Boston Marathon Bombing

[timwakefield 68]

You specified Western attacks, which eliminates almost everything on that list. If we're including the entire world, make sure you point out all the drones and bombs dropped in Middle Eastern countries by the West over the last 40 years or so.

 

No. That was a different discussion. Bob said if there's an attack in London it's probably jihadists. You lol'ed, saying his one example is not enough. I gave a number of examples of jihadist attacks around the world. My point was that jihadists regularly attack innocent civilians in countries they don't like. England is one of those countries. America is another. Please try to keep up.

[timwakefield 68]

Tim, what do you think of the studies that show that 10-15% of muslims are of the radical islam variety?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfFhCwvluVM

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCOQukCn0kg

[mrdannyg 274]

So they followed the law, the one that says they can wait 48 hours, and your point is that they 'could' have disobeyed the law and that makes them bad?

 

 

 

Saying something over and over again without proving it is called rhetoric.

 

Feel free to show how the Bible commands it's followers to put non-believers to the sword.

 

The article I linked says indefinite. If the actual law is 48 hours, I'd be interested in reading about it. Why are we restricting our search to non-believers? If the radical Islamists were only attacking non-believers, they would have a lot more targets. They DO NOT have ANY good reasons for attacking the United States (in particular, public situations in major cities), but the reasons they choose goes a lot deeper than non-belief.

 

I don't need to quote specific passages - my good friend Godwin will help me with this, as I can point to Hitler as someone who advocated "Christianity" and pointed to its teachings (or more accurately, his twisted and very wrong interpretations of its teachings) to support his actions.

 

Words mean nothing without the context in which they are written and interpreted. I will acknowledge that any kind of fair reading of both texts will find Islamists texts to be more violent and unforgiving than any Christian texts. But there have been billions of Muslims and Christians through history who have read those texts, and their actions are a lot more important than words. Do we need to examine the hate and murder throughout history done in the name of Christianity?

 

We live in a world where there are small pockets of extremists who misinterpret texts read by millions to devote their life to hate. In the Middle East, some of these people become murderers. In the United States, well, I think one of your favourites is on the radio.

 

YOU are the one equating conservative Christianity with radical Islamism. YOU. The KKK is not representative of "conservative Christianity."

 

In fact, the KKK is a relatively good analogy to help us understand radical Islamism, though the KKK is certainly less violent and widespread than radical Islamism at this point in history. But what you don't understand is that I'm not talking about Islam in general. Radical Islamism is not the same as Islam. I've stated this about 17 times now but you keep pretending to not understand it, or maybe you really don't understand it. Radical Islamism is a radical offshoot of Islam. Radical Islamism is a radical offshoot of Islam. Radical Islamism is a radical offshoot of Islam. Radical Islamism is a radical offshoot of Islam. Conservative Christianity is a generally non-violent, non-radical sect of Christianity. The comparison is laughable.

 

I completely understand that - I guess we're agreeing then, since that has basically been my point. Maybe you could read any of my earlier posts that stated explicitly that this should not be considered typical of Muslims, which is what started everything. Unless you agree with BG that something resembling 80% of mosques in the United States are led by "radicals."

 

No. That was a different discussion. Bob said if there's an attack in London it's probably jihadists. You lol'ed, saying his one example is not enough. I gave a number of examples of jihadist attacks around the world. My point was that jihadists regularly attack innocent civilians in countries they don't like. England is one of those countries. America is another. Please try to keep up.

 

It was originally in response to a point about this being part of a "pattern" of attacks in the West. if we're going to expand the scope to allow murderous explosions from around the world, it's quite a different discussion.

[timwakefield 68]

It was originally in response to a point about this being part of a "pattern" of attacks in the West. if we're going to expand the scope to allow murderous explosions from around the world, it's quite a different discussion.

 

I don't think it is a different discussion. Most bombings against random civilians around the world are carried out by radical jihadists. Most bombings against random civilians in the West are also carried out by radical jihadists.

[GWCGWC 83]

See, thing is that Bigfoot isn't something I believe in but I think it's extremely presumptuous to say it's impossible for a large bipedal mammal to exist without detection on the N. American continent. I do know it's becomes more and more unlikely as the decades pass but I'm still not ruling it out and neither can anyone else.

