Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:With America on the decline what is the rest of the western world going to do to stay safe when the east is strengthening right now?China,Russia and Islamic terrorism are gaining strength and you have not forgot about the cold war already?People around the world take it for granted how much America did to keep the world peaceful,yes we had allies that helped but we were the ones that stood up and said this can't happen,We've got to stop it and led.Who will lead if America continues on the decline? Canada?,Australia?Europe? I don't think so.I think God is going to allow what the world desires with the tribulation.

Then when America is attacked somehow seems to deserve it while trying to make the lives of Iraqi's better than they had it.

Yup very peaceful, nuking two cities, Vietnam, iran, iraq, taliban, drones....very peaceful indeed.

While I don't necessarily agree with you on all examples except for the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I can understand why you would say that from your pov. But saying the US bombing of two cities which consequently ended the war, and most likely saved tens of millions of lives as a direct result of Japan's surrender, was against peace, is ridiculous from any pov. Especially with the hindsight we have now.

I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't. Secondly while I understand your pov. I don't think the people who died in japan would agree with your justification why they had to be sacrificed to secure (assumed) peace which might have had prevailed. Lucky for many Americans they and theirs did not have to die to secure that peace. Would you ever agree in hindsight if to secure world's peace someone nuked america?

Neo wrote:
I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't. Secondly while I understand your pov. I don't think the people who died in japan would agree with your justification why they had to be sacrificed to secure (assumed) peace which might have had prevailed. Lucky for many Americans they and theirs did not have to die to secure that peace. Would you ever agree in hindsight if to secure world's peace someone nuked america?

Neo,

Over 400,000 Americans lost their lives in world war 2! And I'd guess that the majority of those felt it was worth the risk.

And yes. If the US was a power bent on world domination, like the Japanese empire was at the time, and the roles were reversed, I would agree in hindsight that it was worth it.

I think you need to do some research on how bad japan actually was.

neo-x wrote:I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't

You are correct. There are other players - including Israel - but America is by far the greater player. In the present war against ISIS, America is responsible for over 90% of the offensive operations.

I'm glad that the USA is protecting me...and I don't even have to pay income tax to Washington!

Be honest, neo...wouldn't you rather be living in the USA than Pakistan?

FL

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:With America on the decline what is the rest of the western world going to do to stay safe when the east is strengthening right now?China,Russia and Islamic terrorism are gaining strength and you have not forgot about the cold war already?People around the world take it for granted how much America did to keep the world peaceful,yes we had allies that helped but we were the ones that stood up and said this can't happen,We've got to stop it and led.Who will lead if America continues on the decline? Canada?,Australia?Europe? I don't think so.I think God is going to allow what the world desires with the tribulation.

Then when America is attacked somehow seems to deserve it while trying to make the lives of Iraqi's better than they had it.

Yup very peaceful, nuking two cities, Vietnam, iran, iraq, taliban, drones....very peaceful indeed.

While I don't necessarily agree with you on all examples except for the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I can understand why you would say that from your pov. But saying the US bombing of two cities which consequently ended the war, and most likely saved tens of millions of lives as a direct result of Japan's surrender, was against peace, is ridiculous from any pov. Especially with the hindsight we have now.

I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't. Secondly while I understand your pov. I don't think the people who died in japan would agree with your justification why they had to be sacrificed to secure (assumed) peace which might have had prevailed. Lucky for many Americans they and theirs did not have to die to secure that peace. Would you ever agree in hindsight if to secure world's peace someone nuked america?

In a war some bodies got to win or lose and when you're in a war you go to win.America has lost the desire to win when you go to war and it started in Vietnam but it was America and its superpower status that helped keep the west safer,we are declining now and the east is rising and there is no other western country that can or would do what America did to keep the peace and so the west is in trouble and its biblical too and is going to lead to the tribulation.Political Correctness is making the world a more dangerous place when the east is rising.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

neo-x wrote:I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't

Be honest, neo...wouldn't you rather be living in the USA than Pakistan?

FL

Sure, but to be honest I have no problem living in any peaceful country.

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't. Secondly while I understand your pov. I don't think the people who died in japan would agree with your justification why they had to be sacrificed to secure (assumed) peace which might have had prevailed. Lucky for many Americans they and theirs did not have to die to secure that peace. Would you ever agree in hindsight if to secure world's peace someone nuked america?

Neo,

Over 400,000 Americans lost their lives in world war 2! And I'd guess that the majority of those felt it was worth the risk.

400,000 soldiers died. But the cities they nuked were full of women and children.

I think you need to do some research on how bad japan actually was.

