different denominations of god. Larger factions like islam produce different interpretations (catholic vs protestant, shii vs sunni...). I recognise the (very faint) possibility of a deist god, but utterly reject theist interpretation based on statistical and rational grounds. How can any human claim divine insight, this is usurpation at best!
@NearlyKnight i leave you with aquote of srtephen roberts on this regard: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
@godsadouchebag@godsadouchebag i leave you with aquote of srtephen roberts on this regard: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
@NearlyKnight sorry to reply to this comment too. but just wanted to say..."all who believe in God just relax and enjoy"? really? do you read the news at all? yes, a lot of people think organized irrational behavior has proven to be a threat... youtube.com/user/imrational#p/u/5/w4fQA9mt-Mg
@NearlyKnight well. its a fight against very particular ideas of god primarily, I would say. cause its duality and unquestioning mentality that it encourages in people DO affect the world,for everyone. Especially as they discourage reasonable and responsible behavior just to increase their own position of power. I dont think its that strange to find it disturbing. I for one dont want another 2000 yrs of Dark Ages... your english is great btw. it was my mistake
"I for one dont want another 2000 yrs of Dark Ages" - nor do I. The difference in opinions makes the world more colourful and stimulates the development. Until someone grabs the gun. And that's what religion is really useful for - to rule the masses to satisfy the needs of little group of very well-fed citizens.
No, what I'm saying is that the Atheist has no basis for saying that his morality is correct or better than anyone else's. According to his/her worldview, morality is a byproduct of mindless evolutionary processes. If there is no God what could possibly make right and wrong absolute? That's why Eddie makes the worst argument ever because he implies that morality is objective
Right but how can evolution possibly make right and wrong objective?
"Evolution causes ethical behavior."
Is evolution the creator of right and wrong? Evolution changes you know. Was it wrong to murder before evolution caused ethical behavior? And how do you get an "ought" from an "is"?
hilarious. absolutely genius. The negative posts are just theists that get offended when we point out obvious facts about their dearly held bronze age fairy tales. THANKS for posting this. I'm sharing the shit outta this one. peace.
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")
I'm not sure which comment of mine you're replying to and I'm not sure what animals have to do with this, but my whole argument is that objective moral values can't exist unless God exists. So if Eddie is saying that slavery is wrong, I'd like to know if he believes there is an absolute standard for right and wrong. If so, then I'd like to know what he is basing that morality on that could possibly make it absolute.
What he is saying with the animal bit is that even without the existence of a God (which is a very naive stance by the way), we can observe rudimentary "objective" (as you want to call it) morality in other species. There seems to be a biological and evolutionary component that fosters ethical behavior as opposed to "mass murdering fuck heads" as Eddie would say.
I used to think that slavery part was a problem. But then I attended a church where a Pakistani-American pastor explained that, in his country, some Christian families are so poor that they lend out their children to work for Muslim families in the afternoons - to earn a little extra money. That's what the Bible is describing when it talks about "selling" your daughter. It's not permanent, people.
@xander7ful So you kind of "justified" slavery. What about genocides?
What about a trick where most people now don't just die but go to hell? Some go to heaven, but most go to hell. And for centuries they didn't even head a chance to choose. If the bible is true, that is.
@Glad1kun No, I'm not justifying the "slavery". I'm explaining that it's something people in Middle Eastern countries do when they're dirt poor. As for the genocides, I don't know why God ordered those, so I can't justify it.
As for hell... I now believe in reincarnation & that only a few who really earn it go there between lives, not permanently. I believe that God is compassionate & gives us many chances, whether we knew the Bible or not.
Actually, I would argue that atheism has no absolute standard for right or wrong. Your argument is useless because according to your worldview, (assuming you're an atheist) the sense right and wrong is simply a feeling; a byproduct of mindless evolutionary processes. So there is nothing absolutely wrong with murdering someone. It's just that our emotions make us feel that it is wrong.
An atheist draws his/her moral guidelines from the same place where an agnostic, or a theist does - from the society around them. Most certainly I did not get my morality basis from a book, I learned it at home from my parents, at school from my teachers and friends and from then on, been living by it. Granted, the Bible does have good guidelines for morality, but it could also be any other book.
Support for fellows and placing the well being of another above self are found in herd animals and thought to be an evolutionary trait that aids in protecing the species as a whole against threats.
If your so sure of this, cite one verse where the Bible supports involuntary slavery. 1 TImothy 1:9-10: Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, ENSLAVERS...
i loved eddie's whole "dress to kill" special, it was awesome. i watched stripped and hardly laughed at all. i wonder if it was just a bad night or if he's just lost a bit of his comedic ability
To be honest at times I don't really believe in us. I do some people it's just some of the others fuck... how are we even the same species? The amount of stupid displayed boggles my mind. (And if you want an example Rick Perry.)
@kamwrites lol I think I've spent way too much time posting and replying to comments on the thewayofthemaster channel and yea there are times when I can't even reply to that level of stupid. That's also why people like Eddie Izzard help to take the edge off, Atheist comedy is like pot for my brain an instant chill button. XD
People were not enslaved because of their nationality. It was merely a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In NT times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves. Some people actually chose to be slaves because their needs would be provided by their masters. “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16)
Also we do see at least one good thing which came from World War II: Israel now exists as a nation. The Holocaust was a primary reason the White Paper of 1939 was rescinded, freeing Jews to immigrate to Palestine. The fact that, as of 1948, the Jews have a restored national identity helps to fulfill such biblical prophecies as Ezekiel 37 and Matthew 24.
@THEPOWERMETALNINJA Debt slavery wasn't the only kind of slavery that both the Old and New Testament had instructions for. Nearly all kinds of slavery. Even on how to sell your daughter as Eddie says.
@godsadouchebag "you just don't trust human nature enough" - And you trust it enough to allow it to get away with things that SHOULD be dishonored by society. These "liberties" arent making society better, that much is pretty sure. "Is he neither able nor willing?" -This is again, bibilical ignorance. Evil isnt a force in of itself. Evil is a LACK of good, a lack of God. Its like a shadow rather than a coherent force, at least bibilically it is. Humans allow evil, God does not.
original inhabitants who opposed this occupation, were deported or shot on sight. Luckily Flanders was considered arian, and we didn't suffer the mass -extinction of "untermenschen" like the polish the ukranians and the russians. German defeat was comprised in its ideology which advocated adversity between etnic groups. They did not want to free ukrain, poland or russia, they wanted to clenze! The WM operated side by side with "einsatzgruppen" and german military even collaborated...
@godsadouchebag "I won't give nazis/fascists any respect" -Then you get no where with them, but I can understand personal experience of being harmed by these ideologies, which begs the question why do you give religious people the same respect as nazis and fascists (namely none at all it seems) "German defeat was comprised in its ideology" - Thats kind of what I've been saying for a while now. "War is too complex to be incorporated in a game" - I was making a gist rather than a point there.
@GermanConquistador08 And again i am not seeking respect from nazis or fascists, if they dispise me, i am on the right track. I can not accept absolutes, nazi, fascists or religious, and essentially the religious rules are absolutes. Papal infallibility you know, untill 1991!!!! the earth was the centre of the universe for the pope! In essence i don't like someone imposing a subjective belief onto someone else. That objectively infringes on my freedom. Why can't i draw muhammed or mock god?
@godsadouchebag "Wilhelm 2 just established those to vent democratic pressures" -Wilhelm II did NOT established the German parliment. In fact, it was done in Prussia in 1848 with the Prime Minister, Landtag and House of Lords (Again, much like the British system) "if they dispise me, i am on the right track" - It depends, if they dispise you because you destroy the arguements that support their worldview yes, if they dispise you because you insult them to no end, you're NOT oin the right track.
@godsadouchebag "I can not accept absolutes" -Why not? "the earth was the centre of the universe for the pope!" -It also was for the entire world for the most part. " i don't like someone imposing a subjective belief onto someone else." - No one is doing that. I hate the saying "Dont shove your religion down our throats." That is RARELY done. Its either expressed, defended or shared. Shoving down throats is similar a meaningless statement meant to shut off people, it shouldnt be overused.
