What do you always hear people say about history that pisses you right the fuck off?
>Native Americans had 4 genders
>mfw
>>366608
>the british aren't responsible for ending the transatlantic slave trade
>the u.s. lost vietnam
>Greeks and Romans were like the greatest thing everr
Ireland: Useless keks to whoever wanted them. No real achievements, no reknowned kings or warriors, nothing noteworthy other than someone noteworthy pushing their shit in.
Can you prove me wrong, /his/?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29UMACdfyZw
>>365634
They threw the vikings out, and much later the brits. Then again, they did both those things at a time when everyone was doing it.
3D Video games wouldn't exist and physics would have been held back if it wasn't for a single Irishman.
If you dont know who that is, you should go back and study your significant Irish figures.
Its June 22, 1941, your Adolf Hitler. How do you change operation Barbarossa to make it a German victory.
>>365292
Sending all Germans to gas camps.
>>365292
I abandon the Japs entirely, concentrate on driving towards Moscow and Leningrad before winter, and sue for peace with England.
>>365313
how would you be able to sue peace with church hill?
What'r /his/'s thoughts on the morality of uncontacted peoples in the modern world?
Everyone's first reaction seems to be 'leave them alone', but if you were in their place, would you want to remain in ignorance?
It's entirely possible the Sentinelese Islanders, for example, could remain uncontacted and unaware of the rest of the world in perpetuity, if that remains the policy of the Indian government. Humanity could be setting up colonies on Mars, and these people won't even know how to make fire.
>>364069
>but if you were in their place, would you want to remain in ignorance?
That seems to be quite clearly what they want. They question, should we care about their wishes? Does a collective have the right to maintain its integrity by preventing the individual from encountering other collectives or individuals? I'd say no, and our readiness to grant some warrior king or something the sufficient souvereignty to determine the fate of generations to come betrays a deep mistrust of our own civilization.
Interesting
but I think you are asking the wrong way, I think and I assume we all do that you would first have to KNOW you have been ignorant of something to identify that ignorance
Are these people aware they are ignorant?
Probably not
Is it morally correct to bring them to our age? well I think the answer obviously lies within your own definition of morals.
My personal feelings are that no the government should not protect them but would it benefit them?
Surely they would have longer life expectancy but they would also lose a self identity for a while which could possibly drive someone insane.
I can't put myself in their place completely because I am aware of my ignorance so The answer could only ever be subjective and in my opinion no objective argument could properly exist.
What went wrong?
Palestinians dont exist
>>363399
>Zionist movements in Europe
>Holocaust guilt
>Jewish settlers increase
>King David Hotel bombing by Jewish terrorists
>string of attacks by Jewish terrorists (Irgun, etc) against British authorities
You get the idea
>>363399
White guilt
How many of you think the holocaust happened?
I just did a few days of in depth research into treblinka and have come to the conclusion that the official story is a fabrication and nowhere near 700k people died there. I'd say a few thousand at the absolute MAXIMUM. Wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if I come to the same conclusion regarding auschiwtz, solibor etc.
I just came at it from a historical angle, nothing to do with race hatred or hitler loving. I would reccomend you do some research for yourself. When it first dawned on me that this actually didn't happen it blew my fucking mind. I used o think the stormfags on /pol/ were fucking crazy saying it until I looked into it myself.
What about you guys? Do you believe the official story?
>>362688
>I just did a few days of in depth research
Congratulations. Go write an academic paper, get it peer reviewed by others in the field, get it published, be praised for uncovering the international Jewish conspiracy, and acquire your Nobel Peace Prize.
>>362693
if it makes you feel any better my father is jewish and my mother is half maori
I'm not a stormweenie
Post alternate history here.
>>362637
>No Germany
Where will my blond boy toys come from then?
>>362637
>Mongols are Christianized
>join crusaders
>muslims BTFO
>Mongols convert their regions to Christianity
>Christianity has billions of more followers
>Mongol leaders become saints and shit
>>362637
Give Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg to France and that's perfect
The question to fellow atheists is, in a nutshell:
admitting the fact that we have so absurdely low odds of existing, how come do we exist?