I have no illusion, they were not bathed in milk either.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

neo-x wrote:I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't

You are correct. There are other players - including Israel - but America is by far the greater player. In the present war against ISIS, America is responsible for over 90% of the offensive operations.

FL

Good for them they should take care of the mess they created in the first place.

neo-x wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

neo-x wrote:I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't

You are correct. There are other players - including Israel - but America is by far the greater player. In the present war against ISIS, America is responsible for over 90% of the offensive operations.

FL

Good for them they should take care of the mess they created in the first place.

It is a mess but America was trying to give the Iraqi's a better life than they had but Political Correctness in america stopped it.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't. Secondly while I understand your pov. I don't think the people who died in japan would agree with your justification why they had to be sacrificed to secure (assumed) peace which might have had prevailed. Lucky for many Americans they and theirs did not have to die to secure that peace. Would you ever agree in hindsight if to secure world's peace someone nuked america?

Neo,

Over 400,000 Americans lost their lives in world war 2! And I'd guess that the majority of those felt it was worth the risk.

400,000 soldiers died. But the cities they nuked were full of women and children.

I think you need to do some research on how bad japan actually was.

I have no illusion, they were not bathed in milk either.

Yes, civilian Americans killed in ww2 was minimal compared to civilians killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And I'm not saying that those 200,000 plus lives lost there was a good thing. It's never a good thing when lives are lost during war.

But what I am saying, is that your point about those lives lost there having something to do with the US not being for peace, is just wrong. You have to realize that if the US didn't use nukes, many experts believe the Japanese civilian loss may have been in the tens of millions. Mostly due to Japan's leaders unwillingness to surrender. Their culture was one of suicide before surrender. And, I'll at least give japan this for props. Their leaders ultimately put their peoples lives ahead of a futile fight. If the Soviet Union got involved in an invasion of japan, it would have been horrendous. Millions or tens of millions of Japanese deaths.

And the US was a major part of bringing nazi rule to an end. The US was a major part of the liberation of France.

The US was certainly the world leader, when it came to stopping the spread of Nazi control, and the Japanese too.

Look, I'm certainly not saying the US govt is without faults. But you seem to be taking the approach that the US has been nothing but a bully since ww2.

If the US didn't get involved in WW2, the world would be a different place now. A much worse place.

And I can understand that if you're only focusing on your area. Of the world, you may not see that.

Honestly Neo, I have no idea how you can continue living where you do. Living in fear of my life every day, is no way to live.

Have you ever thought of getting out?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

neo-x wrote:I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't

You are correct. There are other players - including Israel - but America is by far the greater player. In the present war against ISIS, America is responsible for over 90% of the offensive operations.

FL

Good for them they should take care of the mess they created in the first place.

It is a mess but America was trying to give the Iraqi's a better life than they had but Political Correctness in america stopped it.

I'm sorry to say Abel but that is a daft thing to say
Americas invasion of Iraq, done so under completely illegitimate justifications has left the country in political meltdown.
Since the invasion whatever bonds held Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish elements together within the one state have been destroyed.
The result... What we are seeing now!

Sometimes for whatever reasons people just don't want to see the writing on the wall. It is nicer and easier to stay in the comfort zone and tune out the finer details.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't. Secondly while I understand your pov. I don't think the people who died in japan would agree with your justification why they had to be sacrificed to secure (assumed) peace which might have had prevailed. Lucky for many Americans they and theirs did not have to die to secure that peace. Would you ever agree in hindsight if to secure world's peace someone nuked america?

Neo,

Over 400,000 Americans lost their lives in world war 2! And I'd guess that the majority of those felt it was worth the risk.

400,000 soldiers died. But the cities they nuked were full of women and children.

I think you need to do some research on how bad japan actually was.

I have no illusion, they were not bathed in milk either.

Yes, civilian Americans killed in ww2 was minimal compared to civilians killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And I'm not saying that those 200,000 plus lives lost there was a good thing. It's never a good thing when lives are lost during war.

But what I am saying, is that your point about those lives lost there having something to do with the US not being for peace, is just wrong. You have to realize that if the US didn't use nukes, many experts believe the Japanese civilian loss may have been in the tens of millions. Mostly due to Japan's leaders unwillingness to surrender. Their culture was one of suicide before surrender. And, I'll at least give japan this for props. Their leaders ultimately put their peoples lives ahead of a futile fight. If the Soviet Union got involved in an invasion of japan, it would have been horrendous. Millions or tens of millions of Japanese deaths.

And the US was a major part of bringing nazi rule to an end. The US was a major part of the liberation of France.

The US was certainly the world leader, when it came to stopping the spread of Nazi control, and the Japanese too.

