Some People Did Something

Doesn't something have to be proven true, before it can be forgotten?

synthetic-Mantis 2.0?

"What do they teach them in schools these days?"
-Digory Kirke

Not enough and not the truth

"It brainwashes people into believing things that are not in line with reality. It treats women as inferior to men. Christianity is full of teachings which are harmful to individuals and society as a whole. That's why you've seen Christians who have died because they chose prayer over proper medical treatment. And even worse, they have let their kids die because they didn't get medical treatment for their own children. They thought God would miraculously heal them and of course he didn't, so they died. That's evil and harmful. And Jesus said you can drink poison and pick up deadly snakes and you won't be harmed, and stupid people who believed him have died doing that. Is Jesus so stupid that he actually thinks people can drink poison and it won't hurt them? Because that's what he told his followers."

For something to be brainwash, it has to be contrary to the truth. There is nothing that Christians (well at this point I guess I need to specify Catholics) teach that is out of line with reality. I won't deny that much Protestant teaching is. It does not treat women as inferior to men in any way. Rather, it teaches that they are different, which is scientifically, physically, and mentally correct. In what way do you suppose we treat women as inferior to men? What you atheists don't understand is that there is more to our existence than this life. All you care about is maximizing time alive on this earth, but honestly, what different does a few years even mean to you when you know nothing you ever do will ever matter or benefit you in any way once you're dead? If you're referring to some anti-vax Protestants, I guess you're right about them. I like how you say it's "evil." As an atheist, why the heck would believe evil exists if you don't believe God exists? Good and evil are moral ideas, and without God, the very concept of morality would never have existed because it prevents people from doing whatever they want. Once again, both you and them have failed to pick up on the figurative parts of the Bible. It's really not that hard to understand that the Bible isn't an entirely literal book.

"Actually there are many people who follow Jesus who are horrible pieces of shit, just like he was."

If you end up being a horrible piece of shit, clearly you went wrong somewhere and aren't actually following Him anymore. I sincerely hope you'll regret that insult someday. Jesus never did anything to you except die so you could have the opportunity to be saved.

"And not a single one has been confirmed by historians, or even mentioned by anyone at the time they supposedly happened."

Many have been confirmed by historians, just not the atheist ones who don't want to believe it. Even the people who crucified Jesus knew He rose from the dead.

"Luke 14:26 (NKJV): If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple""

That's the King James Version, a Protestant version I'm not familiar with, but even so, it's very clearly figurative since he always preached to love your neighbor as yourself. "Hate" in this context means put second instead of before love of God.

"No it's not obvious. And how do you know it's figurative?"

Once you've grasped the idea that it's not all literal, it's much easier to figure out which parts are and which aren't. How do I know what's figurative again? I couldn't find the last message you were referring to in the stream.

"So you're okay with comparing an entire people group to pigs and dogs."

No not an entire group religious/non-religious group of people. Just the ones who commit the filthy acts.

"That's debatable. Some scholars believe he only meant to save the Jews, and it wasn't until Paul came along that the idea of saving non-Jews was introduced."

If He only meant to save the Jews, He wouldn't have told His disciples to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." If He only wanted Jews to hear, He would have told them that. Some of the apostles didn't want to preach to gentiles because they themselves were Jewish and were still attached to Judaism. Paul didn't introduce the idea, he was just one of the first ones to fully listen to that command from Jesus.

"Perfected it how?"

In many ways. Before Him, the Jews were more focused on the letter of the law and following physical customs, but they didn't really have the ideas of love to neighbor etc. Another example was introducing a New Covenant. The Old Covenant of circumcision was replaced with the New Covenant of Jesus' blood shed on the Cross.

"He should have, and he certainly had plenty of opportunities."

Why do you care what He preached or didn't if you don't even listen to Him? Slavery falls under the category of not loving your neighbor as yourself. People who thought they could still treat their slaves well while still owning them didn't understand.

"The first four, definitely. They directly conflict with religious freedom and freedom of speech. Also we should do away with the ones about coveting and honoring your parents, because those are nearly impossible to enforce."

Do you base your ideas about the universe on the laws of the US? Freedom is speech is a good thing, but anyone with common sense knows that just because we can say whatever we want doesn't mean we should.
To put it bluntly, the argument that "it shouldn't be a law because we can't enforce it" is one of the most ridiculous and stupid ideas I've ever heard of. Should murder be legal because it's impossible to fully stop anyone from doing it? No of course not. Same goes for literally anything else.

"Isn't a covenant supposed to last forever?"

It's definitely not a light and transient thing, but none of the definitions I've found specify forever.

"And yet so many Christians seem to disregard the parts that aren't convenient while still claiming it's relevant."

Agreed. I'm totally with you that most Christians should be more educated in the Old Testament. Myself included, and I learn when I can. I kinda like having these discussions with you because they help me really dig into some of this stuff I otherwise probably wouldn't think about very much.

"You just got done saying Jesus didn't abolish the law. Yet you don't have to follow it?"

He didn't abolish the law. He did perfect many parts of it including but not limited to many of the things you criticize about the Old Testament. We still follow the law. There's plenty of guidelines about what is sin and what isn't.

"Catholics believe that a cracker magically transforms into actual human flesh. I promise you, that is out of line with reality."

