An Unscientific Theory On Religion Forums

[Earthling]

I have always found it fascinating that people will refuse to accept scientific theories backed by centuries of scientific discoveries and mountains of evidence because "science can change at any moment", and yet those same people will latch onto the craziest conspiracy theories backed by nothing and claim that it is the incontrovertible truth.

Scientist for 911 Truth

Architects & Engineers For 911 Truth

Firefighters For Truth And Unity

Pilots For 911

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientist for 911 Truth

Architects & Engineers For 911 Truth

Firefighters For Truth And Unity

Pilots For 911

Why haven't those supposed scientists done any real work on this topic?

 

[Earthling]

Of course they did.

I understand your doubt. For years I wouldn't listen to that conspiracy "nonsense" and, like most things, there was a great deal of it nonsense. Then I stumbled upon an article about the plane that supposedly went down in Penn. still existed years later. Those planes have a number exclusive to them, and there was the report from a mayor in Ohio announcing the plane had landed safely, the BBC report that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did, the building was still standing when the reporter reported it, it was right behind her, the hole in the Pentagon obviously being a missile strike, the video of explosions before any planes struck the WTC, the FBI not charging Osama Bin Laden, the FBI arriving minutes after the strike at the Pentagon, etc. Bin Laden denouncing the attacks as immoral, the fake tapes of Bin Laden who obviously wasn't Bin Laden, right handed and wearing Jewelry, Albright and the Prime Minister of Pakestan saying Bin Laden was dead long before he was, Albright even joking that they would bring out his corpse before some election, etc.

 

[Earthling]

Why haven't those supposed scientists done any real work on this topic?

What work? Knowing science its funding. Maybe they should hire some idiot T.V. evangelist to do their funding.

 

[Earthling]

Kind of gone off topic. Oh, well.

 

[Willamena]

Over the last 22 years or so I've been for the most part pretty active on forums like this, religious forums, and I've noticed something over the last decade. I see it here as well. The predominate participant in religious discussion are irreligious. Outspoken or militant skeptics of the Bible and spirituality. Now I understand that my message tends to alienate everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, and truth be told I prefer discussions with atheist because they are more practical than the average believer, who is idealistic IMO, so I'm not complaining, but I am of the opinion that the reason for this is that the believer is quite comfortable in America, but the atheist (in one form or another, I use the term skeptic) is a somewhat repressed minority, politically and socially.

Do you think there is any truth to that?

It think that you believe it.

 

[Earthling]

It think that you believe it.

Yeah, but you don't know me from Adam do you.

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, but you don't know me from Adam do you.

Do I need to?

(tread carefully)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand your doubt. For years I wouldn't listen to that conspiracy "nonsense" and, like most things, there was a great deal of it nonsense. Then I stumbled upon an article about the plane that supposedly went down in Penn. still existed years later. Those planes have a number exclusive to them, and there was the report from a mayor in Ohio announcing the plane had landed safely, the BBC report that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did, the building was still standing when the reporter reported it, it was right behind her, the hole in the Pentagon obviously being a missile strike, the video of explosions before any planes struck the WTC, the FBI not charging Osama Bin Laden, the FBI arriving minutes after the strike at the Pentagon, etc. Bin Laden denouncing the attacks as immoral, the fake tapes of Bin Laden who obviously wasn't Bin Laden, right handed and wearing Jewelry, Albright and the Prime Minister of Pakestan saying Bin Laden was dead long before he was, Albright even joking that they would bring out his corpse before some election, etc.

Remember in your very first post that I responded to where I said that you indicated that you were rather gullible? You keep confirming that analysis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What work? Knowing science its funding. Maybe they should hire some idiot T.V. evangelist to do their funding.

Scientists can still publish without funding. This is an extremely weak excuse on your part.

 

[Earthling]

Scientists can still publish without funding. This is an extremely weak excuse on your part.

Uh-huh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh-huh.

When one refuses to ask himself reasonable questions about rather insane claims it only tells others that that person is highly gullible and merely believes what he wants to believe.

 

[Cacotopia]

Sure there are many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, but speculation often leads to wildly inaccurate conclusions. I doubt regular folks with no governmental clearance will get an answers, perhaps it will get declassified a 100 years later, ensuring that those alive who would have cared about the truth are now dead.

Concerning the WTC buildings you just need to know a little metallurgy to understand the feasibility of the jet fuel argument. Steel does not need to melt to lose it's structural integrity. Around 1100*F Structural steel loses its tensile strength, or it's ability to bear loads. Jet fuel burns at a range of 800-1500*F. In architecture most high rise structures are designed to bear the load of the floors abover it +1, if anything heavier than that falls, You will have structural failure.

A blowtorch can burn as hot as 7500 but without punching the jet it burns between 5500-6800*F no I can take a standard piece of structural steel square stock, and heat it till it begins to glow which is around 1000-1250*F and with my pinky fold that piece of steel in half.