 

A belief that the world is less than 10K yrs old is based on a literalistic interpretation of the christian bible. Those people take that shit as like.....really.....actually happening along with most of the other stories.

 

Astrology is pattern mapping coupled with the urge to believe in something. Of course it exploits the people who choose to believe in it but Astrology isn't nearly as effectively as other religious beliefs.

 

The rate of autism has gone up an insane amount over the last 30 years. It's pretty disturbing. One could certainly argue that the term autism is a catch all given the diagnostic procedures(that's not the right term) but there's no doubt that a sharp increase in children with medical, mental and developmental issues has been trending up at a crazy high rate over the past three decades. I do know that vaccines have been used far longer than that. Also, the first published study linking vaccines to autism was soundly debunked by the medical community and different reviews. I don't know much about vaccines but there is always a small percentage of recipients that will have a bad reaction to anything introduced to the human body. There is little doubt the increase is at least partly due to environmental factors whether they be vaccines, fluoride in the water or all the radio waves constantly passing through our bodies. It'd be nice if we could figure that shit out. It's a numbers game and my kids would certainly get vaccinated if I were a breeder. Every single parent who has a child with issues wants an answer as to why this happened to their baby. Every single one. Again, this will leave them vulnerable to exploitation by both the medical and the pseudo-medical communities. I have first hand knowledge and been a part of this loop.

 

 

People don't actually believe humans have any impact on the earths atmosphere but instead it's just the earths natural cycle. Thing is, I'm quite certain more than one poster in this very thread will deny global warming is being created by humans but they don't really believe it. I find that odd.

 

 

 

10K yr old earth, Astrology, Bigfoot and vaccines causing autism; one of these things is not like the other.

[Balloon guy 158]

Do we need to examine the hate and murder throughout history done in the name of Christianity?

 

Not only do I want to re-examine this, I am going to spot you all religions throughout history and compare them to the number of deaths by non-religious people who have only been around post Darwin and used his faulty theory to justify their actions!

 

Ready when you are.

 

Unless you agree with BG that something resembling 80% of mosques in the United States are led by "radicals."

 

I actually only linked another person's findings...so to attribute them to me as if they are a number I made up shows that facts are not your goal here. Misdirection and obfuscation are the goal you are seeking.

[CraigKrill 1]

Your thought process as shown by you doubling down on a really really dumb statement is astounding.

 

They used what they had access to. They didn't have 500 KG of Semtex or some radioactive medical waste to make a dirty bomb.

 

Saying that oh they aren't so bad since they only set off a Claymore Mine like bomb and not something really really nasty is amazing.

 

 

It's about what you have access too and the reaction that's created by it. I would contend that the value is in the reaction afterward, the fear, the loss of human life isn't even really the goal. It's the slow degradation of the heart that is the goal.

 

For example, if I wanted to create real fear on a college campus, I wouldn't go into a stabbing frenzy in broad daylight and get caught. I would stab one person at a time over the course of weeks until the college was basically inoperable. One man, one blade.

 

Anyone who doesn't get how effective this bomb was doesn't understand the basic human psyche.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Not only do I want to re-examine this, I am going to spot you all religions throughout history and compare them to the number of deaths by non-religious people who have only been around post Darwin and used his faulty theory to justify their actions!

 

Ready when you are.

 

 

 

I actually only linked another person's findings...so to attribute them to me as if they are a number I made up shows that facts are not your goal here. Misdirection and obfuscation are the goal you are seeking.

 

Umm, okay. But you can't use Hitler or Stalin since that's where you are going with this. Hitler was influenced and aided by Christians. Stalin didn't kill in the name of athiesm, they simply had an unethical ideology. But can we agree that any ideology that harms that leads to the harm of innocent people is unethical? Religon has been used as a defense and a supporting reason for war, as has Nationalism and Empire building etc..