It doesn't sound pretty crazy when you haven't grown up with it, but on the contrary, I can promise YOU that it is perfectly in line with reality. I'm glad you brought this up. There's so many Eucharistic miracles out there I probably don't even know half of them. Just off the top of my head, I know about one that happened in France (maybe?) where two men with mortal sin on their soul took the Eucharist anyway and spit it out because it burned their tongues. Where the Hosts fell on the stone alter, they burned their imprints into the rock, and you can still visit the church and see them to this day. Many Hosts have bled, and one even turned visibly into actual human flesh. It was examined by a doctor, and they discovered that the flesh was cardiac tissue. I think they've even found Jesus' blood type by examining the blood that physically, visibly turned to blood on an alter. There's plenty more but those are just the first two that come to mind.

"The Old Testament says that women are inferior to men in numerous places. And the New Testament says that women are inferior to men in numerous places."

Where? Men and women are inherently different and play different roles in life, but they are both equal in dignity.

"Many Catholics (and Christians in general) treat women like baby machines, like that's their purpose in life. And are women allowed to become popes?"

That's part of many women's purpose, but not all. We have nuns, and they're celibate. No women are not allowed to become popes, or be ordained in any way. That doesn't decrease their dignity in any way though. Priest is an inherently fatherly job, partly because Jesus was a man as well as all His apostles. That doesn't mean He didn't love and respect women though. Some were of His closest friends. And Catholics honor Mary, the Mother of God, more than any of group has honored any other woman in history. No man (besides Jesus, who is also God) has had as high and as important of a role as Mary had, a fully human woman.

"No one has ever demonstrated that to be true"

Well, I mean 70,000 people saw the sun dance in Fatima in 1917, believers and non-believers alike, among other things. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed. Better to go through life happy and full of hope for the next life than depressed that once you die, you're just gonna become a useless piece of dirt.

"Yes, because I'm alive right now on this Earth"

Considering every amazing thing that has ever been done or witnessed by humanity, you still can't believe that we're more than useless, insignificant specks that become nothing when we die?

"Because I'm alive *now* and enjoying life *now*. Someday I'll die. I can't stop that. But I can make the most of the one life I know I have, instead of preparing for an afterlife that no one has even proven is real."

Making the most out of life now only lasts for the now, and it'll be over sooner than you think. And preparing for the afterlife isn't something that totally ruins the experience of living on earth. Rather, it causes you to appreciate it more.

"As an atheist, why the heck would believe evil exists if you don't believe God exists? Good and evil are moral ideas, and without God, the very concept of morality would never have existed"

It blows my mind that some people only don't murder/rape/steal because they believe an invisible being for which there is no evidence is gonna judge them for it and they *also* think that they are morally superior.

Thanks! That was brilliant.
What he said about wellbeing was essentially what I was saying to Toby about harm a while back but better articulated.

Ralf..Ralf...RALF!!

It blows my mind that some people follow laws and morals even though their beliefs tell them they can do anything they want. Most atheists are more religious than they realize.

Where did you come up with such ideas of responsibility if not a deity? Nature doesn't naturally implant an idea in people that they're responsible for others. That wouldn't be beneficial to survival.

"Yes it would be beneficial to survival, like I just said, if I hurt other people it will have negative consequences for me, so it's in my best interest to treat other people well."

Only because you live in a civil society founded by Christian men.

"Where did I come up with the idea of responsibility if not for a deity? Simple, I'm a human being and human beings have empathy, which allows us to put ourselves in someone else's position and realize that if we wouldn't want someone hurting us then they wouldn't want someone hurting them."

Where do you think empathy came from though? Not all animals have it.

I wouldn't have any reason not to believe they were okay, except for the natural law that would be written on my heart regardless

So do you base your morality off of the US laws then? Just because something is illegal doesn't make it immoral and vice versa.

It blows your mind that some people don't need a god or organized religion to be kind, moral people?

On one level it does because it doesn't make sense for people who think nothing they do in this life will negatively impact them later to restrict what they can do with moral teachings, but on another level it doesn't surprise me because the fact that even most atheists have a sense of morality provides evidence for my belief that the law of God is written on every human heart.

"If that were true, then wouldn't everybody's conscience line up exactly with all the laws in the Bible? Does your conscience tell you it's okay to kill people of other religions and own slaves?"

Good question. No it doesn't necessary mean that. When I say the law of God is written on the human heart, I'm referring to specifically the natural law, which tells us not to kill, rape, etc. The laws of the Bible are not all necessarily part of the natural law, so that's why God came to teach about other things we needed to know.

No, my conscience doesn't tell me it's okay to do those things, and my religion doesn't teach that they're okay either.

Oh! I see where you have become confused; unlike Christians, Atheists don't restrict their behavior because it will negatively impact them in an afterlife, they restrict their behavior because it will negatively impact them and others now.

Atheists having a sense of morality demonstrates that it is based on common sense and a basic human desire to benefit themselves and others and nothing to do with a deity.

But why do you care about negatively impacting others? In nature, without God, there is only survival. Why do you care if you hurt someone else's chance of survival if it improves yours?

Common sense is something that only beings with the ability to reason have (so only humans). Using our reason alone, we can come to the conclusion that there is something greater than ourselves. No animals have common sense in the way we use the term because they don't have the ability to reason the way we do. They do have instinct which allows them to solve many problems, but they can't consider emotions, the universe, a deity, or anything else like that the way we can. Common sense is a standard of reason, and the fact that we have it is evidence that we were created by an intelligent being. If there is no deity, where do you suppose the very idea of common sense or reason would have originated from?

