<p>All religions are phony - i trust logic and statistics, not mysticism and prophecies !!!</p>
<p>since you trust statistics so much,</p>
<p>what's the p value of God not existing? Let's use the simple multiplication rule, shall we?</p>
<p>The probability of the big bang simply occuring.... the probability of evolution happening by chance... the probability of the incredible anatomy and physiology of not only humans, but all other life... simply... happening by chance... shall we...</p>
<p>all of that... just happening to happen... I'll tell you what that amounts to...</p>
<p>1/a very incredibly huge number... or... 1/infinity..</p>
<p>which... is pretty much zero...</p>
<p>logic realms.</p>
<p>Good luck with that "God proof". The entire point of religion/faith is precisely what it says: FAITH. You cannot prove God exists, I cannot, and no one else will ever be able to. It sort of defeats the purpose. Furthermore..if you really want to take a look at probability than see this:</p>
<p>One scientists has used the modern science of probability in reference to Jesus's eight prophecies (althugh he had hundreds more), 'we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10^17." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, he illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep.
"Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."
He considered 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10^157, or 1 in</p>
<pre><code>100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 10^79.
</code></pre>
<hr>
<pre><code> This information was taken from the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
</code></pre>
<p>oh so irrelevant</p>
<p>how is that irrelevant</p>
<p>seeing as the topic is "Should Iran Have Nuclear Power?"</p>
<p>I don't trust any country under political Islam. They have all the oil, why the Hell do they need nuclear Power? WMD's.</p>
<p>Weapon's of Mass Destruction II: This time, they're real.</p>
<p>Gumball, nobody knows why Iran is seeking nuclear technology. It may be to generate more power for its impoverished populace and it could be partially to build weapons. One thing is certain, enough countries that hate Iran and feel it should be wiped out of the map (the US, Israel, the UK) have nuclear weapons and are willing to use it on Iranians. The US already used nuclear weapons on the Jspanese and Bush recently threatened that the US may use a nucealr weapon against Iran. The more those countries threaten Iran, the more Iran is likely to want nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>I don't see why Iran should not have nuclear power. Someone name 5 legitimate reasons (this excludes paranoia and also the "they MIGHT bomb us" argument...I won't consider them legitimate reasons unless you personally talked to the shah of Iran on the subject. Don't assume.) why Iran shouldn't have nuclear power.</p>
<p>And one question: if we want Iran wiped off the map, why did we put Iran on the map in the first place?</p>
<p>
[quote]
One thing is certain, enough countries that hate Iran and feel it should be wiped out of the map (the US, Israel, the UK) have nuclear weapons and are willing to use it on Iranians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Give me one source that has Bush saying anything remotely as cookey as what Iran's President has been saying recently about Israel. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The US already used nuclear weapons on the Jspanese
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To end an ongoing war, not to exterminate a race of people. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and Bush recently threatened that the US may use a nucealr weapon against Iran.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Source? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The more those countries threaten Iran, the more Iran is likely to want nuclear weapons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except we wouldn't be threatening Iran if they weren't shaking the hornet's nest by threatening to exterminate one of our closest allies in the region. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see why Iran should not have nuclear power. Someone name 5 legitimate reasons (this excludes paranoia and also the "they MIGHT bomb us" argument...I won't consider them legitimate reasons unless you personally talked to the shah of Iran on the subject. Don't assume.) why Iran shouldn't have nuclear power.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sounds a lot like- "I don't see why Hitler shouldn't have the Sudetenland. Give me five legitimate reasons (not paranoia) that we shouldn't give him what he wants."</p>
<p>History repeats itself. We can't trust cooks, and Akalalakakalakajad (or however it is spelled) certainly qualifies as a cook. He has denied the Holoucaust and threatened to kill the remaining 6 million Jews that are left in Israel. He can't be trusted just like Hitler in the late 1930s.</p>
<p>What's wrong with cooks? Last time I looked, the yummy food you get at the local restaurant is made by a cook.</p>
<p>I also don't understand why it's our business. We're not the world police. The UN is. The NATO is. There are other organizations that would have final say on this. Like the International Court of Justice for instance.</p>
<p>Cuse, Bush did not come out and say that he WILL nuke Iran. But many highly credible sources have said that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran is an option that is being seriously considered. Bush certainly never denied it. In fact, he always says that all options are on the table. </p>
<p>What does Iran's president's personal stand on the holocaust (as ignorant as it is), have to do with anything? Many people (some of them in very influential and powerful positions) in the US and Israel believe that Arabs are an inferior race and would love to rid the world of all muslims. Does it mean that they will ever act on that hatred? </p>
<p>A country has a right to defend itself, and how can Iran defend itself against the threat of nuclear attack if it does not possess nuclear weapons of its own? I personally believe that no nation should have nuclear weapons, but only nations committed to peace and who do not have nuclear weapons of their own can truly ask Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cuse, Bush did not come out and say that he WILL nuke Iran. But many highly credible sources have said that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran is an option that is being seriously considered. Bush certainly never denied it. In fact, he always says that all options are on the table.
