NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont get why everybody is so scared of Nuclear war, and countries having nuclear weapons. I certainly dont want N. Korea and Iran to have Nukes anymore than the next guy, but really what are we afraid of? These countries have no sophistocated delivery system which can carry a nuclear warhead. Also, everybody knows that whoever launches the first strike is going to get mauled by the US, Britain and France within the hour. I doubt that Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahamdinejad hate the west enough to launch the few nukes they have (which may not even reach the target) only to get utterly destroyed.

Very true, however the most likely reason that South Korea and Iran are developing nuclear technology is as a deterrent to any country that may wish to invade them. Take a look at India and Pakistan - at war for years over Kashmir, then they develop nukes and the whole thing goes quiet. No country is dimwitted enough to attack a nation that has nuclear weapons if there is a strong possibility that they will use them.

It doesn't take a sophisticated delivery system, just a nutball with a suitcase.

I doubt that Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahamdinejad hate the west enough to launch the few nukes they have (which may not even reach the target) only to get utterly destroyed.
Both countries have plenty of crazy people (more crazy then even the current leaders, that is) who could easily be so foolish should they ever get into power. Plus, they could just smuggle a nuke somewhere and blow it up - there wouldn't be much evidence left to track down its origins.

I dont get why everybody is so scared of Nuclear war, and countries having nuclear weapons. I certainly dont want N. Korea and Iran to have Nukes anymore than the next guy, but really what are we afraid of? These countries have no sophistocated delivery system which can carry a nuclear warhead. Also, everybody knows that whoever launches the first strike is going to get mauled by the US, Britain and France within the hour. I doubt that Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahamdinejad hate the west enough to launch the few nukes they have (which may not even reach the target) only to get utterly destroyed.

You assume rationality. That right there is your problem.

It doesn't take a sophisticated delivery system, just a nutball with a suitcase.

It has to be a pretty damn big suitcase to fit a nuclear bomb

It doesn't take a sophisticated delivery system, just a nutball with a suitcase.

UPS. :)

It has to be a pretty damn big suitcase to fit a nuclear bomb
Sadly, no.

It has to be a pretty damn big suitcase to fit a nuclear bomb
Shipping containers are large enough to carry all but the largest nuclear weaponry.

Shipping containers are large enough to carry all but the largest nuclear weaponry.
As in this?
http://www.containerarchitecture.co.nz/images/containers/40ft_blue_shipping_container.jpg
The only bits of modern nuclear weaponry it wouldn't fit are made superfluous by its mere presence. You don't need a full ICBM with that thing.

It has to be a pretty damn big suitcase to fit a nuclear bomb

a suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb is a very compact and portable nuclear weapon and could have the dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters or 24 x 16 x 8 inches. The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions. The Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across. It doesn’t take much more than a single critical mass to cause significant explosions ranging from 10-20 tons.

Another portable weapon is a “backpack” bomb. The Soviet nuclear backpack system was made in the 1960s for use against NATO targets in time of war and consists of three “coffee can-sized” aluminum canisters in a bag. All three must be connected to make a single unit in order to explode. The detonator is about 6 inches long. It has a 3-to-5 kiloton yield, depending on the efficiency of the explosion.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suitcasenuke/

Sadly, no.
Didn't you see Peacemaker?

Mahmoud Ahamdinejad is a very religious man. He really believes in allah and whatnot. He is, therefore, clinically insane.

I don't worry about kim having nukes so much, becase he wants to keep on abducting S. korean actresses to be his sex slaves and drinking cognac, so I doubt he'll ever launch a strike.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that if Ahamdinejad though the could bring the judgment of allah one second closer, he'd quite happily blow the entire world up.

Mahmoud Ahamdinejad is a very religious man. He really believes in allah and whatnot. He is, therefore, clinically insane.

Wait, what?

Wait, what?
I think another way of putting that would be: "I think people who believe in god are crazy!"

Wait, what?

If you actually believe in something exists when it clearly doesn't, you are usually called mad. I see no reasons to make an exception because some people choose to call it religion.

If you actually believe in something exists when it clearly doesn't, you are usually called mad. I see no reasons to make an exception because the majority of Earth's population choose to call it religion.
FIX'D for clarity!

If you actually believe in something exists when it clearly doesn't, you are usually called mad. I see no reasons to make an exception because some people choose to call it religion.

You have conclusive proof that god/jehova/allah doesn't exist?