"But why do you care about negatively impacting others? In nature, without God, there is only survival. Why do you care if you hurt someone else's chance of survival if it improves yours?"

I care about negatively impacting others because my morality is rooted in wellbeing.

"In nature", are you living alone in the woods? I live in society Dude, there is not only survival here, there is co-operation, there are laws (created to promote wellbeing and discourage harm), there are functional mutually beneficial relationships.
It is in everyone's best interest that society functions smoothly and to the benefit of everyone in it, not because a deity exists but because as social creatures, it makes no sense to destroy the relationships we have and limit our own freedom.

"Using our reason alone, we can come to the conclusion that there is something greater than ourselves."

Where's the data you used to reach your conclusion?

"Common sense is a standard of reason, and the fact that we have it is evidence that we were created by an intelligent being. If there is no deity, where do you suppose the very idea of common sense or reason would have originated from?"

If common sense was caused by a creator deity and bestowed on the deity's creations then it would be reasonable to assume that every human on the planet would demonstrate an equal level of common sense; do you believe that to be the case?

Common sense is arguably the result of intelligence which is the result of evolution, a gradual process of improvement. Common sense is not an idea, it is a result.

"I care about negatively impacting others because my morality is rooted in wellbeing."

Your wellbeing or everyone's? If everyone's, why do you care about theirs?

""In nature", are you living alone in the woods? I live in society Dude, there is not only survival here, there is co-operation, there are laws (created to promote wellbeing and discourage harm), there are functional mutually beneficial relationships.
It is in everyone's best interest that society functions smoothly and to the benefit of everyone in it, not because a deity exists but because as social creatures, it makes no sense to destroy the relationships we have and limit our own freedom."

Exactly, there is cooperation and laws. That's my point. If it's so beneficial, why are we the only creatures that do it in such a way that has moved us to the top of the food chain even though physically we're relatively weak? Our intelligence that vastly outdoes any other creature by a long shot had to have come from somewhere, and there is no scientific explanation for how a species like us came to completely dominate the world in a relatively short period of time. Other creatures have had billions of years to evolve and are still nowhere near our intelligence.

"Where's the data you used to reach your conclusion?"

Many famous philosophers have come to the same conclusion in their time pondering the universe.

"If common sense was caused by a creator deity and bestowed on the deity's creations then it would be reasonable to assume that every human on the planet would demonstrate an equal level of common sense; do you believe that to be the case?"

No that is most certainly not the case, but I disagree with your conclusion that if there is a deity, he must do everything the exact same way for every individual of his creation. I specified that common sense is a standard that we humans have applied to reason. Not everyone meets that standard though obviously.

"Common sense is arguably the result of intelligence which is the result of evolution, a gradual process of improvement. Common sense is not an idea, it is a result."

So you think something as complex as reason and common sense in humans evolved so that most have it to a degree within a few thousand years, but billions of years of evolution isn't enough for most sea creatures to even develop more than the most basic forms of communication?

"Common sense is something that only beings with the ability to reason have (so only humans). Using our reason alone, we can come to the conclusion that there is something greater than ourselves. No animals have common sense in the way we use the term because they don't have the ability to reason the way we do. They do have instinct which allows them to solve many problems, but they can't consider emotions, the universe, a deity, or anything else like that the way we can. Common sense is a standard of reason, and the fact that we have it is evidence that we were created by an intelligent being. If there is no deity, where do you suppose the very idea of common sense or reason would have originated from?"

This isn't actually true; we are only the third most intelligent creature on the planet...

Um...third? We're very easily the most intelligent by a long shot. I'm pretty sure mice can't do calculus but correct me if I'm wrong

"A society being founded by Christian men has literally nothing to do with it. Societies not founded by Christians also have rules for behavior, and if you violate those rules you face consequences. Do you honestly think that before Christianity, no society had any functioning set of rules or morals or values?"

True, but who decided that laws should be a thing, and why do people follow them? If we're all just livin' in nature with no god to follow, why would we listen to other men who tell us to restrict what we can do? Why should we respect authority? No I don't believe that; lots of societies had rules.

"Many social species evolved it because it helped them survive. Not all animals can breathe on land, either. So what?"

How does empathy towards another individual help that individual survive?

"How does empathy towards another individual help that individual survive?"

Seriously? Have you ever asked anyone for help? Have you ever relied on someone else to do something for you?

Do you think that if you went around lying, stealing, hurting people and causing damage that people would still be happy to help you?

"Seriously? Have you ever asked anyone for help? Have you ever relied on someone else to do something for you?"

Let me rephrase. How does an animal being empathetic towards another animal help it survive? I'm well aware that empathy in humans is beneficial, but that's because humans are made in the image and likeness of God and have morality.

"Do you think that if you went around lying, stealing, hurting people and causing damage that people would still be happy to help you?"

Indeed not. That hasn't stopped plenty of people from doing those things to benefit themselves though. No other animals have moral standards like this. Stealing is just survival in nature, but it's moral taboo for humans. How do you suppose that came about?

"People decided it. Societies did."

Why should we listen to people and societies? Why can't we just do whatever we want if it won't mess up an afterlife? Why not steal and kill and make yourself a king so you can live the richest life on earth?

"Why should we respect authority? Because it helps society function and remain stable."

What if I don't want to? What if I don't care about stability? My point with all these questions isn't to deny that authority and stability are good things. I just wonder why humans would respect those things if they're nothing more than the next generation of evolved earthy creatures that will just die off and mean nothing in years to come.