Semantics, fallacy or other tricks don't work with me, i'm sorry. The bible wasn't translated for the first time in 1611. It wasn't written in latin, you know! There is even a dutch translation dating back to 1361 And so what if it was the text of a psalm, he chose those words! And how could he be quoting out of the bible, which didn't exist! He was a jew quoting out of the torah. So far for my biblical ignorance and your claimed authority on the matter.
@godsadouchebag "bible wasn't translated for the first time in 1611." - The first official ENGLISH translation. King James Bible, 1611? I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out. And since you go on about that for a while, its a bit silly what you say next. "And so what if it was the text of a psalm." - There is a HUGE significance. Actually READ Pslam 22:1, and I think you'll understand. If you dont, I'm sorry, I'll explain it if you really need someone to.
@godsadouchebag "displayed ignorance on both WW2" -No I didnt actually, you debunked NONE of my claims and theories about what Germany could have done to win the war ( The foremost being the ABANDONMENT of Nazis so calling me a neo-fascist really doesnt apply does it?) "yet you have the pretention to claim divine insight?" - No I didnt, I claimed to know more about the bible than you did, and I demonstrated it, while you demonstrated nothing but bibilical ignorance.
Well, I was looking at the comments to find ones about how awesome Eddie is, but got blasted with a load of BS that has nothing to do with the great Izzard. Really, people? Sure, I don't agree with Mr. Izzard's point of view but he's a genius and very stylish and just fucking funny. I can enjoy his gift of humor. You are only making yourselves look like idiots. Why can't you just enjoy his greatness? Btw, "It's round." I about died. I love you.
"one of these is not correct" not true eddie. A dog called Dave is 15 years old to the human family to which he brings so much joy, right, does everyone understand this? ok, but to Dave himself he is 105. See where I am getting at?
@F12Y14N25 thats a bit harsh isn't it? after all, i just said that i hadn't understood your point; maybe i was just looking for a little bit of clarification.
What I'm saying is that the Axis had the chance of winning, but due to Hitler's mistakes in leadership and lack of military knowlegde, he essentially costed the Axis the war. Its very well argueable, possible? maybe not, but possible absolutely. And again, partly its due to the violent repression, killing able citizens in Axis countries, and the wasting of troops fighting paristans and running camps and outposts that didnt need to exist.
@GermanConquistador08 when i add all the conditions in your arguement for german victory, one can only conclude that german victory was impossible. you speak of choices, well, you choose, you lose. This long range bomber instead of stuka? So no more close air support, so no blitzkrieg. And no hitler and napoleon were seperated by some 150 yrs, so indeed circumstances were different. You assume that if everything went perfectly, the germans would have won, well duh! But odds in war change!
@godsadouchebag "when i add all the conditions in your arguement for german victory, one can only conclude that german victory was impossible" -..what? When you add the condition? My only condition is that Germany had a competent military leader. Hitler is the root cause of the problems I suggested. How do you just assume that it wa sstill impossible, while completely ignoring my arguements? "you speak of choices, well, you choose, you lose" -? Can you explain this statement, it makes no sense
@godsadouchebag What I argued is that if Hitler had not overturned the will of military command in these instances, than Germany would have won the war. "you don't seem to know that the us did indeed declare war on germany on 11/12/1941" -No, they were NOT prepared to declare won on Germany. People in the US wanted to go to War with Japan, but a large majority in the US still saw no reason to do the same in Europe. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, they might not have entered the war/
@GermanConquistador08 Maybe us public opinion was not ready, but authorities certainly were. The us navy was since early september 41 already systematically attacking german naval units, so de facto war already existed without a formal declaration. No public opposition was registered against this policy, so maybe there was no active support for a war, there was no active opposition (AFC?) to it either. In view of the cultural relation, it was only a matter of time before war broke out.
@godsadouchebag "Maybe us public opinion was not ready, but authorities certainly were." -Yeah that was the situation between 1939-1941. Only when attacked did public opinion turn, on the Japanese. "systematically attacking german naval units" - Attacking essentially pirate U-boats does not count as a declaration of war. Besides, the formal declaration of war allowed the US to sent Air Forces and grounds troops to Europe, which wouldnt have happened without a declaration of war.
@GermanConquistador08 further mistakes: you don't seem to know that the us did indeed declare war on germany on 11/12/1941. Regarding the Battle of britain, bombing cities only started in a later phase as a retaliation for bombardments on berlin conducted 25/8/1940, initially the targets you indicated were struck. The nature of napoleonic and modern warfare is completely different, but you can't deny that the essence of warfare is constant: conquer moscow, obliterate enemy forces and nation.
@godsadouchebag "long range bomber instead of stuka? So no more close air support" -Again, if the Battle of Britain had been won (Which it could have been without key mistakes by Hitler) then the Luftwaffe would have been completely prepared to fight in Russia, even without the additional Stukas (Which you make it sound like there would be NO Stukas, if the Nazis just built a few squadrons of Heavy Bombers, which is ridiculous. "assume that if everything went perfectly" -No I dont.
@godsadouchebag /so swiftly anyways. "bombing cities only started in a later phase as a retaliation" - That is not the case. The switching from the bombing of military targets to cities was a stragetic change in the plans originally designed by Luftwaffe commanders. The targets switched from military to civilian targets on Nazi directive because they believed it would finally crush British morale, and it didnt. It was an utter failure and a military blunder.
@GermanConquistador08 factual wrong, check out the history place to see what an error by the luftwaffe triggered! Hitler spoke on 04/09/1940, following the first ever bombing of berlin "When the British Air Force drops 2 or 3 or 4000 kg of bombs, then we will in 1 night drop 150-, 230-, 300- or 400,000 kg. When they declare that they will increase their attacks on our cities, then we will raze their cities to the ground. We will stop the handiwork of those night air pirates, so help us God!"
@godsadouchebag "factual wrong, check out the history place" -...what? History place? "Hitler spoke on" -Do you see my point yet? Not only did Hitler command air raid bombings which were totally useless and ultimately led to German defeat in the battle of Britain, by Nazi officials like Goring lowered the morale of the luftwaffe by suggesting that the lack of fighting spirit was the reason the battle wasnt being won, despite the fact that it only wasnt because of the idiotic Nazi elite.
@GermanConquistador08 and at least one sensible conclusion "idiotic nazi elite". But the rest? Assumption over assumption, completely neglecting strategic reality. Hitler perfectly knew the only thing keeping him in power was terror. The british bombing of berlin dented his image and that is why he retaliated. But to consider the axis completely without military insight, sorry too many generals like Rommel, Student etc were present too just say that. Strategically they failed, not tactical.
@godsadouchebag "Hitler perfectly knew the only thing keeping him in power was terror" -Thats actually not true. If you actually LISTEN to German citizens at the time, the majority will probably claim indifference to the entire war but were impressed with Hitler's diplomatic leadership, and a sizable part of the country really did feel admiration for the madman. Terror only kept the reins, fully, around 1944. Also think about what you're saying: That Hitler bombed London to stay in power?
@GermanConquistador08 further more, the tactical conduct of most operations of the wehrmacht was excellent, just like hannibal, they knew how to get a victory, but not how to use it. The german military was technologically far superior to any allied power, but they just had not enough resources. Thus they had to rely on the momentum of the surprise, both japanese and germans. Once the allied factories started producing the wargear, they were lost. Tiger was superior to any tank, but Jabo?
@godsadouchebag "Strategically they failed" - No they didnt, the Axis military forces in 1941 had quite possibility the greatest strategic potential for European (If not world domination) that has ever been seen. Control of the oil in the middle east, Russia, Britain and therefore the rest of Europe. Yes it is a bigger stretch but it was quite possible. "Once the allied factories started producing the wargear, they were lost." - Again, conquer Britain or Russia you've got the resources
@GermanConquistador08 Winning a war with a structural absence of all resources?In my view this was/is not feasable. Further more, those opposing barbarossa were those of the old school prussian military, who should have been in the driving seat in your view, so oil and food out of the kaukasus and ukraine would never have been obtained.Regarding the oil in the middle east, one can be brief; there was no way to get this to germany, since GB had naval and aerial dominion in the medditeranian
@godsadouchebag "Further more, those opposing barbarossa were those of the old school prussian military, who should have been in the driving seat in your view, so oil and food out of the kaukasus and ukraine would never have been obtained." - You never mention HOW these resources never would have been obtained. Also, Prussian Generals like Erwin von Manstein argued for cooperation with native Ukraines and Russians supporting the German percieved liberation. Nazis fought against that.