Of course not, so drop the "oh god clearly doesn't exist" BS, you have no more proof than anyone else. It is not insanity to believe in a possibility of something that is a possibility.

It is perhaps misguided to believe that the possibility is MORE than a possibility, but until you are able to prove conclusivly that god does not exist, you have no way of demonstrating it "clearly" does not.

Which makes you just as bad as those you complain about, believing without a doubt in one thing without conclusive evidence to support that position.

I think we can trust most (if not all) nations with nukes after all with all the missing WMD from Russia and such if someone was going to attack they would of done it already (and also nations tend to know that its not in there peoples best interests to start any nuclear wars)

I’d also like to assert that I don’t trust Kim I trust the North Korean generals who have all the power

You have conclusive proof that god/jehova/allah doesn't exist?

Of course not, so drop the "oh god clearly doesn't exist" BS, you have no more proof than anyone else. It is not insanity to believe in a possibility of something that is a possibility.

It is perhaps misguided to believe that the possibility is MORE than a possibility, but until you are able to prove conclusivly that god does not exist, you have no way of demonstrating it "clearly" does not.

Which makes you just as bad as those you complain about, believing without a doubt in one thing without conclusive evidence to support that position.

By the same logic, you shouldn't be able to lock up people who see people others don't. After all, you can prove they aren't there.

By the same logic, you shouldn't be able to lock up people who see people others don't. After all, you can't prove they aren't there.
*shrug* Who says we should? :p

You have conclusive proof that god/jehova/allah doesn't exist?


Oh please, do you have conclusive proof that santa claus doesn't exist. (Or zeus/pan/odin/thor)? No, you don't. But if someone opened a temple to santa you'd write them off as deranged in a heartbeat.

So just skip it. I'm not stopping you from indulging in you collective mass delusion after all.

*shrug* Who says we should? :p

But we do. I believe the same logic should be applied across the board, that way we could get rid of the shrub, after all he claims his invisible friend talks to him.

By the same logic, you shouldn't be able to lock up people who see people others don't. After all, you can prove they aren't there.

I've read philosophical arguments trying to either prove or disprove the existence of God. None of them make any damn sense.

By the same logic, you shouldn't be able to lock up people who see people others don't. After all, you can prove they aren't there.

We (at least in the US) generally don't. As a general rule an adult can not be comitted against his/her will unless it can be demonstrated that this person is a danger to him/herself or others.

Simply seeing napoleon (or by correlarly thinking you are Napoleon) is not technically a comittable offense.

We (at least in the US) generally don't. As a general rule an adult can not be comitted against his/her will unless it can be demonstrated that this person is a danger to him/herself or others.

And the leader of your country started a war partly in the belief thet god had told him to do it. I'd say that that consitutes a danger to others. How about those people who opposes stem cell research, denying possible cures to others due to their religious beliefs. That is harming others.

Oh please, do you have conclusive proof that santa claus doesn't exist.

santa clause is believed to live in the north pole if I'm correct. People have been to the north pole and...no santa house. Thus pretty conclusive proof that santa, as described, does not exist.

(Or zeus/pan/odin/thor)?

No but I do know a guy who practices egyptian religion. not muslim, but actual worship of the egyptian gods

But if someone opened a temple to santa you'd write them off as deranged in a heartbeat.

Santa? yes, given that the whole "no house on the pole" thing. Odin/Thor/Ra etc/ no more or less than any other religion.

So just skip it. I'm not stopping you from indulging in you collective mass delusion after all.

Oh I'm solidly agnostic. I merely point out that firmly DISBELIEVING in something without proof is just as bad as firmly believing something without proof.

So if you consider all those who worship a god in the absence of proof crazy, and yet offer no proof that there IS no god....where should I send your straightjacket?

Oh please, do you have conclusive proof that santa claus doesn't exist. (Or zeus/pan/odin/thor)? No, you don't. But if someone opened a temple to santa you'd write them off as deranged in a heartbeat.
Uh, Christian do believe that Saint Nicholas exists. Just like all the other saints.

How about those people who opposes stem cell research, denying possible cures to others due to their religious beliefs. That is harming others.

No disagreement there in the slightest.

Religion can drive one to do immoral things. i merely state that no individual has more proof that god DOES exist than god does NOT exist.

It can not be demonstrated either way.

Uh, Christian do believe that Saint Nicholas exists. Just like all the other saints.