[/quote]
This is disgusting, really, if there's any nuclear retalliation alternative, it will be used solely against the Nuclear facilities, NOT the Iranian People. Do you understand the considerable difference between nuking a group of people you don't like and a nuclear plant?
[quote]
What does Iran's president's personal stand on the holocaust (as ignorant as it is), have to do with anything?
[/quote]
Political Islam, and Islam itself. Don't get me wrong, most Muslims prefer not to have that piece of **** as representing them. The fact that he has the power to press the button and risk total destruction is what's significant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many people (some of them in very influential and powerful positions) in the US and Israel believe that Arabs are an inferior race and would love to rid the world of all muslims.
[/quote]
No, you're confusing the citizens with government leaders. Find me a congressman who wants all Muslims annihilated. Therein lies the difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does it mean that they will ever act on that hatred?
[/quote]
Of course not, we act upon diplomatic solutions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A country has a right to defend itself, and how can Iran defend itself against the threat of nuclear attack if it does not possess nuclear weapons of its own?
[/quote]
Iran SHOULD NOT have nuclear weapons. Period. They are untrusted and unworthy, by making malevolent claims to destroy the west and openly threating Israel is enough that they shouldn't have Nuclear Power. Let Iran soften up a bit, b4 they can be trusted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally believe that no nation should have nuclear weapons, but only nations committed to peace and who do not have nuclear weapons of their own can truly ask Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
[/quote]
Iran must make the commitment to abandon weapons firstly. Whom do you trust more? The US who has had nuclear weapons since the 40's and has only used Nuclear Weapons twice as a matter of finishing the war and preventing future casualties on both sides. Or a newbie on the block, such as Iran, who doesn't even have "Nuclear Power" and openly making threats?[sarcasm] Be certain that if Iran places a nuke on Israel, Israel and the United States will retalliate with enough force to make them sh it radiation for the next 5000 years.[/sarcasm]</p>
<p>Iran said that they are willing to negotiate about their nuclear program. The conditions: they refuse to negotiate with the US, and instead want to go through the European Union.</p>
<p>loose change baby</p>
<p>
[quote]
They are untrusted and unworthy,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And we are? Ask anyone in Iran about America and they'll say the same thing about us.</p>
<p>lh0pitalrules: The piece of crap that's being sued for illegally using 9/11 footage? The thing that's been debunked by Popular Mechanics? </p>
<p>Also, futurenyu: Drawing moral equivalency between the USA and Iran under Ahmadinejad is disgusting.</p>
<p>I agree with Alexandre that nobody should have nuclear weapons. Period. And we can start that movement by destroying missiles ourselves. We don't trust them. The feeling is mutual. Maybe when we step up and start getting rid of some nuclear weapons, they'll follow by not developing nukes.</p>
<p>Neverborn what the HELL are you talking about? Do you expect me to believe that Iranians are "unworthy?" I'm guessing based on history Germany should NEVER have an air force, a navy, or any defense force since they started two wars. Besides how do you measure "worth?" Give me a definitive answer.</p>
<p>He means you are an idiot for equating Iran and America as equally moral.</p>
<p>I agree as well. It's not that they should have nuclear weapons, but it's an issue that we shouldn't be the ones telling them they can't when we have far more capabilities ourselves.</p>
<p>And ChuckNorris, he was not saying that the two nations are equally moral, but that they two nations citizens think the same of each other. Big difference buddy</p>