"You have not raised a single objection to secular morality that is made better by introducing a god into the discussion."

There's plenty of aspects of morality that are made better by introducing God. Informing that abortion is a grave evil, for example needed to be done by theists who valued and respected life.

"I never said that, and no I don't. You didn't answer my question. Do you think that spending the rest of your life in prison is a good reason not to do those things?"

By asking the question about prison, you're implying that the laws of the US are given in the scenario. What you originally asked was if I would be okay with attacking and killing and raping if I didn't believe in God. In broad terms, if I wasn't living in any particular place with any particular laws, I would have no reason to believe those things were wrong besides what the natural law in my heart told me. If it's given that I'm living in the US, then no it wouldn't be worth it spend my life in jail. I think that not committing evil simply because you know you'd be punished is the wrong motivation not to be immoral. I think a better reason not to do those things is that they are contrary to the morality of natural law.

"You don't have to. No one is forcing you to. But if you don't, there are consequences. The only other option is to love by yourself with no human contact."

Why would anyone have started to listen to human authority in the first place? My point is that authority (at least to the degree we have it where people listen to an authority that doesn't help them survive) wasn't really a nature thing.

"Because it would mess up this life, and I guarantee you there are a whole bunch of people who don't want you messing up the world that they have to live in."

But if it were a scenario where if wouldn't mess up this life, at least for you? What if you could steal from people, kill your enemies, and be sure they wouldn't be able to find you. Then would you still find it objectionable? Is the only reason to respect authority and morality so you won't get punished?

"Because that hurts other people and isn't conducive to societal or personal wellbeing."

So what if it hurts other people? It would benefit you in this life. And if this life is all that matters I don't get why'd you care about affecting a society.

"If you don't understand the answers to these questions, then you don't understand why people who don't believe in a God value this life, and I don't know what else to tell you. But I have a feeling that if you didn't believe in a God anymore, you would still value your life."

The answers you're giving make sense, but why you would hold those positions doesn't. I believe in pretty much the same answers you're giving, but I believe them because they're moral and religious ideas passed down through Christianity. I don't understand where you got them if not just from living in a society founded on Judeo-Christian values.
If someone could prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that God didn't exist, I wouldn't have much of any reason to live anymore. It would just be a few years of earthly misery with no hope whatsoever. I would see no reason to be moral anymore since morality takes effort and doesn't always come naturally. I could basically become an animal and just act off instinct and whatever made me feel best instead of putting thought into anything and considering right and wrong.

2

"No it didn't. There are atheists who oppose abortion for purely nonreligious reasons. And there are theists who have slaughtered people. Not only does believing in a God not mean somebody will be moral, the claim that morality can only come from God is absurd."

True there are some atheists who understand the science, and once they do that, the natural law kicks in to inform them that it's evil. Yes theists have slaughtered people, but enemies as opposed to completely innocent unborn children. A person's innocence has a lot to do with whether or not killing them could possibly be just. You are obviously correct that believing in God doesn't automatically make you moral, but I still assert that morality comes from God. I have explained how people can be moral "without" God: natural law, but God still put that there and ultimately caused it.

"And I never said it was. But Christians can never agree on what's literally and what's not."

True, and that's the problem with Protestantism. They believe everyone can interpret the Bible for themselves, which was a recipe for disaster (and here were are with over 40,000 different denominations of Protestants). That's why Catholics have a central authority (I'm not referring to the pope here, but rather the Magisterium) to guide the teachings/interpretations so we don't all end up believing different things.

"I never did defend Islam. Islam has been responsible for lots of horrible stuff as well."

I suppose you did mostly just deflect away from it. Yes, and lots more than Christianity. Vagabond has been explaining it very well.

"When I listed those things I wasn't talking about peoples mistakes, I was talking about stuff that God himself commanded or sanctioned in the Bible. Genocide, rape, slavery, oppression, and killing people who don't worship him. He commanded or allowed all of these. If you don't condemn him for those things, that means you're okay with them. Why are you okay with God killing babies and allowing rape and slavery?"

Which are you saying He commanded and which are you saying He allowed? Because there's a big difference. God allows many things through His passive will because He refuses to interfere with our free will. I will never condemn God, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with things that happened in a totally different time and in a different context.

"Which Christianity is"

I suppose we'll find out in the afterlife, won't we. I pray you come around before then though. I promise you won't regret it.

"I left Christianity because I started to read and study the Bible and I came to realize it wasn't true. Yes, I was raised Protestant. But people leave Catholicism as well."

When you say wasn't true, do you mean you didn't believe the historical things happened, or do you mean you didn't believe in its ideas of morals? I'm well-aware that tons of people are leaving the Catholic Church right now, but there's a whole other huge discussion about why that's happening (terrible faith formation among other things).

"Your wellbeing or everyone's? If everyone's, why do you care about theirs?"

My focus is on my wellbeing and the wellbeing of those I care about but that doesn't mean I'd behave with animosity towards those I don't know, how would that help anyone?

"Exactly, there is cooperation and laws. That's my point. If it's so beneficial, why are we the only creatures that do it in such a way that has moved us to the top of the food chain even though physically we're relatively weak?"

You are asking me to explain evolution to you; there are a wealth of resources online.

"No that is most certainly not the case, but I disagree with your conclusion that if there is a deity, he must do everything the exact same way for every individual of his creation. I specified that common sense is a standard that we humans have applied to reason. Not everyone meets that standard though obviously."