 

[Cacotopia]

I'm sure you can take a 1 day or week long welding course to see this "marvel" for yourself.Or if you have a skill in welding you will already know this. Also heat affected zones lower the structural stability of steel, making it brittle and subject to structural failure.

Example a car fire. burned out husk of a car, hit it with a sledge hammer, the metal shatters and crumbles, no denting because the heat from the fire compromised the structural integrity of the metal. Even after it has cooled.

 

[Earthling]

When one refuses to ask himself reasonable questions about rather insane claims it only tells others that that person is highly gullible and merely believes what he wants to believe.

When one believes the people who brought us weapons of mass destruction or governments in general they are a ****ing idiot. When the judge a thing false before looking at it they are a ****ing idiot scientist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When one believes the people who brought us weapons of mass destruction or governments in general they are a ****ing idiot. When the judge a thing false before looking at it they are a ****ing idiot scientist.

You really should try to get your hate for yourself and others under control.

You really should look into the history of that attack. It did not begin under George Bush. Clinton was the president when they began to train. What is amazing is that much smaller secrets cannot be kept by the government and yet you believe that a conspiracy orders of magnitude larger is somehow still being kept secret.

 

[Altfish]

Which atheists set off bombs at arenas or on trains?

Must admit, I was wondering the same??

 

[Altfish]

No, they starve people by the millions, or shoot them, or work them to death.

There has never been a government where religion was forbidden (that would be a 'militant atheist,' if there ever was one) where the death toll wasn't horrific. It's called 'democide.'

While theocracies can be murderous, not all of them were. It WAS possible to have a theocracy where people weren't killed by the job lots.

However, there hasn't been even one government that prohibited religion (that comes under the category 'atheist,' by the way, the same way that 'car' comes under the category 'motor vehicle), that was NOT murderous. Not even one.

Here is an example: China was a theocracy for literally thousands of years (the Emperor as god). It wasn't until Mao forbade all forms of worship that everybody started getting killed off.


So don't talk about 'militant atheism' as if it were something completely benign, logical and kinder than thou. It's not. An atheist...particularly a 'militant atheist' who gains the sort of power required to enforce his opinions regarding religion on his government? Not a good idea. They haven't handled things any better than a religious nut case sort of leader. In fact, the biggest difference between the anti-religious atheist and the religious nut case?

The atheists have shown themselves to be better at mass murder than the theists. At least they have so far.

OK, so we are not talking about Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.

I would say that none of the above carried out their atrocities in the name of atheism. I could argue that the 'religion' was the state, a bit like North Korea is now. People bow to the leader, the leader is the 'god'.

I would also say that I have never heard the word sceptic used to describe the dictators you talk of.

 

[Cacotopia]

Can someone summarize for me where this conversation is going? It seems to be all over the place, so far I have picked up 9/11 being an inside job and the number of Jews killed in concentration camps as a result of the Holocaust.

Observation and surface research only gets you so far, in the end you will need knowledge in a multitude of fields to attain a deeper understanding.

In regards to the 9/11 incident, there are certainly quite a few inconsistencies. But conspiracy theories aren't truth. Unless proven demonstrably true. They are and will continue to be theories. Pentagon attack in particular I personally don't think a plane crashed into the building, maybe a missile? But I can't be certain cause I can't prove it. I did see planes go into the WTC towers 1 and 2, why building 3 fell? I don't know. I am also not a structural engineer and would likely not understand why such a building would fall if there was a reasonable explanation.

But making a conclusion now is impossible.

 

[Cacotopia]

No, they starve people by the millions, or shoot them, or work them to death.

There has never been a government where religion was forbidden (that would be a 'militant atheist,' if there ever was one) where the death toll wasn't horrific. It's called 'democide.'

While theocracies can be murderous, not all of them were. It WAS possible to have a theocracy where people weren't killed by the job lots.

However, there hasn't been even one government that prohibited religion (that comes under the category 'atheist,' by the way, the same way that 'car' comes under the category 'motor vehicle), that was NOT murderous. Not even one.

Here is an example: China was a theocracy for literally thousands of years (the Emperor as god). It wasn't until Mao forbade all forms of worship that everybody started getting killed off.


So don't talk about 'militant atheism' as if it were something completely benign, logical and kinder than thou. It's not. An atheist...particularly a 'militant atheist' who gains the sort of power required to enforce his opinions regarding religion on his government? Not a good idea. They haven't handled things any better than a religious nut case sort of leader. In fact, the biggest difference between the anti-religious atheist and the religious nut case?

The atheists have shown themselves to be better at mass murder than the theists. At least they have so far.

No atheist political leader has ever killed in the name of atheism. Period.

Mao destroyed and banned religious institutions to eradicate dissent towards the government. That is a political move not an attack carried out in the name of not believing in gods. Plenty of atheist dictators killing people in droves, but not in the name of atheism, more for power and political gain.