Boston Marathon Bombing

[JustDoIt 10]

I suppose the Sandy Hook shooter was a terrorist as well?

 

Naw, you hit a Home Run on that one. He was definitely influenced by video games which amazingly was not really addressed and he definitely had mental problems. Keeping a 7 by 4 foot spreadsheet on mass killing he was really sick.

[Balloon guy 158]

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?

 

You should quit reading those 'popular' atheist books.

 

They fail miserably in logic and sense, and you are being affected.

 

And for the record, I was raised not believing in anything, I didn't come to Christ till my 20s. So you'll need to open up the narrow box you've placed me in and allow for the radical thought that the reason many PHDs and intelligent people believe in God is because it is logical to do so.

 

As far as what faith is, what you are describing is probably a better descriptive of a person who bases their belief that a universe that has as a natural law that no matter can be created or destroyed, was first busy creating matter out of nothing in a singular event of unknown origin that cannot be proven from science because there is nothing to relate it too on any scale.

[mrdannyg 274]

So, we should all believe in God because science is really really complicated and "belief" ("faith" not required) is apparently enough to keep us out of hell. Cool.

[Balloon guy 158]

OOOOORRRRR

 

Don't bash a religion using poorly thought out conclusions and expect to get away with it just because you're normal world view is never challenged by anything you watch read or talk about.

 

 

But I can see why the response I got was more poorly thought out conclusions trying to twist my point into something that maybe if you close your eyes really hard, you can pretend was actually the point.

[mrdannyg 274]

OOOOORRRRR

 

Don't bash a religion using poorly thought out conclusions and expect to get away with it just because you're normal world view is never challenged by anything you watch read or talk about.

 

 

But I can see why the response I got was more poorly thought out conclusions trying to twist my point into something that maybe if you close your eyes really hard, you can pretend was actually the point.

 

All of your points fall back to that. To be clear, I'm not an atheist. That requires a burden of proof that I believe to be just as impossible as religious beliefs. Religion requires faith and action. Accordingly, the burden of proof falls on the religious. It is the opinion of the majority of people (including many religious people) that acceptance of a religion's principles requires "faith," which by definition acknowledges a lack of proof. You can argue that accepting the 'Big Bang' and other science also requires proof (since it can't be duplicated and I couldn't explain it), but that's different of course, because accepting science does not require any action on my part.

 

It is my personal decision to not live my live according to principles which I have the choice to accept (so even though I can't 'prove' gravity, I still live accordingly) and for which do not meet even a basic level of proof. I am thankful that at no point in my life have I been unable to use my own strength to get through difficulty or make a decision (which doesn't take anything away from those that needed help - I am lucky to have lived a very easy life), and so it seems illogical to me that anyone who has not been challenged beyond their own capabilities would accept a position requiring significant action on 'faith'.

 

You will note that my opinion also allows for people who believe they have proof - whether it be contact or advice that they feel to be supernatural or anything else - to maintain their belief while still being grounded in logic.

 

Flame away.

[GWCGWC 83]

The other part of your post; cool.

 

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.

 

YOU DID IT AGAIN and because it was intentional, I say well played.

[JustDoIt 10]

So, we should all believe in God because science is really really complicated and "belief" ("faith" not required) is apparently enough to keep us out of hell. Cool.

 

I sure you would agree that we should all live our lives following the principals of the Ten Commandments. No conflicts there.

[mrdannyg 274]

I can't even tell when some of you are joking.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I sure you would agree that we should all live our lives following the principals of the Ten Commandments. No conflicts there.

 

I think you mean the Golden Rule

[colonel Feathers 5]

I think you mean the Golden Rule

The golden rule, while well played, doesnt work well in masochistic circles.

[Roll the Bones 74]

OOOOORRRRR

 

Don't bash a religion using poorly thought out conclusions and expect to get away with it just because you're normal world view is never challenged by anything you watch read or talk about.

 

 

But I can see why the response I got was more poorly thought out conclusions trying to twist my point into something that maybe if you close your eyes really hard, you can pretend was actually the point.

 

So, why won't you consider the natural explanation instead of a supernatural one with no evidence?

 

You should quit reading those 'popular' atheist books.

 

 

As far as what faith is, what you are describing is probably a better descriptive of a person who bases their belief that a universe that has as a natural law that no matter can be created or destroyed, was first busy creating matter out of nothing in a singular event of unknown origin that cannot be proven from science because there is nothing to relate it too on any scale.

 

Perhaps you should take some of them up and learn something. Along with some of the new science bookslike Krauss', "A universe from nothing". Trying to to imply that energy and matter can't be created thus there is omnipotent God who poofed it into existence and made us so that we can grovel to him is pretty far out there by any account.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Oh, and as I surmised the bomber hiding in the boat did not have a gun. The shoot out was not actually a shoot out.

