A religion is a system of beliefs, while usually associated with
supernatural powers, god, etc. it doesn’t have to mean that.

For example: A people that believe the sun gives life, and the earth
and the sky and wind etc. are all worshipped. That is their belief, their
religion.

What difference is there if you believe in modern science to such a
degree, that you believe it to be responsible for all things? These
people saw the sun give life, it gets cold when it’s away. That’s
scientific observation. They believed things based on what they knew,
just like you athiests do. what they had was religion, and what you
believe as an atheist, is also a religion. A faith in science and the laws
of physics as we understand them.

You just don’t believe in God. For all we know, god might simply BE
the natural order of things.

Well, American aircraft are generally pretty sharp. The russians seem
to have a “good enough” finish on them, with bumps and exposed
rivets – they look thrown together, even when new. It really seems
they go fo ra purely utilitarian design. The US seems to place some
emphasis on looks as well. Even if the F-32 was a better aircraft – it
could not have been chosen for a fighter… just too ugly…

The A-10 has been the USAF’s abused stepchild for a long time, an
dnot until recently has it gotten respect. Part of the reason was
because it’s ugly…well, maybe not.

Looking at them from purely neutral eyes, I ‘d have to say that the A-6
was ugly, the A-6E IS uglier, the P-38, though I feel is beautiful, is
really ugly and bulbous.

I got it – the STUKA! One ugly, SOB. gull wings, squared off tail,
big ugly canopy, non-retractable langing gear. An old favorite of mine,
but hideously ugly. Probably the ugliest WWII aircraft, except for
those 3 engine transports.

Best looking aircraft of WWII were the spitfire and mustang.

Ohh give me a break. Add Nietzsche too. Religion is dead! As if the trio Marx, Nietzsche and Freud have invented everything. As a matter of fact, they destroyed most of it? These phrases are already so shallow I’ve seen people wearing them on T-shirts.
*************

I like a cartoon I saw a few weeks ago (can’t remember where)
A teacher had written on the blackboard:

“God is dead.”
– Nietzsche

Then, later, underneath it is written:

“Nietzsche is dead”
– God

Religion isn’t the cause or root of conflict – it’s an excuse. People DO
use religion as a crutch all to ooften. Any of the worlds religious
conflicts would be there, just the same, without religion. People have
fought over the middle east before there were Jews and Muslims. If
we were all atheists, there’d be just as many wars, suffering and
conflict.

Atheism is no belief? Yes it is. You believe there is no god or
supreme being. you believe that the earth, space, stars and life itself
was a result of coincedence, interaction of particles within the laws of
physics in a random space. There used to be infinitly nothing, then it
began. Given infinite time, anything could simply “happen” within the
laws of physics.
You have to put a lot of faith in the laws of physics, chemistry and
astronomy to actually believe that the universe can be created, and life
can result without a higher power shaping things.

What bugs me is people trying to make religion a science. Scientific
creationism is about as perfect an oxymoron as can be – unless they
were taking a scientific approach to proving creationism as a
pseudoscience.

Want to believe in creationism, fine. But don’t try to convince yourself
through science – if you can’t believe it out of faith, don’t dig for clues –
you’ll find none.

Same for atheism. Don’t try to explain it as fact, for it is just as
unprovable as believing in God. When you state your beliefs and
opinions that there is no god, and nothing after death, you are acting in
the exact manner as someone preaching that there IS a God, and there
IS an afterlife. Preaching something for which there is no scientific
way of proving!

Although I very much agree with your views, I can’t support this exact comparison. Did the resistance movements deliberately engage civilian personnel? Did they venture into Germany to indiscriminately kill German civilians as a revenge for the atrocities committed by the Wehrmact?

Rebels fighting against coalition forces is one thing. Terrorists killing civilians is another.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

This is a crucial point. One could argue that the Baathists in Iraq are
insurgents, attacking Coalition forces. One could also argue they are
the equivalent of the Nazi’s left over after Germany fell, and not the
resistance fighters in occupied France.