Look, I'm certainly not saying the US govt is without faults. But you seem to be taking the approach that the US has been nothing but a bully since ww2.

If the US didn't get involved in WW2, the world would be a different place now. A much worse place.

And I can understand that if you're only focusing on your area. Of the world, you may not see that.

I am not trying to demonize the U.S just because I live in Pakistan and therefore must badmouth the west. Far from it. You have a great country, a great people. Just that at some points, including foreign policy, for some reason the attitude is downright bullish and childish. I certainly don't see US as a peaceful nations, its constantly at war. May be stopping the nazis were the last saving grace, I am not sure. Look at the middle east, the whole region has been so badly destabilized that the results are HORRENDOUS, just look at ISIS. It was nothing, the Arab leaders including Gaddafi and Saddam had these bastards under control for decades and now, they are lose dogs. America was backing these players when it wanted to destabilize Syria, and now they have gone rouge. America has played with small vision (or whatever it was) but look at the long term result. Making new terrorists as I write this.

You think America is hitting ISIS because it worries for IRAQI people? Hell no. They want their control established in these countries and probably fear that ISIS might strike in the heart of america as OBL did with AQ. Long story short they are not doing it for Iraqi's or Kurds or whatever. So be realistic. Call it for what it is. America is the savior of the world tune doesn't ring true to me at all. To me half of the problems right now have been directly caused because of American decisions and actions.

But as I don't see things like you, I guess you also can't see things like me. Your country treats you fairly well and however you wanna put it. Its great for its citizens. Its just that when it comes to the east its a very different standard. I think Americans should stop living with the past glory circa ww2 and see that these new problems are not like old ones. Nazis were evil but america did not create nazis or funded them. The case of Taliban, mujaheddin and half of ISIS numbers is a different story altogether.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I just find it ridiculous that the world's safety is bound to America. It isn't. Secondly while I understand your pov. I don't think the people who died in japan would agree with your justification why they had to be sacrificed to secure (assumed) peace which might have had prevailed. Lucky for many Americans they and theirs did not have to die to secure that peace. Would you ever agree in hindsight if to secure world's peace someone nuked america?

Neo,

Over 400,000 Americans lost their lives in world war 2! And I'd guess that the majority of those felt it was worth the risk.

400,000 soldiers died. But the cities they nuked were full of women and children.

I think you need to do some research on how bad japan actually was.

I have no illusion, they were not bathed in milk either.

Yes, civilian Americans killed in ww2 was minimal compared to civilians killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And I'm not saying that those 200,000 plus lives lost there was a good thing. It's never a good thing when lives are lost during war.

But what I am saying, is that your point about those lives lost there having something to do with the US not being for peace, is just wrong. You have to realize that if the US didn't use nukes, many experts believe the Japanese civilian loss may have been in the tens of millions. Mostly due to Japan's leaders unwillingness to surrender. Their culture was one of suicide before surrender. And, I'll at least give japan this for props. Their leaders ultimately put their peoples lives ahead of a futile fight. If the Soviet Union got involved in an invasion of japan, it would have been horrendous. Millions or tens of millions of Japanese deaths.

And the US was a major part of bringing nazi rule to an end. The US was a major part of the liberation of France.

The US was certainly the world leader, when it came to stopping the spread of Nazi control, and the Japanese too.

Look, I'm certainly not saying the US govt is without faults. But you seem to be taking the approach that the US has been nothing but a bully since ww2.

If the US didn't get involved in WW2, the world would be a different place now. A much worse place.

And I can understand that if you're only focusing on your area. Of the world, you may not see that.

I am not trying to demonize the U.S just because I live in Pakistan and therefore must badmouth the west. Far from it. You have a great country, a great people. Just that at some points, including foreign policy, for some reason the attitude is downright bullish and childish. I certainly don't see US as a peaceful nations, its constantly at war. May be stopping the nazis were the last saving grace, I am not sure. Look at the middle east, the whole region has been so badly destabilized that the results are HORRENDOUS, just look at ISIS. It was nothing, the Arab leaders including Gaddafi and Saddam had these bastards under control for decades and now, they are lose dogs. America was backing these players when it wanted to destabilize Syria, and now they have gone rouge. America has played with small vision (or whatever it was) but look at the long term result. Making new terrorists as I write this.

You think America is hitting ISIS because it worries for IRAQI people? Hell no. They want their control established in these countries and probably fear that ISIS might strike in the heart of america as OBL did with AQ. Long story short they are not doing it for Iraqi's or Kurds or whatever. So be realistic. Call it for what it is. America is the savior of the world tune doesn't ring true to me at all. To me half of the problems right now have been directly caused because of American decisions and actions.