[Balloon guy 158]

Umm, okay. But you can't use Hitler or Stalin since that's where you are going with this. Hitler was influenced and aided by Christians. Stalin didn't kill in the name of athiesm, they simply had an unethical ideology. But can we agree that any ideology that harms that leads to the harm of innocent people is unethical? Religon has been used as a defense and a supporting reason for war, as has Nationalism and Empire building etc..

 

I can't use people who used darwinian evolution as a justification for their actions, who's governments espoused a removal of all religions from society, and who personally did not believe in God?

 

 

Okay, but then you can't use any wars or invasions that had any political realities mixed in with any religious intent, nor can you use any person who used the Bible in pieces to justify his actions, while denying the whole message by his actions.

 

So no using the crusades because those had mixed in with their religious reasons, political needs to cull the herd and distract from the horrible serfdoms that were beginning to be threatened by uprisings, nor any actions of the Catholic church who was exerting power and control issues over countries, not religious reasons.

 

I'll give you the entire 200 year inquisition though.

[mrdannyg 274]

I don't think it is a different discussion. Most bombings against random civilians around the world are carried out by radical jihadists. Most bombings against random civilians in the West are also carried out by radical jihadists.

 

Are we not counting government actions?

 

Not only do I want to re-examine this, I am going to spot you all religions throughout history and compare them to the number of deaths by non-religious people who have only been around post Darwin and used his faulty theory to justify their actions!

 

Ready when you are.

 

 

 

I actually only linked another person's findings...so to attribute them to me as if they are a number I made up shows that facts are not your goal here. Misdirection and obfuscation are the goal you are seeking.

 

Thanks for taking part of this Tim, I'm not interested in such a laughable discussion. And I attributed them to you because you linked a single study who's basic premise was a definition of "radical" that was not the basis of our discussion.

 

It's about what you have access too and the reaction that's created by it. I would contend that the value is in the reaction afterward, the fear, the loss of human life isn't even really the goal. It's the slow degradation of the heart that is the goal.

 

For example, if I wanted to create real fear on a college campus, I wouldn't go into a stabbing frenzy in broad daylight and get caught. I would stab one person at a time over the course of weeks until the college was basically inoperable. One man, one blade.

 

Anyone who doesn't get how effective this bomb was doesn't understand the basic human psyche.

 

I agree, except that I'm not sure how you can argue that the bombing in Boston is closer to the second example than the first. It was a big, public, one-off situation. It's done, the guys are dead or in custody, and we have no reason to believe they are part of anything bigger. Anyone who continues to be scared from this situation doesn't understand the theory of large numbers and should be downright terrified of being attacked by a bear or struck by lightning.

[Balloon guy 158]

So you think the government should not look into the possibility that a bombing in a sporting event to inflect as much damage as possible like in a directive from al qeada a year ago, might be part of a larger plan?

 

Because you know enough about the subject to make that determination?

 

Or should the government be responsible for the safety of its citizens?

[JustDoIt 10]

So you think the government should not look into the possibility that a bombing in a sporting event to inflect as much damage as possible like in a directive from al qeada a year ago, might be part of a larger plan?

 

Because you know enough about the subject to make that determination?

 

Or should the government be responsible for the safety of its citizens?

 

Evidently not. It is obvious the Danny does not believe in the theory that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then it is a duck.

[mrdannyg 274]

So you think the government should not look into the possibility that a bombing in a sporting event to inflect as much damage as possible like in a directive from al qeada a year ago, might be part of a larger plan?

 

Because you know enough about the subject to make that determination?

 

Or should the government be responsible for the safety of its citizens?

 

I absolutely believe your government should provide significant funding to anti-terrorist areas, like Homeland Security, as the United States is unfairly a target of a lot of people these days. As per usual, I'm responding to a strawman, since arguing that there should be no funding is completely different than arguing as to whether the general citizenship should constantly live in fear of attacks that occur very rarely (which we can fairly assume happen rarely because you have very well funded government agencies who protect against that type of attack).

 

When Nate Bell trolled Boston citizens by saying they wished they had guns while they were hunkered down, the most common response was "no, we trust the police." They were scared at the time (I assume), but that's because the police had advised of an immediate and extreme threat. In general, they remain not scared, because they trust that the people they entrust their safety to (police, government, etc), are doing a good job. I trust that the next terrorist attack (hopefully there isn't one) on American soil will be at least another 12 years away, and it won't be because everyone walked around terrified of that guy in a turban or woman in a burka, but because your government is absolutely fantastic at detecting and immobilizing threats.