@GermanConquistador08 and britain as a resource base? for what exactly then? hitler started terror with the elimination of opposition: within his own party, eliminating ernst rohm and the SA in the night of the long knives. Outside the party: The first "konzentrationslager" Dachau was established in 1933, shortly following hitlers rise to power. Those interned were communists and social democrats. And yes, (christian) germans were quite docile towards their leaders. speaking up=death
@godsadouchebag "Regarding the oil in the middle east,..GB had naval and aerial dominion in the medditeranian" - Again, without the Suez Canal and Straits of Gibralter they wouldnt have. But the Nazi stupidity stopped the first, and Catholic stress on Nationalist Spain disallowed for the later. "And yes, (christian) germans were quite docile towards their leaders. speaking up=death" - Very true. I keep saying that, also when you realize Polish clergy was a prime Nazi target after 1939.
@GermanConquistador08 and finally, you are obviously not aware of the nazi dependance on USSR supplies prior to barbarossa. The last train out of the ussr,carrying raw materials,drove into germany while german troops were crossing the borders. They litteraly bit the hand that fed them, while opening a third front! If that is not a strategic faillure,what is? Strategic potential? No. tactical? yes. But hey "gott mit uns", right? 1941: LW: defeated, WM: covering 3 fronts, KMsurface: defeated
@godsadouchebag "and finally, you are obviously not aware of the nazi dependance on USSR supplies prior to barbarossa" - Trade, not dependence. The USSR and Germany traded before 1941 yes but Germany was in no way dependent on the USSR for these resources. "If that is not a strategic faillure,what is?" -Even if that was true the majority of resources came from Western Russia which could have been conquered in Barbarrossa without Nazi stupidity. Also, why arent we talking about religion anymore?
@GermanConquistador08 doesn't really matter what fantasy of yours we discuss. It is completely obvious you are quite willing to accept any assumption to make your beliefs fit. If over if to arrive at a fixed position. At least WW2 was factual, while religion is completely fictional. Discussing religion with you will possibly see the same: assumptions taken for fact neglecting other dissonants who don't fit the view. Seriously germany winning ww2. Not even a remote chance, just like jezus!
@godsadouchebag "doesn't really matter what fantasy of yours we discuss" - If you mean religion than its a fantasy to you because thats your perspective, its not mine. Thats why we would have a discussion, because we disagree. But do you disagree respectfully like a normal human being or do you do so with hostility despite the fact that you have nothing to fear or be angry about someone believing something that YOU dont believe in. "assumption to make your beliefs fit" - Not true, again.
@godsadouchebag "least WW2 was factual, while religion is completely fictional" - At this point, you are wrong. Religion exists, the only issue for the two of us is: 1. Is religion, for me specifically Christianity, true? 2. It exists in reality, so has Christian done good for humanity? "Seriously germany winning ww2. Not even a remote chance, just like jezus!" - Perhaps its for the best that we dont debate, you ignore all the arguements anyways despite the fact you never refute them.
@GermanConquistador08 why should i refute arguements who are refuted by reality? Germany lost WW2, jesus was not the son of god. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" , sounds rather like a dying madman who has a last moment of sanity and realises the error of his ways doesn't he? and a pink unicorn also exists in reality by your standards btw. Really, your grasp of reality is very feeble, perhaps indulge less in neo-fascist fantasy and more in science?
@godsadouchebag "who are refuted by reality?" - This is a meaningless statement because if God is real, than reality confirms God. Your supposition that God doesnt exist makes it impossible for a civil debate, but I'm going to try anyways. ""My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"" - As usually, an atheist exhibiting bibilical ignorance. When Jesus said this, he was QUOTING THE BIBLE, Psalmn 22:1 to be exact. Not suprising, the lack of bibilical knowledge leads you astray in your arguement.
@godsadouchebag "and a pink unicorn also exists in reality by your standards btw" - No it doesnt. The unicorn mentioned in the bible isnt speaking of the mythical animal, again bibilical ignorance is your undoing. Keep in mind, the first official translation of the bible was written in 1611 but the modern definition of unicorn wasnt the same then. In the 17th century the word Unicorn isnt speaking of the mythic animal BUT...a RHINOCEROS!! whose scientific name even is "rhinoceros unicornis"
@GermanConquistador08 and lets make inventory of all factual errors you made during this discussion? I would need too much space. You displayed ignorance on both WW2 and religion, yet you have the pretention to claim divine insight? Really! Further more you claim not to be a neo-fascist, yet you claimed to long for absolutism (Kaiser winning anyone?), have a neo-fascist avatar and you kept inventing ways how nazi Germany could have won the war.
@godsadouchebag "which didn't exist" -HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Really man? REALLY?! HAHA! THE BIBLE CONSISTS OF THE TORAH!! HAHA! The bible and Torah are one in the same, as in the bible CONTAINS the Old Testiment (The torah) "He was a jew quoting out of the torah" -Exactly! But in your own words "far for my biblical ignorance" - NOPE its pretty much still there. "your claimed authority on the matter" -because 9/10 times a Christian, who has lived their lives by the bible, knows more than an atheist.
O.e the arguments... But I was agnostic gone atheist too. And yes, please flick hitlers head off?? FOR POOR ANNE :((
mychemicalgreenday98 3 weeks ago
@Jormungandor I have absolutely no intention of arguing with you over the internet (because that's just plain pathetic) so I will make this my first and last comment, but do you seriously have nothing better to do that pick a fight with everyone you see that disagrees with you? Also, who in their right mind gets drunk while on the computer alone? This reeks of forever-alone patethic guy ._.'' You might not be 100% wrong, but you're not 100% right either. Deal with it, we have different opinions.
xNightKissx 1 month ago
Hmm well personally I think men influenced other men by twisting words (that happened) to be religious into bending another human beings will.
Unfortunately we are easily bent by others generally as far as humanity goes, orweillian society is as rife today as it was in the past just under different banners we had the capitalism vs communism etc every bit as dangerous as any religious context.
South park had 3 different atheist factions fighting over the "truth" (hit the nail on the head)
jago18777 1 month ago
I agree with Eddie. I believe in US too.
ger3175 1 month ago
if you really consider yourself a flaw, that is your problem! and why do you get abusive? a bit antropophobic are we? why can't you rely on human kindness, you are resorting to basic aggressive instincts! I don't like religion, but i do respect the universal decleration of human rights, if religions formally adhere to this, i don't have any probs with them. Sadly most religions do not recognise them and actively promote their hate-agenda: extremely "america hates fags!"??? Rational????
godsadouchebag 1 month ago
@Jormungandor well, the only thing i say (again) is: life expectancy 30 yrs for christianity vs 67.2 yrs for secular science. if someone is an idiot, i'd look in the mirror if i were you! But hey keep mumbling things in cold buildings on sundays!
godsadouchebag 1 month ago
@Jormungandor "If you prick us, do we not bleed" M.l.king is a black activist. It refers to my plead to let go of the racial arguement and to move on to the real divisive force, religion; the conflicts i mentionned can be boiled down to religious conflicts, nothing more or less, if that is irrational to you, that is your prob!
godsadouchebag 1 month ago
@Jormungandor oh let martin die in peace would you. I am the one stating that religion is a divisive force since dogma is absolute and discriminates between faithfull and non-adherents. Why do sunni bombers target shii pelgrims. Cause of dogma. Why did the troubles in N-Ireland exist? Dogma? Why did the FYR Yugoslavia implode? religious dogma? Spoke the same language, shared the same land, what motivated? RELIGION!
godsadouchebag 1 month ago
@Jormungandor sadly that is true, but we also used it to push up life expectancy from 30 yrs in the dark ages (when religion had dominion) to 67.2yrs now, so your bleeding analogy is somewhat croocked. And unfortunatly weapon development has been a constant through the ages (also under theocracy; does bushido eg mean anything to u in this regard?)
godsadouchebag 1 month ago
@Jormungandor, no off course religion is not the onlyse, it is just instrumental in the build up towards war. It is used as a force of discrimination and never ceases to discriminate between adherents and non-adherents. The beauty of science is that everything can be refuted by facts, since science is about facts. It is howeverfficult to disprove a complete fiction, like theists seem to demand of atheists. if science used the same logic as religion, we'd still be bleeding pple!
godsadouchebag 1 month ago
Or Abrahamism, if you have a problem with the jewish, christian, islamic faiths
MrWaterlionmonkey 1 month ago
People have got to stop using the word religion as being synonymous with Christianity. Just fucking call it Christianity Eddie!
