Madness is relative. An all out WW would cause too much fear for all countries and one would launch. I would bet my life on it.
Are we on the brink of WWIII??
- Thread starter The Living Tribunal
- Start date
Well without getting all technical about it and whatever. I'm not big into trying to understand why we're here or why we do the things that we do because it really just doesn't make any sense. All i know, is that mankind in its current state is doomed to destroy itself. The only thing that can save us is hitting the reset button. Kill all the sick bastards in the world before they take all us with them.
There is no "Why" to our existence. We simply existence because an infinite amount of possibilities went the way they did. There is no grand purpose. We are not here for reason. If you want a "meaning" for life then you have to find your own.
But yes, I agree. Man is on a 1 track course of self destruction.
I think we'd be hard pressed to see an all out WW, not in the sense if WWI/II. Gone are the old colonial empires and monarchies that ruled the world powers. Blind devotion to ones country is a thing of the past too, at least in most first world powers, you wouldn't see the majority of able the bodied lining up for war.
I'm pretty sure were past any of the superpowers initiating a nuclear holocaust the only way I see a nuke being used is by some fanatical religious group/state that thinks their job is to help kick off Armageddon.
Edit: I wouldn't be surprised to see biological weapons used though, viruses spread through animals or insects that would leave infrastructure and natural resources intact.
Last edited:
If religion is such a proponent of destruction, why is a single atheist responsible for more deaths than every religion combined? And he done it in a little more than half a decade.
Last edited:
Some bad s*** is inevitably going to go down, there's just too much on the brink to collapse in the near term future (i.e. our lifetime) with religious and cultural bulls***, over population, lack of quality jobs, the potential for food becoming scarce, the bees becoming extinct is f***ed if it's actually true who will pollinate, flu viruses getting stronger and no medicine to save people from ever stronger strings, then there's all the economic instability and the massive debt that a country like the USA is in (insurmountable debt, you would kill yourself if you personally had such debt)
When and where it actually begins will only be known in hindsight though.
But I don't think a WWIII is likely until s*** gets really bad for one of the big 3 (USA, China, Russia) and even then, everything is so corporate in politics it's hard to see a WW making sense.
It'd be nice to live a whole life without having to experience war but history seems to suggest that is not the norm for the human race.
When and where it actually begins will only be known in hindsight though.
But I don't think a WWIII is likely until s*** gets really bad for one of the big 3 (USA, China, Russia) and even then, everything is so corporate in politics it's hard to see a WW making sense.
It'd be nice to live a whole life without having to experience war but history seems to suggest that is not the norm for the human race.
Personally, I think we're on the brink of skipping two world wars and going into WW5: Virtual Warfare. French Canada will make the first move.
Naw man, we got it all wrong. With climate change and all, Waterworld is the movie to prep up with. Ahead of it's time man.
Eh, what? Religion has been the responsible for far more deaths than old one ball. You have whole millenia of wars and persecution to account for.
lol...what is Atheism ? it is a direct opposition to Religion. If there is no religion then there is no atheists since there are no gods or deities to dismiss.
What's even funnier is watching atheists cling to their belief while laughing at others for theirs. Now where have I seen that before, I wonder.
I probably went a little overboard with the inclusion of every religion throughout the history of man. But even if you managed to come up with a number of deaths caused strictly by religious beliefs, you would never be able to prove that a single religion is responsible for more deaths that Joseph Stalin. You would have to use many separate religions, and many separate events throughout the history of man to top what Stalin did in a mere 6 years.
menace-uk-
I was simply pointing out to you that atheism isn't a belief system that is somehow better for humanity than a religious belief system. Stalin was responsible for around 12 million deaths, and very cruel ones at that. Feel free to point out a single religious person, or even a single religion that likely tops that death toll.
Last edited:
Nobody said a no religion world would be perfect. You kind of missed the point. The Point was how religion has led humanity to violence and destruction. Just because some non religious dude killed 12 million people, it does not wipe out the consistent and vast death toll that religion on a whole has bought our species.
I always love it when somebody brings up guys like Hitler or Stalin when it comes atheism. What does it really say though? That maybe we shouldn't have pyschopaths in charge? A psychopath can be christian, muslim, buddhist, or even an atheist. Those guys are pretty open minded like that. Also, lolz at bringing up mass murder as a stats game. If murderers of the past had the tech available now, then their kill count would sooooo much higher.
The United States is a empire. ..the only conflict will see, is on the Middle class and poor..and finally with the destruction of religion ...thank god lol. Organized religion will see its end in the next 10 or 20 years it has to for the sake of mankind.
Last edited:
The atheist I think you're referring to did not do mass killings in the name of atheism. So atheism is not responsible for mass killings. The mass killings were committed by a power hungry dude....that just so happened to be an atheist.
Read my previous post.
In general, atheist are indeed better for humanity. You can't pin Stalin's killings on being an atheist. That's a false equivalency.
Perhaps atheism is why he lacked the moral fortitude to know that what he was doing were crimes against humanity.
I disagree, atheists rely on their own opinion to decide what is acceptable behavior. You could say that you know right from wrong, but what happens when your opinion of morals are put to the test? Stalin chose to kill 12 million that was his answer, for what reason would anyone choose to believe that your atheist opinion on morals are any better? Im not calling you a bad person. Im just pointing out a flaw in your logic.
You say atheists are better for humanity. Ive never seen an atheist homeless shelter, or orphanage, or unified belief that it is a good thing to help the poor. Never heard of an atheist giving hope and genuinely changing the life of someone doing life in prison, or sitting on death row. When I was in jail, I never received a care package from an atheist. There are plenty more examples of things religious people do not only because its their opinion of what is right, but is also commanded by God. Btw I am in no way saying religious people are perfect, we are human so we are naturally prone to sin
Last edited:
Religion doesn't equal moral fortitude. And if you want to start throwing assumptions around then place then thus conversation could go anywhere.
In my religion, it most certainly does. Its generally a part of everyday life. It is true though that temptation can and has broken even what appears to be the strongest will. Like I said above, even believers are not perfect, that is a fact that is made very clear in the Bible.
Last edited:
No. How else do you explain the many atrocities committed throughout history from people that SHOULD have had the moral fortitude to know right from wrong.
Again, you're making a false equivalency. Shame on you.
Atheist donate, indeed do run homeless shelters, and are very giving.....they DON'T do it in the name of atheism, because atheism isn't a belief system that people subscribe to like religious belief systems.
I'm an atheist....I participate twice a month to a non-religious based soup kitchen and donate money and items regularly. You seem to be under some misguided impression that only religious folk do that.
That is admirable of you. If only all atheists had your morals then atheists could come together, and make a difference in the world. But for that to happen atheists would have to agree on and develop some form of unified moral belief system. Then you would likely have different groups of atheists with the same good will, but slightly different opinions. That would be a stumbling block in the perception of atheism. A thousand years later, and atheism would likely be broken up into a few major moral belief systems, each one believing the other was flawed. I have to ask, do you think that the good moral choices of a single atheist would have more positive impact on humanity, than say 150 million atheists with similar good morals?
You're talking out your arse. That's like me saying:
"If only all religious folks had your morals than religion could come together and make a difference in the world". Instead, most troubles throughout the world today is caused due to religion.
Again, you don't know how many atheist are actually donating and doing awesome things....you're hung up on this notion that we're uncaring people with no moral compass.