Thats right, I've been to his tomb. It's on Rhodes.

And the leader of your country started a war partly in the belief thet god had told him to do it. I'd say that that consitutes a danger to others. How about those people who opposes stem cell research, denying possible cures to others due to their religious beliefs. That is harming others.

You're taking the extreme-right Christian segment of the US. Many many Christians support stem cell research and are against the war. The only problem is that the crazies are in the White House and the leadership of Congress.

No disagreement there in the slightest.

Religion can drive one to do immoral things. i merely state that no individual has more proof that god DOES exist than god does NOT exist.

It can not be demonstrated either way.

And neither can the voices in peoples heads. My point is that I don't fully understand why religion and insanity are treated so differently. They both involve believing in things that you can't prove exist and the belief it them can harm others.

You're taking the extreme-right Christian segment of the US. Many many Christians support stem cell research and are against the war. The only problem is that the crazies are in the White House and the leadership of Congress.

But you don't commit them do you?

And neither can the voices in peoples heads. My point is that I don't fully understand why religion and insanity are treated so differently. They both involve believing in things that you can't prove exist and the belief it them can harm others.

If ones religion leads one to act in a way that would harm another person in an illegal fashion then it is treated no differently then if ones insanity leads one to act in a way that would harm another person in an illegal fashion.

For example, see bombing of abortion clinics. Illegal as hell, whether done for religion, or insanity.

If ones religion leads one to act in a way that would harm another person in an illegal fashion then it is treated no differently then if ones insanity leads one to act in a way that would harm another person in an illegal fashion.

For example, see bombing of abortion clinics. Illegal as hell, whether done for religion, or insanity.

So as long as the fundies restrict themselve to harming others in a legal way it's ok?

So as long as the fundies restrict themselve to harming others in a legal way it's ok?

Well...if it's legal...it's legal.

What more do you want me to say to that? It's "ok", in the sense that it's legally permissable, if it's legal.

It may be immoral, under my particular version of morality, but my particular version of morality isn't law.

santa clause is believed to live in the north pole if I'm correct. People have been to the north pole and...no santa house. Thus pretty conclusive proof that santa, as described, does not exist.


Well the jews used to believe that jehova lived in the holies of holies in the temple and anyone who entered improperly would be struck dead. Pompey entered and survived. Later the romans tore it down. And survived.

Therefore, by your standard of proof, no jehova. (And therefore no jesus, allah whatever).


So if you consider all those who worship a god in the absence of proof crazy, and yet offer no proof that there IS no god....where should I send your straightjacket?

I just did. And it is compelling as your no santa house at the north pole. You might want to question why I have to prove there is no god tho'. Surely it's up to religious people to prove there is a god. And this they cannot do.

I just did.

No you didn't. You just demonstrated that this PARTICULAR VERSION doesn't. That doesn't say anything about whether that particular fact was just...wrong.

You might want to question why I have to prove there is no god tho'. Surely it's up to religious people to prove there is a god. And this they cannot do.

The burden of proof falls to the one making the statement. You said there was "clearly" no god. Thus I ask, wher eis your proof that there is no god?

If you have none, then it is not nearly that clear, is it?

But you don't commit them do you?

Let someone try to commit them. That guy's next home would be Guantanamo or a dank prison cell in a country that's okay with torturing prisoners, after the government finds him guilty of being a terrorist.

The burden of proof falls to the one making the statement. You said there was "clearly" no god. Thus I ask, wher eis your proof that there is no god?

If you have none, then it is not nearly that clear, is it?

Generally the burden of proof falls on the one trying to prove the positive, an idea enshrined in US law I believe.;)

It is always much harder to prove a negative than a positive.

No you didn't. You just demonstrated that this PARTICULAR VERSION doesn't. That doesn't say anything about whether that particular fact was just...wrong.

It proves that jehova doesn't exist the same way that you proved santa didn't. Or is santa back on the table now.

The burden of proof falls to the one making the statement. You said there was "clearly" no god. Thus I ask, wher eis your proof that there is no god?

If you have none, then it is not nearly that clear, is it?

I wouldn't have to make that statement if crazy people didn't run around insisting that a big man in the sky controlled our day to day lives.

It's really up to them. They started it. And I do have proof. My pompey story.

Generally the burden of proof falls on the one trying to prove the positive, an idea enshrined in US law I believe.;)

Depends on the circumstances. A claim of negligence based on one's failure to act is a legitimate claim.