MrWaterlionmonkey 1 month ago
You were right I should listen better :(
simplexicated 1 month ago
Comment removed
simplexicated 1 month ago
@Jormungandor Yes, yes, you are the winner blahblah XD If this is all it takes to make your day it's pathetic, besides I was trolling you at the end, also, this are the facts for you Drama Queen. My comment has 13 *thumbsup* (I wonder why) and the mistake was "expoerimentation", let's have a look at the keyboard... interesting, O and P are side by side, could it be that I pressed O by mistake and didn't notice it? Seems plausible isn't it Mr. I Make a Mountain From A Grain Of Sand?
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
Well, since I can't find my original comment to delete it to stop the harassment, I'll leave this. I asked an honest question for those who are atheists. Being atheists you seem to be more obsessed with God and His non-existence and blaming Him & religion on all your problems & the worlds problems for that matter. Who are you trying to convince of this extreme hatred against a non-existent God? Me or yourself? Please stop flooding my inbox, you are embarrassing yourself!
loverlei79 2 months ago
The movement against "lies" is a worthy one.
benaberry 2 months ago
Someone should make a comedy show about all the ridiculous arguments that Christians make to support science in the bible. It is VERY funny.
truckcompany 2 months ago
Eddie Izzard looks so weird when he's not cross dressing.
luccaskunk 2 months ago
@NovaPrime001 of a painting riddled with a steadfast near hardwired backdrop of surety.
Atheeizm 2 months ago
@Atheeizm Well, most atheists of the day also thought that. In fact, before it was a discovered fact, everyone (no matter what religion) thought that.
NovaPrime001 2 months ago
@NovaPrime001 The point is that dogmatism is rigid, science is not. Nice try.
Atheeizm 2 months ago
@Atheeizm That's a bit bold. Why don't you just go ahead and prove that what you perceive as reality is indeed real. Science operates on some assumption, or opinions. I will give you that most scientific things are based in more concrete ideas, but religion (at least Christianity) does not operate in the same manner as science.
NovaPrime001 2 months ago
@Atheeizm As Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, an astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican, would say, "Religion is knowledge moving toward understanding, Science is understanding moving toward knowledge." In other words, science starts with what we have, that's why it make sense. Religion does not make sense, because it is not always in our grasp completely.
NovaPrime001 2 months ago
@Atheeizm I'm not saying that Christianity is the 'perfect' truth, and I am not defending the bible as a scientific book (because it is not nor is/was that its purpose), but it is something I have faith in. If it was nothing more than a fact, then there would be no need for faith in it. So I have no problem with there being unanswered questions because they are petty compared to the good impact the gospels can have on peoples lives.
NovaPrime001 2 months ago
@NovaPrime001 The bible is not the scientific truth. This is somewhat of an understatement of nephilimic proportions. Your illustartion of the shortfalls of the clear and cohesive in Christianity is welcomed and refreshing. Of course I still cannot fathom how you reconcile this 'feeling' with the emergence of the rational and empirical. My statement was simply this: when you come in with a clear cache or an unloaded thesis (assumption in your words), the result is not placed in a foreground ...
Atheeizm 2 months ago
(Sorry about the lengthyness of my response)
NovaPrime001 2 months ago
I saw this exact one ^-^ It was amaZing.
PsychosomaticChick 2 months ago
Sadly only like 1% of "christians" believe the world is 6,000 years old. Its not a common belief, Ironically, most christians believe in everything scientists believe, we just have a God. And I'm sorry religion isn't the cause of everything bad asshole humans are we are the ones responsible for the planet. But I guess if blaming God makes you feel better.
loverlei79 2 months ago
@loverlei79 Why would we atheists blame a being we don't believe in? Do you blame Zeus for not believing in him?
Antiks72 2 months ago
@Antiks72 thats a good point, the exact one I was making. If you're an atheist just like the man above, stop blaming God and religion for wars, and blame mans stupidity instead. I guess its all in the verbage.
loverlei79 2 months ago
@loverlei79
Man's stupidity is represented by religion, you see, human beings made elaborate stories and myths to explain phenomena such as; earthquakes, volcanoes, rain, eclipses, and so on.
Religions today are just an extension of of that concept. Its also funny how religion claims to give humans the thing they want most; eternal life, sounds like horseshit.
Also, don't act like religion never influenced pure evil. Inquisition, crusades, rape, torture, slavery, fuck ur god(s)
Hamjam117 2 months ago 24
@Hamjam117 Personally I have seen rife stupidity in religion this is true however I have also seen smart people who simply choose to just believe as well as morons outside of it.
I.e. mugging little bastards in London, New york etc... no religious motive still scum
Greedy corporate businesses that steam roll people no religious motive
Suicide nutcases (Religious motive)
Evangelical tosspots (Religious or money? motive?) etc...
jago18777 1 month ago
@loverlei79 "most christians believe in everything scientists believe"
A few centuries ago you would have logged on to you tube and typed "most christians believe in everything scientists believe except for the earth being round.. oh and a few other things..."
We are chipping away at your sky daddy.
Atheeizm 2 months ago 12
@Atheeizm I agree wholeheartedly. God lived in the sky, we looked, nope not there. We peeked above our atmosphere, not there either. We gaze out of our galaxy towards ancient star clusters, not there....NOW he's outside the universe or ALL AROUND us but invisible.. What is this? A game of hide and seek or something?
That's what to do if you are a supreme being who takes an active interest in human affairs..Run of and f@cking hide.
TheDistance11 1 month ago
@Atheeizm Logging onto YouTube a few centuries ago? Really?! Don'cha mean ThouTube?
TomVodkaCollins 1 month ago
@TomVodkaCollins nice :)
Atheeizm 1 month ago
Just saw this show in Adelaide. It was the dog's bollocks!
southaussie87 3 months ago
Hilarious!
Angela26116516541 3 months ago
Thousands and thousands of hours of expoerimentation, observation, hard work and so on of the most brilliant minds in many fields of expertiese durings hundreds of years VS a 2 thousand year old book written by primitive superstitious people who thought the Earth was flat and didn't even know what caused lightning and thunder, written down by non direct eyewitness, copied from other copies, translated and translated again... I stick with Science guys and I leave fairy tales to children...
DocStrange0123 3 months ago 13
@DocStrange0123 i am impressed. you can actually spell.
blackcrowdkilla 1 month ago
I like how atheists try to prove "there's no God", and how people who believe in God could just relax and enjoy. Don't know what's this all about.
Love Eddie. My favourite comedian. Liked him with make-up even more... and I don't know why, because I'm a straightest guy ever. Sorry, need a little twelve-and-maybe-some-more-hours nap.)))
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight since we put no preposition forward, (we just deny yours) logically we don't need to provide proof(you however do!), its like going to the bank: do you think they'll cash out when you say "i've got a million pound deposit"? and will you get mad if they don't fork it over when they are not able to disprove your claim without providing proof of it yourself? But by all means, keep deluding yourself! It is giving us an opportunity of a good laugh at your very petty person! LMAO!
godsadouchebag 3 months ago
@godsadouchebag Sorry, I still cannot understand how you prove to me the non-existence of God.
But I like it when people are laughing, it makes Earth a better place. So have fun.)