But as I don't see things like you, I guess you also can't see things like me. Your country treats you fairly well and however you wanna put it. Its great for its citizens. Its just that when it comes to the east its a very different standard. I think Americans should stop living with the past glory circa ww2 and see that these new problems are not like old ones. Nazis were evil but america did not create nazis or funded them. The case of Taliban, mujaheddin and half of ISIS numbers is a different story altogether.

Neo,

Like I said, while I don't necessarily agree with you on this, I have no argument on this subject. I was only pointing out how I thought you were wrong regarding the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Neo,

Over 400,000 Americans lost their lives in world war 2! And I'd guess that the majority of those felt it was worth the risk.

400,000 soldiers died. But the cities they nuked were full of women and children.

I think you need to do some research on how bad japan actually was.

I have no illusion, they were not bathed in milk either.[/quote]
Yes, civilian Americans killed in ww2 was minimal compared to civilians killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And I'm not saying that those 200,000 plus lives lost there was a good thing. It's never a good thing when lives are lost during war.

But what I am saying, is that your point about those lives lost there having something to do with the US not being for peace, is just wrong. You have to realize that if the US didn't use nukes, many experts believe the Japanese civilian loss may have been in the tens of millions. Mostly due to Japan's leaders unwillingness to surrender. Their culture was one of suicide before surrender. And, I'll at least give japan this for props. Their leaders ultimately put their peoples lives ahead of a futile fight. If the Soviet Union got involved in an invasion of japan, it would have been horrendous. Millions or tens of millions of Japanese deaths.

And the US was a major part of bringing nazi rule to an end. The US was a major part of the liberation of France.

The US was certainly the world leader, when it came to stopping the spread of Nazi control, and the Japanese too.

Look, I'm certainly not saying the US govt is without faults. But you seem to be taking the approach that the US has been nothing but a bully since ww2.

If the US didn't get involved in WW2, the world would be a different place now. A much worse place.

And I can understand that if you're only focusing on your area. Of the world, you may not see that.
[/quote]


I am not trying to demonize the U.S just because I live in Pakistan and therefore must badmouth the west. Far from it. You have a great country, a great people. Just that at some points, including foreign policy, for some reason the attitude is downright bullish and childish. I certainly don't see US as a peaceful nations, its constantly at war. May be stopping the nazis were the last saving grace, I am not sure. Look at the middle east, the whole region has been so badly destabilized that the results are HORRENDOUS, just look at ISIS. It was nothing, the Arab leaders including Gaddafi and Saddam had these bastards under control for decades and now, they are lose dogs. America was backing these players when it wanted to destabilize Syria, and now they have gone rouge. America has played with small vision (or whatever it was) but look at the long term result. Making new terrorists as I write this.

You think America is hitting ISIS because it worries for IRAQI people? Hell no. They want their control established in these countries and probably fear that ISIS might strike in the heart of america as OBL did with AQ. Long story short they are not doing it for Iraqi's or Kurds or whatever. So be realistic. Call it for what it is. America is the savior of the world tune doesn't ring true to me at all. To me half of the problems right now have been directly caused because of American decisions and actions.

But as I don't see things like you, I guess you also can't see things like me. Your country treats you fairly well and however you wanna put it. Its great for its citizens. Its just that when it comes to the east its a very different standard. I think Americans should stop living with the past glory circa ww2 and see that these new problems are not like old ones. Nazis were evil but america did not create nazis or funded them. The case of Taliban, mujaheddin and half of ISIS numbers is a different story altogether.[/quote]
Neo,

Like I said, while I don't necessarily agree with you on this, I have no argument on this subject. I was only pointing out how I thought you were wrong regarding the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.[/quote]

That's okay. I understand. I still don't think killing hundreds of thousands was okay to get the desired peace...it sounds close to what in principle, communist regimes did in soviet Russia. As long as the end result was peace, its ok to kill.

Neo wrote:
That's okay. I understand. I still don't think killing hundreds of thousands was okay to get the desired peace...it sounds close to what in principle, communist regimes did in soviet Russia. As long as the end result was peace, its ok to kill.

Sure, I understand. It's a difficult subject.

But equating it to communist regimes killing their own citizens? Not even close. If you think Communist regimes who wanted to control or kill their own citizens, did it for peace, then I don't think you know much about Communism.

One, controlling and killing people to further Communism, Nazism, Japanese Imperialism.

The other, fighting to stop Communism, Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and bring freedom to the countries that were fought for.

There's quite a difference, don't you think?

Americans who've not lived outside the USA really dont know how their country looks from the outside.