Why would a creator not give it's creations an equal chance?
Other than the point being some kind of sick game that involves suffering, what is the purpose of unequal intelligence, disabled children etc?

"So you think something as complex as reason and common sense in humans evolved so that most have it to a degree within a few thousand years, but billions of years of evolution isn't enough for most sea creatures to even develop more than the most basic forms of communication?"

No I don't think that, it hasn't been over a few thousand years.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=evolution&docid=608040599072672181&mid=34285A7A3EF54297C77F34285A7A3EF54297C77F&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

"My focus is on my wellbeing and the wellbeing of those I care about but that doesn't mean I'd behave with animosity towards those I don't know, how would that help anyone?"

Behaving with animosity with no reason wouldn't help anyone, but would you be opposed to it if the need arose? If so, why do you care about those other people?

"You are asking me to explain evolution to you; there are a wealth of resources online."

I know how evolution works, and I think we both know that evolution can't explain this drastic jump in intelligence.

"Why would a creator not give it's creations an equal chance?
Other than the point being some kind of sick game that involves suffering, what is the purpose of unequal intelligence, disabled children etc?"

We did have an equal chance at the beginning. The first humans sinned, and therefore brought death upon the world. Everyone else after them sinned too though, so it's not like we were all innocent and given a punishment for something only two people did. Disabled children, in many cases at least, can't sin since they lack the mental capacity of their age. Many don't even understand their situation and don't see the way we see them and feel bad for them. But being unable to sin, they can go straight to heaven. God brings good out of bad situations.

"No I don't think that, it hasn't been over a few thousand years."

How many years then? How do you explain the extreme intelligence of humans appearing in only the last *insert however many years you think* years, which is a relatively short time considering the billions of years animals have been evolving. I'm well aware of how evolution works, but I watched the video anyway, and all I really have to say about it is for such an elementary educational video, I did not expect the bears to start smashing.

"Behaving with animosity with no reason wouldn't help anyone, but would you be opposed to it if the need arose? If so, why do you care about those other people?"

Why would the need to treat others with animosity arise? Are you saying that's the difference between us? That because you are a Christian you have never been anything but kind and calm and loving to everyone?

"I know how evolution works, and I think we both know that evolution can't explain this drastic jump in intelligence."

There wasn't a drastic jump in intelligence, it shows that in the video, it was gradual.

"Disabled children, in many cases at least, can't sin since they lack the mental capacity of their age. Many don't even understand their situation and don't see the way we see them and feel bad for them. But being unable to sin, they can go straight to heaven. God brings good out of bad situations."

You haven't explained why your god created disabled children in the first place, it sounds like you are saying they get a free pass. So a child who is born unable to use their legs gets to murder people and still go to Heaven?

"How many years then? How do you explain the extreme intelligence of humans appearing in only the last *insert however many years you think* years, which is a relatively short time considering the billions of years animals have been evolving. I'm well aware of how evolution works, but I watched the video anyway, and all I really have to say about it is for such an elementary educational video, I did not expect the bears to start smashing."

Heh, sorry. Billions of years, it explains that in the video.
Was there anything in it you disagreed with?

"Why would the need to treat others with animosity arise? Are you saying that's the difference between us? That because you are a Christian you have never been anything but kind and calm and loving to everyone?"

Competition for resources would be an example. That's not what I'm saying. Being Christian doesn't mean being perfect and never making mistakes, but rather apologizing and repenting of them when we do

"There wasn't a drastic jump in intelligence, it shows that in the video, it was gradual."

The video says nothing about how creatures went from relatively intelligent for billions of years to becoming philosophers in a matter of a few thousand.

"You haven't explained why your god created disabled children in the first place, it sounds like you are saying they get a free pass. So a child who is born unable to use their legs gets to murder people and still go to Heaven?"

I won't pretend I know all the reasons God does what He does; that would be putting myself on a level with Him. I didn't mean that kind of disabled. I was referring to children with hindered brain function. If your brain is normal and you've got no legs, you would still have to follow moral laws.

"Heh, sorry. Billions of years, it explains that in the video.
Was there anything in it you disagreed with?"

It says evolution occurred over billions of years, that is correct. No I didn't disagree with any of it. It aligned with everything I already knew about it. But what it didn't mention was that the first humans appeared not that long ago relative to the life span of the earth. Evolution doesn't account for the rapid increase of intelligence in humans from a few thousand years ago to now.

"It says evolution occurred over billions of years, that is correct. No I didn't disagree with any of it. It aligned with everything I already knew about it. But what it didn't mention was that the first humans appeared not that long ago relative to the life span of the earth. Evolution doesn't account for the rapid increase of intelligence in humans from a few thousand years ago to now."

Okay, say you plant a strawberry seed, it becomes a shoot. Over time it grows bigger and becomes an established plant. Eventually the fruit starts to develop, it grows bigger and ripens.

Would you think it was surprising that strawberries had suddenly appeared in a short space of time and believe that someone must have stuck them to the plant or would you understand that the strawberries are part of the process of the plant and the result of the seed being planted.
The strawberries only exist because of all the small processes that preceded them, they didn't suddenly appear from nowhere, they were a natural conclusion of the initial seed being planted and developing.

Although the strawberries are different from the seed, they are inextricably linked to the seed.