 

Evidently not. It is obvious the Danny does not believe in the theory that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then it is a duck.

 

I have a hard time believing people can actually be this stupid. This was a white guy who talked with a Russian accent (I assume). We're calling him a radical Islamic terrorist (I'm not disagreeing). You think he "walks" or "talks" like other radical Islamic terrorists?

 

You are taking this to reinforce stereotypes about radical Islamic terrorists, even though until 30 seconds before that bomb went off, neither you nor anyone else who doesn't work for Homeland Security would've identified anything suspicious about him. Basically, you are using him to back up 12-year old suspicions about a completely different group of people.

[GWCGWC 83]

I put Bigfoot in the UFO category. Of course, UFO is an incorrect term to use because by the very definition of UFO means it exists but can't be identified. Having said that, people generally think flying saucer from outer space when the term UFO is presented so that's how I'm using it in this case. Anyway, both bigfoot and UFO's have people who chase around and actively look for proof of their existence but those chasers always seem to come across at least slightly canted in personality and intellect. But there are also super credible sightings of both from otherwise citizens that would be considered rock solid witnesses to any other event.

 

I have no doubt there's life as we know it somewhere else in the universe because.....well, math. This isn't to say I believe in UFO's. I JUST DON'T KNOW! Thing is, neither does anyone else.

 

I think using crop circles, the Loch Ness Monster, chupacabra or any number of hoax style beliefs that have gotten into the public consciousness are better examples of the extreme silliness people are willing to believe in than bigfoot.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Well, wipe the egg of some faces. All the people complaining and well, the 24 hour assault by Fox news on Islamic terrorists and it appears they were in fact NOT Islamic terrorists. Probably something closer to the kids who shot up Colombine. That is they were not members of a terrorist organization. If they were influenced it probably more along the lines of the Sandy Hook killer being influenced by video games.

 

If we really want to talk about reducing violence I think the best starting place would be Inequality. In Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature, Why violence has declined" he outlined why inequality will spur dissenfranchised youth into revolt and violent acts. What the Boston Bombers did was akin to an inner city kid joining a gang.

 

Violent background, divorced parents and turbulent home along with an abusive father. Feeling of dissconnect with society. The older brother struggled in school and work. The Chechnyan culture is one of an extremely strong male figure. Hell they laugh at Russian men for being weak. Failing to live up to that standard could have added to this as well. And I'm sure mom getting busted for shoplifting and leaving the country helped a lot with especially the younger bro's feelings of abandonment.

 

Lots of people carped, laughed and scowled on the person in the link a few pages back that asked, 'What have we done wrong? What more could we have done?" But the reality is to reduce violence in America, it is a very valid question. It sounds like many of these things added into their dissenfrachisment with society and life in general and fueled some rage. Islam was there to provide an outlet for it, but it could have easily been something else.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I put Bigfoot in the UFO category. Of course, UFO is an incorrect term to use because by the very definition of UFO means it exists but can't be identified. Having said that, people generally think flying saucer from outer space when the term UFO is presented so that's how I'm using it in this case. Anyway, both bigfoot and UFO's have people who chase around and actively look for proof of their existence but those chasers always seem to come across at least slightly canted in personality and intellect. But there are also super credible sightings of both from otherwise citizens that would be considered rock solid witnesses to any other event.

 

I have no doubt there's life as we know it somewhere else in the universe because.....well, math. This isn't to say I believe in UFO's. I JUST DON'T KNOW! Thing is, neither does anyone else.

 

I think using crop circles, the Loch Ness Monster, chupacabra or any number of hoax style beliefs that have gotten into the public consciousness are better examples of the extreme silliness people are willing to believe in than bigfoot.