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight LMAO you make a positive claim: there is a god, we say there is not. If i say there is an elf in my yard, is that true untill you are able to disprove that?
godsadouchebag 3 months ago 3
@godsadouchebag I think the conceptions of elf and God are a bit different.
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight How?
evilminionnumber2 3 months ago
@evilminionnumber2 Elf is a folklore personage. God is the motive giver for the Universe. Human brain cannot understand the beginning and the end, it also cannot measure the time properly. We can build the theories how everything started but if we say, that Universe started from Big Bang... what caused it? Science is the key to God existence, but it will never prove his existence or vice versa. So this is the trick - you believe or you not. Simple enough. We are kids on the playground.
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight well part of the problem is the claim that the old bugger does poke around a bit in his creation and breaks a few laws of physics. theres not a lot to prove that that happens or has happened. Youre spot on that we cant speculate on something that lies outside of the universe. so why should we? why would it be wrong to say "dont bother"? Any arbitrary idea can be speculated in...doesnt mean it makes sense to do so.
frilansspion 3 months ago
@frilansspion well, it's human nature - search for the answers. We always bother)
And the whole science is speculation and theories. We observe, gather and make some conclusions, sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're right. It's never-ending process... and I think it's the way we created. Not by hammer or saw we're made, of course.
And I don't really get the part with breaking laws of physics, mate.
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight yep I agree about that. (of course some things are, or are very close to, facts) but its one thing to speculate from observations and one from nothing at all. then its just "imagining" things. youd have thought that all the complexities and wonders of the universe are enough to think about. by breaking of laws I meant IF one are talking about a personal intervening god; as in miracles and other influence. Some people argue for such a god, and its an issue you might raise.
frilansspion 3 months ago
@frilansspion Well, I'm not sure about the nature of miracles. Sometimes they made by one man's will, sometimes they happen just in people imagination. Because we see, what we want to see.
The main dilemma of God's existence is the transformation of the abiocoen into the living forms, what was the impulse? But we can't observe the God like a natural phenomenon of something like that. Maybe it's the main point of all discussions.
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight do you think so? Ive never understood why that is a problem at all. if one starts at the idea that the world IS governed by god somehow, why would one not accept that "way" of life being created? (probably because religious people on average are pretty thickheaded). and even if (when) assembly of amino acids and whatnot into more and more meaningful structures could be proved without a doubt I dont think many religious folk would reconsider. its not their thing. would you?
frilansspion 3 months ago
@frilansspion I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about God.
People stick to the things are comfortable to them. It's much easier, when you can let the others think about something difficult for understanding. Pay and pray - works since primitive state. I don't think I have right to teach others, what they should do, but my church is in my mind, I guess. And I'm ready to share my thoughts, if somebody wants to hear them.
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight oh ah right, I think I got the wrong end of the stick there then, and jumped to conclusions. sorry. but not 100% sure what your point is - people use it as a simplification of their lives, yes, easier to see in black and white than in grayscale or indeed color. but. youre "not talking about religion but about god" - how do you mean?
frilansspion 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight Both require an irrational belief in a concept that has been refuted over and over again! Your distinction is superficial, artificial and intellectually dishonest.
godsadouchebag 3 months ago
@godsadouchebag Looks quite natural for me though. And not really irrational.
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight "for me": ever cared to explore the definition of subjective, perhaps? did you ever indulge in studying epicurus, perhaps you can finally offer an acceptable explanation after two millenia? It will get you a nobel prize for sure! Coherence and religion are like water and fire. Science extiguishes the fire of religion in an instant. Fact is that the whole theistic god concept is statistacally ridiculous and all the evidence points against it. Yet you believe! DUUUUUH
godsadouchebag 2 months ago
@godsadouchebag So you're the man, who represents the objective and undeniable to the humanity. Time to grab some pop-corn.
The only point of your eternally wise commentaries is "there's no God, it's proved". And you still haven't posted a single proof. Why should I believe if there's proof of God's non-existence?
And what's wrong with Epicurus?
NearlyKnight 2 months ago
@NearlyKnight "there's no God, it's proved". , no actually it is like i assume there is no god, no proof is provided of his existence. Usually a person putting forward a preposition is required to prove this, you claim a god, so provide proof, simple i'd say! The probability of his existence is in any way statistacally far less likely of winning the lottery every time during one year. Epicurus remark clearly rules out an active theistic god,too bad you can't understand that.
godsadouchebag 2 months ago
@godsadouchebag It wasn't claimed by me, first of all. It was claimed long time ago, and no thing takes its beginning from nothing. I just support this. The idea of God's non-existence is actually the answer to the idea to the God's existence. And not vice versa. Not a scientific proof, but not a sophism.
It's really bad, because I really don't get it. Maybe it's because of my lack of knowledge of English, but you can help me and describe it more detailed.
NearlyKnight 2 months ago
@NearlyKnight so if you just can assemble a time-line of idiots your fiction becomes truth? It stays simple, something is fiction untill proof is provided. God (in any denomination) is unproved, so it remains a fiction, this is how sanity works, i am sorry. And if you understand the true nature of a sophism, you should realise the god concept is a perfect example of this concept of "a fallacious argument"
godsadouchebag 2 months ago
@godsadouchebag Maybe the first people on Earth wasn't so idiotic.
There is God.
There isn't - his existence isn't proved.
His non-existence isn't proved either.
So there's God.
There's no God
There is - his non-existence isn't proved.
His existence isn't proved either.
So there's no God.
It works both ways, honestly. It's almost similar to egg/chicken dilemma.
NearlyKnight 2 months ago
@NearlyKnight that is where the elf/pixies in my backyard comes in! Every assumption is valid untill proven wrong? So you can fly? Try leaping of a building, I'd say. And it is nothing like the chicken and egg analogy! there are chickens and there are eggs in obvservable reality, that is no fiction, god is an unobserved fiction untill proof is provided, sorry that is a reality check!
godsadouchebag 2 months ago
@godsadouchebag Yeah, I get your point. But once again - the existence of God tries to describe the main thing - where did we come from. Conscience created by conscience, physical constants and etc. I'm not an agnostic, so maybe the way of "only observable is proved" is not for me.
NearlyKnight 2 months ago
@NearlyKnight i can relate to your interpretation, and as long as no absolutes in real life are derived from this conviction, i am fine with it! But yet we have to recognise that no theistic deity can explain our origins either,so your guess is as good as mine. But sadly i experience religion as a divisive, negative power in society, putting brother against brother and opposing the ideals of humanism, enlightenment and reasoning.
godsadouchebag 2 months ago
@godsadouchebag Well, the religion is like a weapon which killed its creator. It should teach people how to live in peace... and we still have religious wars.
NearlyKnight 2 months ago
@NearlyKnight when i read the explicit hate speech in most religious books and take note of all the religious rituals and habits in the past and present, i fear you are a bit of a romantic regarding the true nature of religion. It is and will always be a source of hate and, subsequently, violence against non-adherents, so in my view deist, neutral god is ok, but theist, active god is not acceptable.
godsadouchebag 2 months ago
@godsadouchebag Maybe it was created by these means, but it definitely shouldn't be like what we see now and through the history. And it's sad. Of course every man would be glad to see he's thoughts accepted, but they shouldn't interfere with other people's freedom. A principle for me.
NearlyKnight 2 months ago
@NearlyKnight The only way to make it work both ways is by denying massive factual proof, coherent theories and statistical laws. There are some 20000 different denominations of god. Larger factions like islam produce different interpretations (catholic vs protestant, shii vs sunni...). I recognise the (very faint) possibility of a deist god, but utterly reject theist interpretation based on statistical and rational grounds. How can any human claim divine insight, this is usurpation at best!
godsadouchebag 2 months ago
@NearlyKnight i leave you with aquote of srtephen roberts on this regard: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
godsadouchebag 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@godsadouchebag @godsadouchebag i leave you with aquote of srtephen roberts on this regard: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
Totally fair.
