Locke

Buddism? It could be worse. Yes ethics predate religion, I'll give you that. But not many followed those ethics before religions came about. Though, not many follow the ethics now....

You know Nova, the more I read of Craig's, the more I think you are right. I apologize for what I said to you. He is extreamly pessimistic, doesn't listen to others, and he tries to put them down instead of proving them wrong. I'm sorry.

We have to have atleast one religion. Or maybe we can all follow Confucianism. Anyways, we have to have one religion otherwise people will lose the spirital aspect, not to mention a reward (Heaven). Also, if we loose a religion, we will have less of a moral compass to keep ethics around. Religion should help tell people how to act, cause we all know that people can't act rightously themselves.

I believe that Craig is definately stubborn and insulting, but that is no reason to sink to his level. If you want to get back at him so bad, give him so much proof against one of his ideas that he can't find anything against it. Beat him so bad he no longer has any reputation.

If people accually followed their religion properly, then there would be no wars, no hatered. All three of the major monotheistic religons state that all of their followers should be kind and genorous and pasifists. But they have been warped and misinterpted and they have been fighting over followers for so long, that now they are simply another source of conflict. And it is also a way so that good people that do awful things can go to sleep peacefully at night.

Amen. At least I have one suporter. As I said before, we are only ruining ourselves, not the enviroment. These changes can accually help the world, we are just killing ourselves, which might accually be better considering we have killed thousands of thousands of spieces. Well, I'll leave on that note for right now. Think about it.

Okay, so there is no real link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Who didn't know that? The reason the US went after Iraq in the first place is so they can vent some of the American rage after 9-11. They didn't go after Al Qaeda because they were so incompentant that they couldn't even find some of them. They then lied about the WMD's so they can channel the anger of the people somewhere. And now, they can't find Sadaam, so they are turning toward Libria. Smart of the US to get 2 birds in one stone. Stupid because they didn't do it quietly.

Accually, this would be a good thing in some ways. The ozone depletion let's in more ultraviolet radiation that helps things evolve and the increase of CO2 is accually better, that means less oxygen. Oxygen is a corrosive. It accually harms things.

I new here, and maybe I don't know anything about what is going on in this forum, but isn't this about politics? Granted what the things of Reed's I've read are pesimistic, but he does have a valid view. At the same time Nova, you also have a point (please don't bite my head off). So can we stop name-calling like children and start talking about politics?

Alright, let's face facts. The Russians are going to stop this thing unless they feel they have squeased all the money they can from everyone. As for the issue of distroying the planet or not, we cannot distroy this planet. Barring religious ideas, this world has been around longer than any human and will be here after the human race is dead and gone. We don't have the power to distroy this planet. Life, and this planet, will be here for a very very long time, well after we and all our decendants die off.

Hey KK Well...I guess that is a few solution. Of course, when you think about it, it would eventually kill off all the human race, so yes, that would probably be the best idea. Considering the fact that humans are the most dangerous animals in the world, yes that would be a good idea.

The UN has become truely ineffective. I hate to believe it, but it becomes more and more clear. The UN has turned pretty much like the royalty in Brittan. The only reason it is still in effect is so the US can ask for troops from multiple countries at once. What good is the UN if it has no athority? It has been reduced to a meer figurehead, so as to give people the idea that the world is not ruled by the United States. Back in reality though, the US has all the power in the world. But, back on track, without any power, the UN is no more effective than the League of Nations that was there before it. So what can we do, now that the UN has no control over anything?

The idea of this thread was to crate world peace correct? Well the way to do that would be to elminate all borders and eliminate all or all but one religion. No more wars over religion or over land. that elminates all most all the reasons for war. Afterward, create a democracy of this new Earth Sphere Nation so that no one person or group has all the power. this would create world peace