You might look at a strawberry and say "there's no way this came from that seed, the plant obviously developed from the seed but there's no way the strawberry did. It's so developed, so perfect, so different from that tiny seed. How do you explain this strawberry which looks and tastes and smells so different from the plant developing so quickly? Someone must have built it and stuck in to the plant, probably so it can control the plant?"

"Okay, say you plant a strawberry seed, it becomes a shoot. Over time it grows bigger and becomes an established plant. Eventually the fruit starts to develop, it grows bigger and ripens.

Would you think it was surprising that strawberries had suddenly appeared in a short space of time and believe that someone must have stuck them to the plant or would you understand that the strawberries are part of the process of the plant and the result of the seed being planted.
The strawberries only exist because of all the small processes that preceded them, they didn't suddenly appear from nowhere, they were a natural conclusion of the initial seed being planted and developing.

Although the strawberries are different from the seed, they are inextricably linked to the seed.

You might look at a strawberry and say "there's no way this came from that seed, the plant obviously developed from the seed but there's no way the strawberry did. It's so developed, so perfect, so different from that tiny seed. How do you explain this strawberry which looks and tastes and smells so different from the plant developing so quickly? Someone must have built it and stuck in to the plant, probably so it can control the plant?""

I think the vast increase of human intelligence is quite a bit more impressive than a strawberry but...

How do you explain that humans are the only species that went from seed to strawberry? Why are not other species (especially ones that have had billions more years to evolve) as impressive of strawberries as we are? Why just one species out of millions?

"I think the vast increase of human intelligence is quite a bit more impressive than a strawberry but...

How do you explain that humans are the only species that went from seed to strawberry? Why are not other species (especially ones that have had billions more years to evolve) as impressive of strawberries as we are? Why just one species out of millions?"

1. I wasn't implying that we are less impressive than strawberries, it was a simplistic comparison.

2. They. Are. The. Plant.

No worries, whenever you get a chance is fine

"Um...third? We're very easily the most intelligent by a long shot. I'm pretty sure mice can't do calculus but correct me if I'm wrong"

You're wrong, they can. We think we have been experimenting on them but this whole time it's actually been the other way around.

"1. I wasn't implying that we are less impressive than strawberries, it was a simplistic comparison.

2. They. Are. The. Plant."

Yeah I wasn't saying I thought you were implying that.
Ah, forgive me. I'm getting a bit tired, but I see exactly what you mean now. The analogy makes sense for what you're trying to explain, but evolution still doesn't explain how a strawberry is possible

S'fine. :)

"Yeah I wasn't saying I thought you were implying that.
Ah, forgive me. I'm getting a bit tired, but I see exactly what you mean now. The analogy makes sense for what you're trying to explain, but evolution still doesn't explain how a strawberry is possible"

It does though.
Both literally and in terms of the analogy.

If you are referring to humans when you say the strawberry, we are the result of life improving over billions of years. You know that the reason human young are so helpless is because the brain is so undeveloped at birth and the reason for that is because we evolved to walk upright so there's a limit to how big the head can be while still being able to fit through a pelvis?
We have had to make concessions for our intelligence.
You said we are relatively weak, that's why.
Our intelligence means we can afford to be.

"A strawberry is only rather sudden if you see it as separate from the development of the plant rather than part of it."

So are you saying that as a plant stores energy from the sun then uses most of it to produce fruit, creatures on earth were getting primed to produce a hyper-intelligent being in the same basic way? That would be an interesting theory, but it sounds a lot different than the gradual nature of evolution

"Learning how to cook food stimulated a big leap in human cognition some 150,000 years ago, a new study suggests. Cooking breaks down fibers and makes nutrients more readily available, so our digestive systems then required less energy than those of creatures eating all raw foods. This freed calories up to feed our brains."

Yeah that's true. Cooking definitely helped quite a bit

"That's because it wasn't just a roll of the dice, it was also natural selection."

But it's not entirely natural selection, especially not anymore. Natural selection would mean we would either kill off or let everyone with a disability or disease die. Why don't we do that if it would be beneficial to genetic strength?

"It does though.
Both literally and in terms of the analogy."

Evolution explains small and gradual change over time. A strawberry is rather sudden, so how could evolution explain it?

I do like the analogy though, and I'd like to add something to it. Since we're the strawberries, we have seeds on us that reflect the image and likeness of the first seed that set it all in motion, the Creator, the Cause of all things. If not God, what is the seed to you?

"If you are referring to humans when you say the strawberry, we are the result of life improving over billions of years. You know that the reason human young are so helpless is because the brain is so undeveloped at birth and the reason for that is because we evolved to walk upright so there's a limit to how big the head can be while still being able to fit through a pelvis?
We have had to make concessions for our intelligence.
You said we are relatively weak, that's why.
Our intelligence means we can afford to be."

Yeah I was referring to humans when I said the strawberry. What evolution doesn't explain is how for billions of years, intelligence evolved very gradually, then suddenly in the past few millennia, it skyrocketed.

Yeah it is cool how all that stuff worked out, isn't it? We're weak, but super intelligent. It all fits, and I can't believe that such well thought out design and balance was just a roll of the dice

"A strawberry is rather sudden, so how could evolution explain it?"

A strawberry is only rather sudden if you see it as separate from the development of the plant rather than part of it.

You are right that we reached a milestone and our intelligence increased.