NearlyKnight 2 months ago
@NearlyKnight sorry to reply to this comment too. but just wanted to say..."all who believe in God just relax and enjoy"? really? do you read the news at all? yes, a lot of people think organized irrational behavior has proven to be a threat... youtube.com/user/imrational#p/u/5/w4fQA9mt-Mg
frilansspion 3 months ago
@frilansspion "all who believe in God just relax and enjoy" - what the hell is this from?
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight eeeh...from your post a week ago? did I misunderstand it?
frilansspion 3 months ago
@frilansspion Well, a bit.
It was about this God/No God fight, not about happy religious existence in the pink world.
I have a free spirit, so other's beliefs (or they absence) never were a problem for me. That's what I meant.
I'm sorry, it's a bit difficult for me to use english to explain my thoughts.
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight well. its a fight against very particular ideas of god primarily, I would say. cause its duality and unquestioning mentality that it encourages in people DO affect the world,for everyone. Especially as they discourage reasonable and responsible behavior just to increase their own position of power. I dont think its that strange to find it disturbing. I for one dont want another 2000 yrs of Dark Ages... your english is great btw. it was my mistake
frilansspion 3 months ago
"I for one dont want another 2000 yrs of Dark Ages" - nor do I. The difference in opinions makes the world more colourful and stimulates the development. Until someone grabs the gun. And that's what religion is really useful for - to rule the masses to satisfy the needs of little group of very well-fed citizens.
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
@NearlyKnight yeah definitely. but you DO care after all then. looks like we re on the same page pretty much. =) thanks for the chat!
frilansspion 3 months ago
@frilansspion Thank you!
NearlyKnight 3 months ago
personally I think you should all just chill out, take a good hard look at yourselves and just enjoy the rest of your fucking lives.
RasputinTheWerewolf 3 months ago
@Hukka55
No, what I'm saying is that the Atheist has no basis for saying that his morality is correct or better than anyone else's. According to his/her worldview, morality is a byproduct of mindless evolutionary processes. If there is no God what could possibly make right and wrong absolute? That's why Eddie makes the worst argument ever because he implies that morality is objective
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 3 months ago
@Adam1349
Right but how can evolution possibly make right and wrong objective?
"Evolution causes ethical behavior."
Is evolution the creator of right and wrong? Evolution changes you know. Was it wrong to murder before evolution caused ethical behavior? And how do you get an "ought" from an "is"?
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 3 months ago
hilarious. absolutely genius. The negative posts are just theists that get offended when we point out obvious facts about their dearly held bronze age fairy tales. THANKS for posting this. I'm sharing the shit outta this one. peace.
mizcreant 3 months ago
The Bible does prove the Earth is round:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")
TheLifeofaMusician 3 months ago
@TheLifeofaMusician pathetic.
Lankoos 3 months ago
@TheLifeofaMusician The bible has never proven anything except that man is a gullible fool.
MickScarborough 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
I'm not sure which comment of mine you're replying to and I'm not sure what animals have to do with this, but my whole argument is that objective moral values can't exist unless God exists. So if Eddie is saying that slavery is wrong, I'd like to know if he believes there is an absolute standard for right and wrong. If so, then I'd like to know what he is basing that morality on that could possibly make it absolute.
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 3 months ago
@THEPOWERMETALNINJA
What he is saying with the animal bit is that even without the existence of a God (which is a very naive stance by the way), we can observe rudimentary "objective" (as you want to call it) morality in other species. There seems to be a biological and evolutionary component that fosters ethical behavior as opposed to "mass murdering fuck heads" as Eddie would say.
Adam1349 3 months ago
I used to think that slavery part was a problem. But then I attended a church where a Pakistani-American pastor explained that, in his country, some Christian families are so poor that they lend out their children to work for Muslim families in the afternoons - to earn a little extra money. That's what the Bible is describing when it talks about "selling" your daughter. It's not permanent, people.
xander7ful 3 months ago
@xander7ful So you kind of "justified" slavery. What about genocides?
What about a trick where most people now don't just die but go to hell? Some go to heaven, but most go to hell. And for centuries they didn't even head a chance to choose. If the bible is true, that is.
Glad1kun 3 months ago
@Glad1kun No, I'm not justifying the "slavery". I'm explaining that it's something people in Middle Eastern countries do when they're dirt poor. As for the genocides, I don't know why God ordered those, so I can't justify it.
As for hell... I now believe in reincarnation & that only a few who really earn it go there between lives, not permanently. I believe that God is compassionate & gives us many chances, whether we knew the Bible or not.
xander7ful 3 months ago
Comment removed
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 4 months ago
@tiaxanderson
"The Bible is no source for morality"
Actually, I would argue that atheism has no absolute standard for right or wrong. Your argument is useless because according to your worldview, (assuming you're an atheist) the sense right and wrong is simply a feeling; a byproduct of mindless evolutionary processes. So there is nothing absolutely wrong with murdering someone. It's just that our emotions make us feel that it is wrong.
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 4 months ago
@THEPOWERMETALNINJA
An atheist draws his/her moral guidelines from the same place where an agnostic, or a theist does - from the society around them. Most certainly I did not get my morality basis from a book, I learned it at home from my parents, at school from my teachers and friends and from then on, been living by it. Granted, the Bible does have good guidelines for morality, but it could also be any other book.
Hukka55 4 months ago
@THEPOWERMETALNINJA
Actualy morality can be seen in some animals.
Support for fellows and placing the well being of another above self are found in herd animals and thought to be an evolutionary trait that aids in protecing the species as a whole against threats.
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
@tiaxanderson
If your so sure of this, cite one verse where the Bible supports involuntary slavery. 1 TImothy 1:9-10: Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, ENSLAVERS...
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 4 months ago
i loved eddie's whole "dress to kill" special, it was awesome. i watched stripped and hardly laughed at all. i wonder if it was just a bad night or if he's just lost a bit of his comedic ability
taylorbortnerathing 4 months ago
I don't believe in God, I believe in us :) the basic principle of humanism in one phrase
AnnaKmid 5 months ago 58
To be honest at times I don't really believe in us. I do some people it's just some of the others fuck... how are we even the same species? The amount of stupid displayed boggles my mind. (And if you want an example Rick Perry.)
MistressArte 5 months ago
@MistressArte "the amount of stupid displayed"....... *grins*
kamwrites 5 months ago
@kamwrites lol I think I've spent way too much time posting and replying to comments on the thewayofthemaster channel and yea there are times when I can't even reply to that level of stupid. That's also why people like Eddie Izzard help to take the edge off, Atheist comedy is like pot for my brain an instant chill button. XD
MistressArte 5 months ago 25
People were not enslaved because of their nationality. It was merely a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In NT times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves. Some people actually chose to be slaves because their needs would be provided by their masters. “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16)
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 5 months ago
Also we do see at least one good thing which came from World War II: Israel now exists as a nation. The Holocaust was a primary reason the White Paper of 1939 was rescinded, freeing Jews to immigrate to Palestine. The fact that, as of 1948, the Jews have a restored national identity helps to fulfill such biblical prophecies as Ezekiel 37 and Matthew 24.
THEPOWERMETALNINJA 5 months ago
@THEPOWERMETALNINJA Debt slavery wasn't the only kind of slavery that both the Old and New Testament had instructions for. Nearly all kinds of slavery. Even on how to sell your daughter as Eddie says.
The Bible is no source for morality.
tiaxanderson 4 months ago
@godsadouchebag "you just don't trust human nature enough" - And you trust it enough to allow it to get away with things that SHOULD be dishonored by society. These "liberties" arent making society better, that much is pretty sure. "Is he neither able nor willing?" -This is again, bibilical ignorance. Evil isnt a force in of itself. Evil is a LACK of good, a lack of God. Its like a shadow rather than a coherent force, at least bibilically it is. Humans allow evil, God does not.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
god it's so odd him not wearing make-up and stuff , put it back on eddie lol!