Certainly the majority of French people were in favor of the
resistance. I don’t think the same could be said about the Iraqi people
and the Baathists. They don’t WANT that way of life again. There is
really no good comparison.

The foriegn fighters, also called “insurgents” by the media, are
terrorists. They engage in terror tactis, have no affiliation with Iraq
except as a battleground, and have goals different than even the
baathists. They activly kill innocent people.

There have even been incidents where US forces were given
information about foreign terrorists by Baathist insurgents! The
Baathists are Iraqis, and have something to gain from negotiations.
The terrorists do not. I see a good possibility, in the future, of these
insurgents coming to talks with Iraq and the coalition. It’s in their
intrests. The terrorists will not negotiate – if they negotiate, they lose.

The aliens in the movie and the tripods had three fingered, sucker
toes. It’s the same hands that the aliens had in the 53 version – a cool
homage, especially to get that last scene with the dying alien.

They looked nothing like the ones in the book. the closest thign to the
book aliens was in invaders from mars, with the brain alien.

The aliens in the book were large blobs. They were round, 4 feet in
diameter. they had two big, dark eyes, and a large “eardrum” on their
back. They mouth was a simple v-shaped flap with no teeth. Around
the sides of the mouth were 16 thin tentacles, in two pairs of 8. They
tried to walk on them, but were too heavy on Earth. Instead, they
used 5 legged machines to move about in, and 3 legged machines to
fight in.

They “ate” by transfusing the blood of living people into their own
circulatory systems.

They brought several skinny, bipedal aliens with them for food on the
trip to earth. They were descried as thin, 6 foot tall, with big heads
and big round eyes – Wells came up with the “greys” before speilberg
did. None of these were alive.

I’d say it’s worth it to see it in a theatre – the audio is great. I didn’t
realize that the book-martians used foghorn sounds to signal that they
found food…. makes the movie’s sounds more scary…

I liked the alien design idea – but not the execution. The idea is that if
we made giant robots, they’d have two legs, two arms, and stand erect
– like us. The aliens did the same. However, why the hell did they
have to have such generic heads? Big black eyes, bit heads. they
totally looked like ID4 alien – heads, only with mouths.

The three legged idea, with the three suckered toes was a great idea.
they took a great alien body shape, and stuck “generic alien head #3”
on the body. too bad.

but those tripods… they were perfect.

Nobody mentions it because it’s obvious. Wells wrote it as a sort of
joke on colonialism. the way people looked down on africans andd
asians, etc. as if they were “lesser.” He took that, put us (ALL of us)
in the shoes of the colonized, and well, made history.

The recent movie isn’t about colonialism, but the writer did make an
effort to try to take a stab at US policy. It’s not too obvious, nor
should it be. Which is good. Had it been a clear critique of US
policy, it would have pissed me off. I didn’t feel ticked off watching it,
so it was cool. On the other hand, I’m sure others will find many
connections between the movie and GWB, etc. Fine with me, it
wasn’t in your face.

************
I really hate that “it is all part of gods plan” bullsht some religious
nutters expouse.
*********8
so I guess anyone that isn’t an atheist is a “nutter”?

*************
Things don’t happen for a reason, there is no all encompassing plan.
Religion is a lie to comfort the old and scare the young and the stupid.
**************
Atheisim is unprovable, as is belief in God. Both require a degree of
faith to be believed, therefore, atheisim is a form of religion. There is
no indesputable, scientific evidence to prove the existance or
non-existence of God. Therefore, the belief in his existence or his
non-existance is one of pure faith.

To be an atheist, you must look at the world around you, the
complexity of life, cellular division, chemical properties, subatomic
interactions, etc. and be able to say to yourself that “this could all
occur without any intelligent, deliberate actions.” As a sceintist, I’ve
looked really hard, and studied lots of biological systems. Science
can’t explain things enough for me. To me, the idea that a supreme
being/power had a hand in it all makes more sense than if it just all
sorta “happened” out of nowhere.