In this case it's proving the negative "he didn't do something he should have" rather than "he did something he should not have".


It is always much harder to prove a negative than a positive.

Then one should not attempt to claim with certainty the negative.

No you didn't. You just demonstrated that this PARTICULAR VERSION doesn't. That doesn't say anything about whether that particular fact was just...wrong.



The burden of proof falls to the one making the statement. You said there was "clearly" no god. Thus I ask, wher eis your proof that there is no god?

If you have none, then it is not nearly that clear, is it?

Yeah. It all falls on whether or not the "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" idea is acceptable to you or not. If it isn't acceptable, though, why have so many atheist philosophers written long arguments against the existence of God? They're trying to disprove something, and they haven't done a very good job of it. To be fair, the theists haven't made a convincing argument on their side, either.

I wouldn't have to make that statement if crazy people didn't run around insisting that a big man in the sky controlled our day to day lives.


I can't stick around to argue about this, really, so I'll just say that the "big man in the sky" thing is a bullshit representation of what the concept of God is to many people. Think more "indescribable, unfathomable creative force without human characteristics".

Depends on the circumstances. A claim of negligence based on one's failure to act is a legitimate claim.

In this case it's proving the negative "he didn't do something he should have" rather than "he did something he should not have".

Semantics. I can just as easily phrase it as trying to prove that 'he did fail to act' over 'didn't fail to act. There, I'm proving a positive again.

Then one should not attempt to claim with certainty the negative.

With the positive being so much easier to prove than the negative I would have though that your advise would be for religious types to stop claiming the positive, after all they've had thousands of years to do it and failed.

It proves that jehova doesn't exist the same way that you proved santa didn't. Or is santa back on the table now.

If we consider within the definition of "santa clause" as an entity living at the north pole, I can disprove that by demonstrating there is no entity at the north pole.

Likewise proving that people who entered the temple didn't die only disproves the existance of an entity that would kill anyone who entered the temple.

It does not disprove the concept of an omnipotent creator in general

I wouldn't have to make that statement if crazy people didn't run around insisting that a big man in the sky controlled our day to day lives.

Yet you did make it, now prove it. you're going around insisting that there is no entity controlling our day to day lives, prove it.

It's really up to them. They started it. And I do have proof. My pompey story.

Your evidence only disproves on particular version, not the concept.

With the positive being so much easier to prove than the negative I would have though that your advise would be for religious types to stop claiming the positive, after all they've had thousands of years to do it and failed.

My claim is as it's always been, I feel it unwise for anyone to believe anything withough proof to back up that assertion, one way or the other.

Atheism is just as illogical as religion.

My claim is as it's always been, I feel it unwise for anyone to believe anything withough proof to back up that assertion, one way or the other.

Atheism is just as illogical as religion.

Who mentioned your beliefs? You were giving out advise and I pointed out that it made more sense for you to reverse that advise.

Oh please, do you have conclusive proof that santa claus doesn't exist. (Or zeus/pan/odin/thor)? No, you don't. But if someone opened a temple to santa you'd write them off as deranged in a heartbeat.


Not only would I not write them off as deranged, Id probably go in for at least one service . . .

If we consider within the definition of "santa clause" as an entity living at the north pole, I can disprove that by demonstrating there is no entity at the north pole.

Likewise proving that people who entered the temple didn't die only disproves the existance of an entity that would kill anyone who entered the temple.

It does not disprove the concept of an omnipotent creator in general

It disproves the 'big three' religions tho'. Which are what most people in the west believe. therefore they are mentally ill.



Yet you did make it, now prove it. you're going around insisting that there is no entity controlling our day to day lives, prove it.

Your evidence only disproves on particular version, not the concept.

You'll just keep shifting the goalposts. So forget it. I proved there was no jehova, and your not happy with that, now. If I point out that there is no credible evidence for the big man in the sky, you'll complain that 'absence of evidence' etc.

If you want to be openminded about the existence of faries, pixies and elves, fair enough.

Atheism is just as illogical as religion.

No it fucking isn't.

It disproves the 'big three' religions tho'. Which are what most people in the west believe. therefore they are mentally ill.


Not sure how scientific evidence disproves God over here. Unless you're actually talking about the Zeus-style old bearded white guy who actually lives in the clouds and throws lightening bolts. In which case yes, we're pretty sure he doesn't exist.