RachelNo1mjfan88 5 months ago
original inhabitants who opposed this occupation, were deported or shot on sight. Luckily Flanders was considered arian, and we didn't suffer the mass -extinction of "untermenschen" like the polish the ukranians and the russians. German defeat was comprised in its ideology which advocated adversity between etnic groups. They did not want to free ukrain, poland or russia, they wanted to clenze! The WM operated side by side with "einsatzgruppen" and german military even collaborated...
godsadouchebag 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@godsadouchebag "I won't give nazis/fascists any respect" -Then you get no where with them, but I can understand personal experience of being harmed by these ideologies, which begs the question why do you give religious people the same respect as nazis and fascists (namely none at all it seems) "German defeat was comprised in its ideology" - Thats kind of what I've been saying for a while now. "War is too complex to be incorporated in a game" - I was making a gist rather than a point there.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 And again i am not seeking respect from nazis or fascists, if they dispise me, i am on the right track. I can not accept absolutes, nazi, fascists or religious, and essentially the religious rules are absolutes. Papal infallibility you know, untill 1991!!!! the earth was the centre of the universe for the pope! In essence i don't like someone imposing a subjective belief onto someone else. That objectively infringes on my freedom. Why can't i draw muhammed or mock god?
godsadouchebag 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "Wilhelm 2 just established those to vent democratic pressures" -Wilhelm II did NOT established the German parliment. In fact, it was done in Prussia in 1848 with the Prime Minister, Landtag and House of Lords (Again, much like the British system) "if they dispise me, i am on the right track" - It depends, if they dispise you because you destroy the arguements that support their worldview yes, if they dispise you because you insult them to no end, you're NOT oin the right track.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "I can not accept absolutes" -Why not? "the earth was the centre of the universe for the pope!" -It also was for the entire world for the most part. " i don't like someone imposing a subjective belief onto someone else." - No one is doing that. I hate the saying "Dont shove your religion down our throats." That is RARELY done. Its either expressed, defended or shared. Shoving down throats is similar a meaningless statement meant to shut off people, it shouldnt be overused.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
Semantics, fallacy or other tricks don't work with me, i'm sorry. The bible wasn't translated for the first time in 1611. It wasn't written in latin, you know! There is even a dutch translation dating back to 1361 And so what if it was the text of a psalm, he chose those words! And how could he be quoting out of the bible, which didn't exist! He was a jew quoting out of the torah. So far for my biblical ignorance and your claimed authority on the matter.
godsadouchebag 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "bible wasn't translated for the first time in 1611." - The first official ENGLISH translation. King James Bible, 1611? I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out. And since you go on about that for a while, its a bit silly what you say next. "And so what if it was the text of a psalm." - There is a HUGE significance. Actually READ Pslam 22:1, and I think you'll understand. If you dont, I'm sorry, I'll explain it if you really need someone to.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "displayed ignorance on both WW2" -No I didnt actually, you debunked NONE of my claims and theories about what Germany could have done to win the war ( The foremost being the ABANDONMENT of Nazis so calling me a neo-fascist really doesnt apply does it?) "yet you have the pretention to claim divine insight?" - No I didnt, I claimed to know more about the bible than you did, and I demonstrated it, while you demonstrated nothing but bibilical ignorance.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
Well, I was looking at the comments to find ones about how awesome Eddie is, but got blasted with a load of BS that has nothing to do with the great Izzard. Really, people? Sure, I don't agree with Mr. Izzard's point of view but he's a genius and very stylish and just fucking funny. I can enjoy his gift of humor. You are only making yourselves look like idiots. Why can't you just enjoy his greatness? Btw, "It's round." I about died. I love you.
swimmergirl3202004 5 months ago
* hitlers head is flicked off by god* ITS GOOOOOOOD
captinsatan11 5 months ago
...
Guys, shut up, and watch the funny.
Krusha80 6 months ago
"one of these is not correct" not true eddie. A dog called Dave is 15 years old to the human family to which he brings so much joy, right, does everyone understand this? ok, but to Dave himself he is 105. See where I am getting at?
F12Y14N25 6 months ago
@F12Y14N25 no
leonerossetti 6 months ago
@leonerossetti then you sir or madam are an idiot
F12Y14N25 6 months ago
@F12Y14N25 thats a bit harsh isn't it? after all, i just said that i hadn't understood your point; maybe i was just looking for a little bit of clarification.
leonerossetti 6 months ago
Comment removed
F12Y14N25 6 months ago
oh thought you were playing along, sorry I was joking, thought you were playing along with my joke.
F12Y14N25 6 months ago
What I'm saying is that the Axis had the chance of winning, but due to Hitler's mistakes in leadership and lack of military knowlegde, he essentially costed the Axis the war. Its very well argueable, possible? maybe not, but possible absolutely. And again, partly its due to the violent repression, killing able citizens in Axis countries, and the wasting of troops fighting paristans and running camps and outposts that didnt need to exist.
GermanConquistador08 6 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 when i add all the conditions in your arguement for german victory, one can only conclude that german victory was impossible. you speak of choices, well, you choose, you lose. This long range bomber instead of stuka? So no more close air support, so no blitzkrieg. And no hitler and napoleon were seperated by some 150 yrs, so indeed circumstances were different. You assume that if everything went perfectly, the germans would have won, well duh! But odds in war change!
godsadouchebag 6 months ago
@godsadouchebag "when i add all the conditions in your arguement for german victory, one can only conclude that german victory was impossible" -..what? When you add the condition? My only condition is that Germany had a competent military leader. Hitler is the root cause of the problems I suggested. How do you just assume that it wa sstill impossible, while completely ignoring my arguements? "you speak of choices, well, you choose, you lose" -? Can you explain this statement, it makes no sense
GermanConquistador08 6 months ago
@godsadouchebag What I argued is that if Hitler had not overturned the will of military command in these instances, than Germany would have won the war. "you don't seem to know that the us did indeed declare war on germany on 11/12/1941" -No, they were NOT prepared to declare won on Germany. People in the US wanted to go to War with Japan, but a large majority in the US still saw no reason to do the same in Europe. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, they might not have entered the war/
GermanConquistador08 6 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Maybe us public opinion was not ready, but authorities certainly were. The us navy was since early september 41 already systematically attacking german naval units, so de facto war already existed without a formal declaration. No public opposition was registered against this policy, so maybe there was no active support for a war, there was no active opposition (AFC?) to it either. In view of the cultural relation, it was only a matter of time before war broke out.
godsadouchebag 6 months ago
@godsadouchebag "Maybe us public opinion was not ready, but authorities certainly were." -Yeah that was the situation between 1939-1941. Only when attacked did public opinion turn, on the Japanese. "systematically attacking german naval units" - Attacking essentially pirate U-boats does not count as a declaration of war. Besides, the formal declaration of war allowed the US to sent Air Forces and grounds troops to Europe, which wouldnt have happened without a declaration of war.
GermanConquistador08 6 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 further mistakes: you don't seem to know that the us did indeed declare war on germany on 11/12/1941. Regarding the Battle of britain, bombing cities only started in a later phase as a retaliation for bombardments on berlin conducted 25/8/1940, initially the targets you indicated were struck. The nature of napoleonic and modern warfare is completely different, but you can't deny that the essence of warfare is constant: conquer moscow, obliterate enemy forces and nation.
godsadouchebag 6 months ago
@godsadouchebag "long range bomber instead of stuka? So no more close air support" -Again, if the Battle of Britain had been won (Which it could have been without key mistakes by Hitler) then the Luftwaffe would have been completely prepared to fight in Russia, even without the additional Stukas (Which you make it sound like there would be NO Stukas, if the Nazis just built a few squadrons of Heavy Bombers, which is ridiculous. "assume that if everything went perfectly" -No I dont.
GermanConquistador08 6 months ago
@godsadouchebag /so swiftly anyways. "bombing cities only started in a later phase as a retaliation" - That is not the case. The switching from the bombing of military targets to cities was a stragetic change in the plans originally designed by Luftwaffe commanders. The targets switched from military to civilian targets on Nazi directive because they believed it would finally crush British morale, and it didnt. It was an utter failure and a military blunder.