Learning how to cook food stimulated a big leap in human cognition some 150,000 years ago, a new study suggests. Cooking breaks down fibers and makes nutrients more readily available, so our digestive systems then required less energy than those of creatures eating all raw foods. This freed calories up to feed our brains.

"I can't believe that such well thought out design and balance was just a roll of the dice"

That's because it wasn't just a roll of the dice, it was also natural selection.

"You're wrong, they can. We think we have been experimenting on them but this whole time it's actually been the other way around."

Mice.....can you calculus.....sure....
Please tell me you're joking. You're definitely joking

"Maybe keep going?

I recommend Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy."

I'll add it to my list

Yeah I've done that

Maybe keep going?

I recommend Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.

"If somebody told you that you would inherit one billion dollars in one year but you had absolutely no proof it was real, would you start maxing out your credit cards and going on a spending spree? Or would you keep living normally and wait to actually see if it's real before acting like it is? Would you change the way you're living your life based on a promise that hasn't even been proven?"

That depends on who told me I would be inheriting the billion. If it was God, yeah I'd believe Him. If not, then probably not. To put it in a simpler example, one I've seen used on kids, if I was given one marshmallow, told not to eat it for 10 minutes, then I would get another marshmallow unless I ate it, I would wait 10 minutes. Either way, I get at least one marshmallow, but if I'm wise, I might get more.

"Here's a story about nuns (Catholics) letting children burn alive"

That had nothing to do with people refusing medical treatment and just praying like you were insinuating.

"This is 100% false. Morality has nothing to do with the existence of a God. Are you saying that if you didn't believe in God, you would be okay with raping and killing people?"

I'm saying that if God didn't exist, those things would never have been considered immoral because there would have been no God to explain what morality was. You don't understand this because you've always lived in a world where God exists, gotten used to the religious ideas, but then rejected their source. If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't believe in any morality since God is the source of it all. I would just do whatever I wanted. Atheists who believe in morality are already more religious than they realize. The fact that most atheists are somewhat moral is evidence to my religious assertion that the law of God is written on the human heart. No other animal has a sense of morality like we do.

"This video sums up my position very well." I'll watch it tomorrow if I get a chance when I have a little more time.

"I'm saying that if God didn't exist, those things would never have been considered immoral because there would have been no God to explain what morality was. You don't understand this because you've always lived in a world where God exists, gotten used to the religious ideas, but then rejected their source. If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't believe in any morality since God is the source of it all. I would just do whatever I wanted. Atheists who believe in morality are already more religious than they realize. The fact that most atheists are somewhat moral is evidence to my religious assertion that the law of God is written on the human heart. No other animal has a sense of morality like we do."

WOW. So to you it's a matter of perspective? Without your god clarifying what behavior is moral and what behavior is immoral you think you could rape a woman and slit her throat, feel her struggle, lay covered in her blood and have no feelings about it?

You believe that you would need to have been taugt that that is wrong to know that is wrong? You don't understand what stops Atheists from going around raping people and slitting their throats and think it must be because they secretly believe in the judgement of an invisible being for which their is no evidence?

You don't think it's because we have evolved to be intelligent social creatures who are aware that it feels better to live in social harmony than it does to live in fear?

"WOW. So to you it's a matter of perspective? Without your god clarifying what behavior is moral and what behavior is immoral you think you could rape a woman and slit her throat, feel her struggle, lay covered in her blood and have no feelings about it?"

No I wouldn't be able to that without feelings because the law of God is written on our hearts and tells us that that would be gravely wrong. Animals brutally kill each other and feel no regret because they aren't imbued with a sense of morality like we are.

Explain what you mean by "written on our hearts" , are you talking literally or figuratively? How do you explain moral behavior existing before Christianity? How do you explain moral behavior in other religions?

Animals don't have developed morals because they aren't as intelligent and their communication is different, that doesn't mean they kill indiscriminately. How do you explain lions in a pride not killing each other?

"Explain what you mean by "written on our hearts" , are you talking literally or figuratively? How do you explain moral behavior existing before Christianity? How do you explain moral behavior in other religions?"

I mean that we're born with it basically. Our brains are naturally inclined to follow some sense of morals (as long as we're raised in a normal situation). I don't literally mean we've got a tattoo on our cardiac tissue. I would explain morals existing before Christianity and morals in other religions in the same way. All humans have the natural law written on our hearts (figuratively).

"Animals don't have developed morals because they aren't as intelligent and their communication is different, that doesn't mean they kill indiscriminately. How do you explain lions in a pride not killing each other?"

True most only kill when necessary, but some kill for competition for food or mates. I explain the lion example with instinct. Lions don't band together because they think to themselves, "Hmm...it would be strategic to stick together and use our strength in numbers as an advantage over other animals." They do it because their instinct tells them to. That's also why they don't randomly kill each other.

"True most only kill when necessary, but some kill for competition for food or mates."

Humans also do this.

"True most only kill when necessary, but some kill for competition for food or mates. I explain the lion example with instinct. Lions don't band together because they think to themselves, "Hmm...it would be strategic to stick together and use our strength in numbers as an advantage over other animals." They do it because their instinct tells them to. That's also why they don't randomly kill each other."

Does it not seem obvious to you that it is also instinct that dissuades us from causing harm and that because we are more intelligent than lions, we have developed the ability to reason about it on top of feeling bad about it?

If we are born with morality already in us, why do we need religion? We are naturally moral.

"Does it not seem obvious to you that it is also instinct that dissuades us from causing harm and that because we are more intelligent than lions, we have developed the ability to reason about it on top of feeling bad about it?"