 

The problem with UFO's is that even if one could travel at the speed of light, which it can't. If we wanted to travel to the nearest suspected exoplanet that might hold possible life, it would only take about 180,000 years at 90% of light speed. I mean, in all likelyhood some species traveling a million years or so to get here wouldn't stop and nab cows, or probe vaginas. They would simply steal any resources they needed and stomp us like out like a bad coke habit.

 

Their is nothing unethical about believing in Bigfoot, aliens, astrology up to a point. Some of these things can lead the most strident believers to become obsessive and life consuming, costing them jobs, relationshops, and even medical and pyshological issues. I think it's important we always encourage people to have "true beliefs" and not supernatural or superstitious ones.

 

Also, there isn't a great movement to "teach the controversy" of those things above to students in schools like there is with creationism. Ignoring real science to teach them would be as unethical as it is teaching creationism.

[timwakefield 68]

If we wanted to travel to the nearest suspected exoplanet that might hold possible life, it would only take about 180,000 years at 90% of light speed.

 

This is drastically incorrect. There are a number of confirmed as well as suspected exoplanets which are potentially habitable and are less than 100 light years away. "Gliese 667C c" is an example of a confirmed exoplanet which is believed to be potentially habitable. At 23.6 light years away from Earth, it would take less than 30 years to reach at 90% the speed of light.

 

With the best currently proposed experimental technology (solar sails, for example), it would take some number of thousands of years to get there, although far less than 180,000.

[JustDoIt 10]

Well, wipe the egg of some faces. All the people complaining and well, the 24 hour assault by Fox news on Islamic terrorists and it appears they were in fact NOT Islamic terrorists. Probably something closer to the kids who shot up Colombine. That is they were not members of a terrorist organization. If they were influenced it probably more along the lines of the Sandy Hook killer being influenced by video games.

 

If we really want to talk about reducing violence I think the best starting place would be Inequality. In Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature, Why violence has declined" he outlined why inequality will spur dissenfranchised youth into revolt and violent acts. What the Boston Bombers did was akin to an inner city kid joining a gang.

 

Violent background, divorced parents and turbulent home along with an abusive father. Feeling of dissconnect with society. The older brother struggled in school and work. The Chechnyan culture is one of an extremely strong male figure. Hell they laugh at Russian men for being weak. Failing to live up to that standard could have added to this as well. And I'm sure mom getting busted for shoplifting and leaving the country helped a lot with especially the younger bro's feelings of abandonment.

 

Lots of people carped, laughed and scowled on the person in the link a few pages back that asked, 'What have we done wrong? What more could we have done?" But the reality is to reduce violence in America, it is a very valid question. It sounds like many of these things added into their dissenfrachisment with society and life in general and fueled some rage. Islam was there to provide an outlet for it, but it could have easily been something else.

 

LOL, Well, wipe the egg of some faces then you fall into the same mentality. Yes, the older brother was a Islamic terrorist and the younger brother was probably just a follower.

There is so much more to be investigated and much more will come out. We do not know who Misha is (refer to following link) and we do not know the whole story of what went on in Russia. It is way to early to say they were or were not influenced or members of a terrorist organization.

 

Bomb suspect influenced by mysterious radical

By ADAM GOLDMAN, ERIC TUCKER and MATT APUZZO

— Apr. 23 8:47 PM EDT

http://bigstory.ap.o...terious-radical

 

Edit: Forgot this which is important

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/23/boston-mosque-radicals/2101411/

 

 

And yes we do have home grown terrorist.

 

FBI video: Domestic terrorist says he targeted conservative group for being ‘anti-gay’

http://washingtonexa...article/2528072

[Balloon guy 158]

The problem with UFO's is that even if one could travel at the speed of light, which it can't. If we wanted to travel to the nearest suspected exoplanet that might hold possible life, it would only take about 180,000 years at 90% of light speed. I mean, in all likelyhood some species traveling a million years or so to get here wouldn't stop and nab cows, or probe vaginas. They would simply steal any resources they needed and stomp us like out like a bad coke habit.

 

Their is nothing unethical about believing in Bigfoot, aliens, astrology up to a point. Some of these things can lead the most strident believers to become obsessive and life consuming, costing them jobs, relationshops, and even medical and pyshological issues. I think it's important we always encourage people to have "true beliefs" and not supernatural or superstitious ones.