[Balloon guy 158]

Oh, and as I surmised the bomber hiding in the boat did not have a gun. The shoot out was not actually a shoot out.

 

The kids he killed didn't have a bomb either

[Balloon guy 158]

So, why won't you consider the natural explanation instead of a supernatural one with no evidence?

 

 

 

Perhaps you should take some of them up and learn something. Along with some of the new science bookslike Krauss', "A universe from nothing". Trying to to imply that energy and matter can't be created thus there is omnipotent God who poofed it into existence and made us so that we can grovel to him is pretty far out there by any account.

 

The need to poison the argument is the most telling part of your posts.

 

They won't stand on their own merit I guess

[Roll the Bones 74]

The kids he killed didn't have a bomb either

 

I wasn't speaking to his deplorable actions, just the missinformation from the media and from the police regarding the events. There was a great article in the Boston Globe Sunday on the timeline and clarifications of many of the events. Immediately after the kid was caught in the boat there was a press conference which millions watched. The police chief stood there and claimed that the kid fired shots and the police returned fire in a shootout. That was false. When the first officers went to approach the boat they saw the canvas top move, paniced and once one cop started shooting, the rest joined in and unleashed over 200 bullets into it. Still not clear, but I think was obvious, they were rubber bullets or something or their wouldn't be much boat left.

 

Other clarifications or things that refuted the initial reports. The older brother when found was wearing explosives strapped to his body. Not true.

 

There were other reports of various incidents and bombs around town, stolen Honda, subway incident, etc., none of which had anything to do with the bombers.

 

The cop who shot the older brother was an expert marksman and teacher at the academy. He went through back yards and snuck up beside him and opened fire, (exchanged fire).. The older brother ran out of bullets and flung the gun at the cop. While shot, he turned and ran out into the street with the bomb and threw it at the cops before being blasted some more by the police in place. Those bullets hit the initial cop, the marksman, and almost killed him. The bullet hit his groin and he almost bled out. It took both EMT's and another cop working on him on the way to the hospital to revive him. One of the cops actually drove the ambulance.

 

The younger brother hiding in the boat was a 1/4 mile from where he left the car. When the cops set up the perimeter, they assumed he kept heading in the same direction and it never occured to them, enough to look anyway, that he might have doubled back a block. He was practically in sight of where they set up the media barrier and thousands of cops likely passed the house during the day. The kid didn't have a gun. HIs wounds were most likely from the shrapnel explosion, (neck and ear) and groin, or possibly from the "shootout" wear he lay near death being bombarded with rubber bullets, flashbangs and such.

 

Much of this is simply downplayed because we should probably and rightfully be given credit to cops for their bravery and risking their lives to save others. That doesn't give them the right to lie or missinform the public either. Just be straight up about it and don't feed the conspiracy theorists.

[Roll the Bones 74]

The need to poison the argument is the most telling part of your posts.

 

They won't stand on their own merit I guess

 

So why won't you consider the natural explanation??

[colonel Feathers 5]

So why won't you consider the natural explanation??

I am really neutral on this. So please explain the natural explanation. Taking into account that matter cannot be created, nor energy destroyed.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I am really neutral on this. So please explain the natural explanation. Taking into account that matter cannot be created, nor energy destroyed.

 

If you get time I would suggest this wildly popular video from Krauss on the subject, over a million youtube views.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

 

I suggest Krauss because I think he is easier to follow than Hawkings and others attempts to explain the big bang, creation, etc..

 

The short answer is that the philosophical or theological notion of "nothing" isn't the same as in science. There really isn't "nothing", as I think most picture something akin to the inside of a vacuum, and particles can be created out of that "seeming" nothingness which Krauss explains. In fact, they have to. Or if it makes more sense, there was never really "nothing" to begin with. The other contention is that the universe isn't a closed system as the 2nd law refers.

 

I'm no physicist obviously, but thre are seemingly well thought out explanations from experts in the field that explain it "naturally". Picking out a few of these purported flaws in science being pass around by the Discovery Institute that have been thoroughly rebutted over and over doesn't do anything as an explanation for why some ultimate creator would happen to be the one you were brought up to believe.

 

Had to dig around to find this old gem discussing that if God exists, he had to have entropy.,

 

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_2nd_law/

 

excerpts,

 

 

First, however, we must briefly consider the god-concept. The god-concept, as it is usually defined, is an orderly entity (or system). If the god-concept is not orderly, then it is chaotic. But if god is chaotic, then he can not directly cause things to happen at his will. To even have a will means that god is ordered, and to willfully cause the Big Bang would mean that he has a lower entropy than the universe after the Big Bang. (Remember, dS > 0!) For more on a chaotic god-concept, read the Argument From Non-Cognitivism. If you’ve made it this far, and you are a believer, then you agree that your god-concept is orderly. Now we can get to the root of the problem:

1. 
   