Here are some facts:
The Universe exists. That is a fact. But it is also a fact that it came into existance. Scientists calculate, namely Penrose, that the odds of the Universe existing are 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros. (1)
But that's just the Universe. To exist, we also must have a home that we can call Earth. The very odds of Earth existing in its position in relation to tghe sun, its composition, its atmosphere, all that has the odds of
It is admitted by scientists that the odds of the Universe existing are 10 to the power of 23. That's 1 followed by 23 zeros.
In terms of life, the smallest genome known has 160,000 base pairs. If you provided a big soup of nucelotides, the odds of that genome forming are 1 in 4^160,000, about 10^100,000. The odds for the lottery are on the order of 1 in 10^8. For life to happen is like winning the lottery 12,000 times in a row.
So, multiplying the odds of the Universe existing by the odds of Earth existing by the odds of life existing, we have a 1 in 10^154 chance of existing right now. I'm not eving calculating the odds of human life existing as it is right now. 1 in 10 to the power of 154. The picture gives you an idea of how great that number is. Better yet, keep in mind that there are arround 10^80 atoms in the universe. The chances of us not existing is far, far greater than the amount of atoms in the Universe. multiplied by itself.(4)
So. With that in mind, do atheists actually believe that we were THAT lucky to exist? Don't you think this all was made by a creator? The chances are basically zero. The fact we have so little odds of existing makes it impossible for all of this not having been orchestrated by a Creator. It's logical to believe in God. So what do atheists think?
>>362108
Posting the sources from the statements.
(1) on the existance of the Universe
http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/
(2) on the existance of Earth
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang
(3) on the existance of life
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(4) on number of atoms in the Universe
http://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/
>>362108
>The Universe exists. That is a fact.
>But it is also a fact that it came into existance.
No, that is not a fact.
>Scientists calculate, namely Penrose, that the odds of the Universe existing are 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros
What the hell does that even mean, and how does one calculate it?
>The very odds of Earth existing in its position in relation to tghe sun, its composition, its atmosphere, all that has the odds of
It is admitted by scientists that the odds of the Universe existing are 10 to the power of 23
Again, how is this calculated? And if the universe is infinite, which it seems to be, then it doesn't matter how "improbable" life is. It is bound to happen. I wouldn't say the universe is made for life either, if the universe is good at anything it is making black holes.
> keep in mind that there are arround 10^80 atoms in the universe
I'm pretty sure you mean OBSERVABLE universe.
>The fact we have so little odds of existing makes it impossible for all of this not having been orchestrated by a Creator
Why? If the universe is so complicated and fine-tuned that it has a minuscule chance of existing then a universe creator must also have a minuscule chance of existing, since anything that can create universes must be more complicated and fine-tuned than the universe.
Post them here
Is line warfare the most uninteresting type of warfare there is? Uniforms from that era are the very definition of uncool, two rows blasting at each other hoping they will hit is not entertaining to read about or watch, the weapons are not very interesting either those wars were just so fucking boring
>I get my history from movies and games
Thanks for sharing OP
>>361464
Well depending on your definition almost all warfare that isn't tribal warfare was line warfare until 1860. The Romans and vikings fought in lines too.
That said you mean strictly 1700-1815 stuff you should look a bit more into it. Especially cavalry did some interesting things in those days.
ITT: standpoints that trigger you
>consciousness is just an illusion, we're all just atoms and stuff
>communism is good in theory
>>361004
>consciousness isn't just an emergent property of our pattern
>>361011
oh shit, that one especially
What leaders in History never lost a battle?
Muhammad (pbuh)
>>360824
Scipio Africanus
Alexander The Great (beware of Macedonian bias)
Hamilcar Barca
Scipio Africanus
What was Africa like prior to colonialism? It probably wasn't as bad as it is now, but was it comparable to any Middle eastern states at the time?
People in the early stages of civilisation, some people still in the tribal stage.
Where did Protestantism go wrong?
>>359671
By being part of Christianity
>>359671
Promoting the idea of a church with no centralised leadership or regulated structure, opening the door to a hundred dipshit breakaway churches.