 

Also, there isn't a great movement to "teach the controversy" of those things above to students in schools like there is with creationism. Ignoring real science to teach them would be as unethical as it is teaching creationism.

 

This actually fits with your objection to the ability of Christianity to be true also.

 

You force things into the narrow box of things you understand, prove they can't work based on those narrow parameters, then declare victory.

 

If space travel is happening, it is possible that the propulsion/travel science being used is above our understanding.

 

And if God made the universe, it is possible that the methods He employed are beyond your ken.

 

There was a really good book that you will never read about this. It was called Your God is Too Small

[Balloon guy 158]

LOL, Well, wipe the egg of some faces then you fall into the same mentality. Yes, the older brother was a Islamic terrorist and the younger brother was probably just a follower.

There is so much more to be investigated and much more will come out. We do not know who Misha is (refer to following link) and we do not know the whole story of what went on in Russia. It is way to early to say they were or were not influenced or members of a terrorist organization.

 

Bomb suspect influenced by mysterious radical

By ADAM GOLDMAN, ERIC TUCKER and MATT APUZZO

— Apr. 23 8:47 PM EDT

http://bigstory.ap.o...terious-radical

 

Edit: Forgot this which is important

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

 

http://www.usatoday....dicals/2101411/

 

 

And yes we do have home grown terrorist.

 

FBI video: Domestic terrorist says he targeted conservative group for being ‘anti-gay’

http://washingtonexa...article/2528072

 

I'm sure RTB has plenty of proof that the two brothers were not muslims or acting with any intention to kill unbelievers in support of jihad.

 

And I'm sure he is going to show us his proof soon.

 

I doubt very much he will deflect.

[GWCGWC 83]

The problem with UFO's is that even if one could travel at the speed of light, which it can't. If we wanted to travel to the nearest suspected exoplanet that might hold possible life, it would only take about 180,000 years at 90% of light speed. I mean, in all likelyhood some species traveling a million years or so to get here wouldn't stop and nab cows, or probe vaginas. They would simply steal any resources they needed and stomp us like out like a bad coke habit.

 

Wormholes dude! Heh, let's not limit ourselves to human technology but instead only our human imaginations...wink wink.

 

I agree that everything we know about life says that an alien species that has the ability to reach earth would only do so with the intention of taking whatever would compel them to make the journey. Certainly not for altruistic reasons.

 

Then again, we don't know.

 

Their is nothing unethical about believing in Bigfoot, aliens, astrology up to a point. Some of these things can lead the most strident believers to become obsessive and life consuming, costing them jobs, relationshops, and even medical and pyshological issues. I think it's important we always encourage people to have "true beliefs" and not supernatural or superstitious ones.

 

I like how you tried to stay on topic by delving back into belief systems and how those systems can either be a net benefit or a net negative. Good on ya.

 

Beliefs systems are hard to work around since everyone has their own and they are completely fabricated by their perception of reality which is also totally fabricated by the interpretation of input by our brains psyche. Nobody can step outside this system or transcend the process because output is predicated on input.

 

 

 

 

Also, there isn't a great movement to "teach the controversy" of those things above to students in schools like there is with creationism. Ignoring real science to teach them would be as unethical as it is teaching creationism.

 

Ethics is a sliding scale of hypocrisy but never mind that.

 

Is it possible that there is a bigfoot community of animals living somewhere on north america? Easy answer given the wording. How about we change possible to probable? Now you have to bring in your own perception bias to answer the question. I'm going assume you'd answer it's very unlikely given how you lumped bigfoot in with other examples of super wacky beliefs from your first post about the existence of bigfoot.

 

If a bigfoot community does exist, would you want bigfoot to be discovered given what you believe about the whole of humanity?

[GWCGWC 83]

Also, I am not insane.

 

 

 

At least, I don't think I am.

[Roll the Bones 74]

LOL, Well, wipe the egg of some faces then you fall into the same mentality. Yes, the older brother was a Islamic terrorist and the younger brother was probably just a follower.