GermanConquistador08 6 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 factual wrong, check out the history place to see what an error by the luftwaffe triggered! Hitler spoke on 04/09/1940, following the first ever bombing of berlin "When the British Air Force drops 2 or 3 or 4000 kg of bombs, then we will in 1 night drop 150-, 230-, 300- or 400,000 kg. When they declare that they will increase their attacks on our cities, then we will raze their cities to the ground. We will stop the handiwork of those night air pirates, so help us God!"
godsadouchebag 6 months ago
@godsadouchebag "factual wrong, check out the history place" -...what? History place? "Hitler spoke on" -Do you see my point yet? Not only did Hitler command air raid bombings which were totally useless and ultimately led to German defeat in the battle of Britain, by Nazi officials like Goring lowered the morale of the luftwaffe by suggesting that the lack of fighting spirit was the reason the battle wasnt being won, despite the fact that it only wasnt because of the idiotic Nazi elite.
GermanConquistador08 6 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 and at least one sensible conclusion "idiotic nazi elite". But the rest? Assumption over assumption, completely neglecting strategic reality. Hitler perfectly knew the only thing keeping him in power was terror. The british bombing of berlin dented his image and that is why he retaliated. But to consider the axis completely without military insight, sorry too many generals like Rommel, Student etc were present too just say that. Strategically they failed, not tactical.
godsadouchebag 6 months ago
@godsadouchebag "Hitler perfectly knew the only thing keeping him in power was terror" -Thats actually not true. If you actually LISTEN to German citizens at the time, the majority will probably claim indifference to the entire war but were impressed with Hitler's diplomatic leadership, and a sizable part of the country really did feel admiration for the madman. Terror only kept the reins, fully, around 1944. Also think about what you're saying: That Hitler bombed London to stay in power?
GermanConquistador08 6 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 further more, the tactical conduct of most operations of the wehrmacht was excellent, just like hannibal, they knew how to get a victory, but not how to use it. The german military was technologically far superior to any allied power, but they just had not enough resources. Thus they had to rely on the momentum of the surprise, both japanese and germans. Once the allied factories started producing the wargear, they were lost. Tiger was superior to any tank, but Jabo?
godsadouchebag 6 months ago
@godsadouchebag "Strategically they failed" - No they didnt, the Axis military forces in 1941 had quite possibility the greatest strategic potential for European (If not world domination) that has ever been seen. Control of the oil in the middle east, Russia, Britain and therefore the rest of Europe. Yes it is a bigger stretch but it was quite possible. "Once the allied factories started producing the wargear, they were lost." - Again, conquer Britain or Russia you've got the resources
GermanConquistador08 6 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Winning a war with a structural absence of all resources?In my view this was/is not feasable. Further more, those opposing barbarossa were those of the old school prussian military, who should have been in the driving seat in your view, so oil and food out of the kaukasus and ukraine would never have been obtained.Regarding the oil in the middle east, one can be brief; there was no way to get this to germany, since GB had naval and aerial dominion in the medditeranian
godsadouchebag 6 months ago
@godsadouchebag "Further more, those opposing barbarossa were those of the old school prussian military, who should have been in the driving seat in your view, so oil and food out of the kaukasus and ukraine would never have been obtained." - You never mention HOW these resources never would have been obtained. Also, Prussian Generals like Erwin von Manstein argued for cooperation with native Ukraines and Russians supporting the German percieved liberation. Nazis fought against that.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 and britain as a resource base? for what exactly then? hitler started terror with the elimination of opposition: within his own party, eliminating ernst rohm and the SA in the night of the long knives. Outside the party: The first "konzentrationslager" Dachau was established in 1933, shortly following hitlers rise to power. Those interned were communists and social democrats. And yes, (christian) germans were quite docile towards their leaders. speaking up=death
godsadouchebag 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "Regarding the oil in the middle east,..GB had naval and aerial dominion in the medditeranian" - Again, without the Suez Canal and Straits of Gibralter they wouldnt have. But the Nazi stupidity stopped the first, and Catholic stress on Nationalist Spain disallowed for the later. "And yes, (christian) germans were quite docile towards their leaders. speaking up=death" - Very true. I keep saying that, also when you realize Polish clergy was a prime Nazi target after 1939.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 and finally, you are obviously not aware of the nazi dependance on USSR supplies prior to barbarossa. The last train out of the ussr,carrying raw materials,drove into germany while german troops were crossing the borders. They litteraly bit the hand that fed them, while opening a third front! If that is not a strategic faillure,what is? Strategic potential? No. tactical? yes. But hey "gott mit uns", right? 1941: LW: defeated, WM: covering 3 fronts, KMsurface: defeated
godsadouchebag 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "and finally, you are obviously not aware of the nazi dependance on USSR supplies prior to barbarossa" - Trade, not dependence. The USSR and Germany traded before 1941 yes but Germany was in no way dependent on the USSR for these resources. "If that is not a strategic faillure,what is?" -Even if that was true the majority of resources came from Western Russia which could have been conquered in Barbarrossa without Nazi stupidity. Also, why arent we talking about religion anymore?
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 doesn't really matter what fantasy of yours we discuss. It is completely obvious you are quite willing to accept any assumption to make your beliefs fit. If over if to arrive at a fixed position. At least WW2 was factual, while religion is completely fictional. Discussing religion with you will possibly see the same: assumptions taken for fact neglecting other dissonants who don't fit the view. Seriously germany winning ww2. Not even a remote chance, just like jezus!
godsadouchebag 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "doesn't really matter what fantasy of yours we discuss" - If you mean religion than its a fantasy to you because thats your perspective, its not mine. Thats why we would have a discussion, because we disagree. But do you disagree respectfully like a normal human being or do you do so with hostility despite the fact that you have nothing to fear or be angry about someone believing something that YOU dont believe in. "assumption to make your beliefs fit" - Not true, again.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "least WW2 was factual, while religion is completely fictional" - At this point, you are wrong. Religion exists, the only issue for the two of us is: 1. Is religion, for me specifically Christianity, true? 2. It exists in reality, so has Christian done good for humanity? "Seriously germany winning ww2. Not even a remote chance, just like jezus!" - Perhaps its for the best that we dont debate, you ignore all the arguements anyways despite the fact you never refute them.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 why should i refute arguements who are refuted by reality? Germany lost WW2, jesus was not the son of god. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" , sounds rather like a dying madman who has a last moment of sanity and realises the error of his ways doesn't he? and a pink unicorn also exists in reality by your standards btw. Really, your grasp of reality is very feeble, perhaps indulge less in neo-fascist fantasy and more in science?
godsadouchebag 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "who are refuted by reality?" - This is a meaningless statement because if God is real, than reality confirms God. Your supposition that God doesnt exist makes it impossible for a civil debate, but I'm going to try anyways. ""My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"" - As usually, an atheist exhibiting bibilical ignorance. When Jesus said this, he was QUOTING THE BIBLE, Psalmn 22:1 to be exact. Not suprising, the lack of bibilical knowledge leads you astray in your arguement.
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "and a pink unicorn also exists in reality by your standards btw" - No it doesnt. The unicorn mentioned in the bible isnt speaking of the mythical animal, again bibilical ignorance is your undoing. Keep in mind, the first official translation of the bible was written in 1611 but the modern definition of unicorn wasnt the same then. In the 17th century the word Unicorn isnt speaking of the mythic animal BUT...a RHINOCEROS!! whose scientific name even is "rhinoceros unicornis"
GermanConquistador08 5 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 and lets make inventory of all factual errors you made during this discussion? I would need too much space. You displayed ignorance on both WW2 and religion, yet you have the pretention to claim divine insight? Really! Further more you claim not to be a neo-fascist, yet you claimed to long for absolutism (Kaiser winning anyone?), have a neo-fascist avatar and you kept inventing ways how nazi Germany could have won the war.
godsadouchebag 5 months ago
@godsadouchebag "which didn't exist" -HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Really man? REALLY?! HAHA! THE BIBLE CONSISTS OF THE TORAH!! HAHA! The bible and Torah are one in the same, as in the bible CONTAINS the Old Testiment (The torah) "He was a jew quoting out of the torah" -Exactly! But in your own words "far for my biblical ignorance" - NOPE its pretty much still there. "your claimed authority on the matter" -because 9/10 times a Christian, who has lived their lives by the bible, knows more than an atheist.