1. The Big Bang has entropy S.
   
2. A hypothetical god is either orderly or chaotic.
   
3. Hypothetical gods have a personhood.
   
4. Personhood implies orderliness.
   
5. A hypothetical god is orderly, and thus has low entropy. (See note¹ for more detail.)
   
6. In order for god to directly cause the Big Bang, he must have a lower entropy (S-a, where a is positive, real number).
   
7. The probability of the Big Bang coming from a higher state of entropy (S+b, where b is a positive, real number) approaches P=1, normalizing over the condition of many opportunities for the Big Bang to happen.
   
8. The probability of the Big Bang coming from an even lower state of entropy (god) approaches Q=0 (since Q=1-P).
   
9. The difference in probability is thus the limit of 1 divided by the limit of 0, which of course approaches infinity.
   
10. There is an infinitely greater chance that the Big Bang is the result of randomness than the result of even more order.
    
11. Thus, god does not exist.
    

 

 

Possible Objections:Q: But God is not within the block universe, so how can you account for his entropy?

 

A: Whether or not god exists within the block universe does not affect the necessity of his entropy. If god is in an ordered state, then he has low entropy. If god is not in an ordered state, and thus in a disordered state—he has high entropy. If he is neither ordered nor disordered, Non-Cognitivism takes hold. If you claim that god does not have an entropy, we here at strongatheism.net would certainly agree—for god has no properties—he does not exist!

 

In other words, it's generally a bad idea when apologists try to use science to further their cause, it tends to get turned back around on them. It's that math and logic thingy.

[mrdannyg 274]

That is probably the worst argument against God's existence I have seen in some time.

[Balloon guy 158]

That is probably the worst argument against God's existence I have seen in some time.

 

That's because you can't comprehend that nothing cannot exists in a vacuum therefore there is not nothing so therefore there was always something which makes something else obvious.

 

So you just accept that 'maybe' something means 'definitely' what I wanted to prove in the first place.

 

 

It's really not faith based...it's ...science?

[colonel Feathers 5]

That's because you can't comprehend that nothing cannot exists in a vacuum therefore there is not nothing so therefore there was always something which makes something else obvious.

 

So you just accept that 'maybe' something means 'definitely' what I wanted to prove in the first place.

 

 

It's really not faith based...it's ...science?

An inanimate object can exist in a vacuum. So I guess the challenge would be to create something animate, from something inanimate.

[Balloon guy 158]

An inanimate object can exist in a vacuum. So I guess the challenge would be to create something animate, from something inanimate.

 

Happens all the time, life from non-life is actually pretty common. At least on this planet. You know, cause we have over 1.2 million species that evolved really really fast independently.

 

The hard thing is figuring out how they all lucked out by becoming viable at the same time their their food source evolved. The flowers were really lucky that bees evolved to pollinate them at the same time they showed up. Would have been pretty hard to handle that themselves.

[colonel Feathers 5]

Happens all the time, life from non-life is actually pretty common. At least on this planet. You know, cause we have over 1.2 million species that evolved really really fast independently.

 

The hard thing is figuring out how they all lucked out by becoming viable at the same time their their food source evolved. The flowers were really lucky that bees evolved to pollinate them at the same time they showed up. Would have been pretty hard to handle that themselves.

It is strange snt it? I can maybe see the earth popping up by happenstance, cause there was no real time constraint. But not only did the earth pop up,by chance, it popped up with the exact raw materials to join together to make those 1.2 million different and distinct species. Not to mention the perfect vehicles to sustain said life. Perfect oxygen content, food supplies, etc.

[mrdannyg 274]

That's because you can't comprehend that nothing cannot exists in a vacuum therefore there is not nothing so therefore there was always something which makes something else obvious.

 

So you just accept that 'maybe' something means 'definitely' what I wanted to prove in the first place.

 

 

It's really not faith based...it's ...science?

 

Still makes more sense than living life by a book of fables.

[Roll the Bones 74]

It is strange snt it? I can maybe see the earth popping up by happenstance, cause there was no real time constraint. But not only did the earth pop up,by chance, it popped up with the exact raw materials to join together to make those 1.2 million different and distinct species. Not to mention the perfect vehicles to sustain said life. Perfect oxygen content, food supplies, etc.

 

I think the problem lies with your understanding of "popped up", unless you think 4 billion years of the planet evolving is something instantaneous.