There is so much more to be investigated and much more will come out. We do not know who Misha is (refer to following link) and we do not know the whole story of what went on in Russia. It is way to early to say they were or were not influenced or members of a terrorist organization.

 

Bomb suspect influenced by mysterious radical

By ADAM GOLDMAN, ERIC TUCKER and MATT APUZZO

— Apr. 23 8:47 PM EDT

http://bigstory.ap.o...terious-radical

 

Edit: Forgot this which is important

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

 

http://www.usatoday....dicals/2101411/

 

 

And yes we do have home grown terrorist.

 

FBI video: Domestic terrorist says he targeted conservative group for being ‘anti-gay’

http://washingtonexa...article/2528072

 

Innuendo, suspected ties, yadda yadda... I suppose the Sandy Hook shooter was a terrorist as well? We have idiots that shoot people and cause violence every.single.day who are not called terrorists. They were not part of a foreign group like Al Queda sent or planted here to be terrorists.

[Roll the Bones 74]

This actually fits with your objection to the ability of Christianity to be true also.

 

You force things into the narrow box of things you understand, prove they can't work based on those narrow parameters, then declare victory.

 

If space travel is happening, it is possible that the propulsion/travel science being used is above our understanding.

 

And if God made the universe, it is possible that the methods He employed are beyond your ken.

 

There was a really good book that you will never read about this. It was called Your God is Too Small

 

So, you are accusing me of looking in a "narrow box" because after examing all the evidence available I didn't choose the "narrow box" that you want me to with out any evidence for that being true. You want me to have faith, which is, "believing in something you don't know to be true". So let me ask you, "Why don't you consider the natural explanation?" Why don't you consider what every.single.fact points too? Why won't you look outside the narrow box of what you wer brought up to believe?

 

I mean, you want me to consider things outside of our knowledge and scope and arrive at YOUR mythical explanation. Why not others? How about considering a giant turtle burbed us into existence? Either case is simply a fantasy explanation. Why does it have to be your god out of all the possiblities? And why don't you think outside of the narow box and consider the Norse Gods, or the Indian Gods, or the Greek gods? Or you know, no God?

[Roll the Bones 74]

 

I like how you tried to stay on topic by delving back into belief systems and how those systems can either be a net benefit or a net negative. Good on ya.

 

Beliefs systems are hard to work around since everyone has their own and they are completely fabricated by their perception of reality which is also totally fabricated by the interpretation of input by our brains psyche. Nobody can step outside this system or transcend the process because output is predicated on input.

 

 

But there are ways of finding out if our beliefs are true or not. There is math. There are experts, There is peer reviewed science. Their is personal observation. Testing. Etc.. You don't jump off a building i an attempt to fly for good reason.

 

 

 

Beliefs can be changed. Ethics is about figuring out... actually, desires. Desire is the only reason for intentional action that exists. Beliefs plus desire lead to intentional action. Beliefs matter, they have started wars and caused divorces. But a belief in and of itself doesn't harm anyone without some action. Belileving in creationism isn't harmful if that person kept it to themselves, but demanding we eschew science and teach it to children is harmful for instance. Morality is about using social forces to influence desires. We can praise or reward, condemn or punish good or bad desires. So if you say we can't determine if a belief is unethical, I can agree. But I would say we can determine if we should act to encourage or thwart other's desires.

 

Ethics is a sliding scale of hypocrisy but never mind that.

 

Is it possible that there is a bigfoot community of animals living somewhere on north america? Easy answer given the wording. How about we change possible to probable? Now you have to bring in your own perception bias to answer the question. I'm going assume you'd answer it's very unlikely given how you lumped bigfoot in with other examples of super wacky beliefs from your first post about the existence of bigfoot.

 

If a bigfoot community does exist, would you want bigfoot to be discovered given what you believe about the whole of humanity?

 

There is zero evidence that there is a bigfoot community living in North America so I don't give it much thought. I also don't think much about unicorns or leprechauns or ghosts. If there was evidence for anything from Bigfoot to God I would be open to consider it. But I mostly go with the natural explanation and what is most likely.

 

The Believing Brain by Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine has written extensively on these subjects and why smart people believe seemingly odd things.