I wouldn't say it's necessarily instinct that dissuades us from causing harm because we are able to consider right and wrong, and what's more, we're able to intentionally choose the wrong choice. I don't know of any animal that using any amount of reason would choose what didn't seem right. Humans are so intelligent that they've realized they don't have to be intelligent. I don't think reason is simply a result of more evolved intelligence because if it were, why do even the most intelligent of animals only do things out of instinct? Shouldn't they have at least a level of reason that allows them to consider choosing what they believe to be the wrong choice?

"If we are born with morality already in us, why do we need religion? We are naturally moral."

Good question. We are naturally moral to a degree, but religion helps us connect with the one who made us that way. And He also has given us guidance on moral issues that are too difficult to determine with our reason alone so that we can be more perfectly moral. That's why we follow Him.

"Humans also do this (kill for competition for food or mates)."

Some do, yes, but only the insane don't feel anything when they do it. Animals don't feel things like that

"You believe that you would need to have been taugt that that is wrong to know that is wrong? You don't understand what stops Atheists from going around raping people and slitting their throats and think it must be because they secretly believe in the judgement of an invisible being for which their is no evidence?"

I believe we're born with the law of God written on our hears which gives us an inherent sense of morality from the start, but some things do need to be taught or clarified. I think atheists don't do that because even though they reject the idea of a God, they still follow many of His moral teachings without even knowing what they are. That's natural law

"Just like the people who follow the filthy God of the Bible. Genocide, rape, slavery, oppression, killing people who don't worship him, the list goes on and on and on. Are you okay with these things? Or did god get it wrong?"

As always, you completely ignore Islam and deflect to Christianity once again. It's getting old. If you're so afraid of actually discussing Islam, I suggest you stop blindly defending it. No God did not get anything wrong, and I'm not going to judge any of His actions because He brings good out of even the worst of people's mistakes.

"Just like brainwashed Christians."

Once again, for something to be brainwash, it has to be a lie

"For the same reason that people like me leave Christianity."

Why did you leave Christianity? Were you raised by Protestants? If you were I can't blame you. Or perhaps bad "Catholics" who were Catholic in name only but didn't actually stay faithful to the magisterium?

"Jesus was a delusional cult leader who told his followers to hate their own family and follow him. He compared non-Jews to pigs and dogs. And he never did away with the Old Testament law, and he never once spoke out against slavery."

He performed quite a few miracles for a "delusional cult leader." He never said to hate your family. He said to leave your family and follow Him, which is obviously figurative (except for the first few Christians that actually followed Him while He was physically on earth). What many gentiles did was filthy enough to deserve that comparison, but what you're not mentioning is that He came to save gentiles and Jews alike (much to the dismay of many Jews at the time who hated gentiles). Indeed He didn't do away with the Old Testament, but He fulfilled and perfected the law. No he didn't speak out against slavery explicitly, but He said to love your neighbor as yourself, which isn't exactly possible when you treat someone as less than yourself by owning them as property.

"So God gave people laws to follow but now we can just ignore those laws and not do what he says? How convenient. So that means we can do away with the 10 Commandments, right? People like you want to ignore the Old Testament stuff when it's not convenient, forgetting that there would be no Christianity without the Old Testament."

That's not what I said. I mentioned above that Jesus came to fulfill and perfect the law, not abolish it. If He abolished the law, there would be no such thing as sin anymore. Sin is something that is against the law of God. No we can't just do away with the 10 Commandments. Do you think we should? The 10 Commandments are still important because they're all related to sins against God and neighbor. We don't need to be circumcised anymore for example because that was the Old Covenant, which was replaced/perfected in the New Covenant of Jesus' blood shed on the Cross. I don't want to ignore the Old Testament at all. There are many important lessons in it as well as much history important to understanding Christianity. What I don't want is people like you claiming Christians believe/follow all the old Jewish laws that Christians have literally never taken a part in.

That doesn't change the fact that the men who carried out the attacks were Muslims following the Muslim Bin Laden who was following the founder of Islam in his teaching to violently subjugate the world

Yeah I'm aware that Bin Laden wasn't in America at the time, but he was in charge of the effort. Yes it was Saudi Muslims, terrorizing America because there religion commands them to violently subjugate non-believers. What proof do you have it was a missile? Why do you leftist defend Islam and Muslims so blindly?

Just curious, why do people like you always deflect to Christianity whenever a debate about Islam comes up? You do realize that I don't have to be Christian to see the evils of Islam, right? We've already discussed the Bible plenty of times. Do you actually have anything to say about Islam?

He's attacking MrBungle's pretzelated islamic terrorist denying claims that Israel and other Zionist forces including Saudi flippin Arabia did 9/11 although no Saudi Arabs were involved but the Saudis were but weren't and there's a Saudi passport in the rubble that proves there were no Saudis there and of course that provides a prompt for an Atheisticalated attack on Christianity for what Judeans did 3000 plus years ago because today's Moslem terrorists are nothing compared to what they did to the poor walls of Jericho and who are we to judge that moslems are alone in the modern world for having the distinct inability to become civilized despite the fact that they originated our civilization 8000 years ago but are just backwards bloodthirsty murdering rapists today that live like the very other two Abrahamics you criticize USED TO thousands of years ago but who no longer trade slaves in open markets and marry off little girls in exchange for goats and use gang rape as a form of punishment and toss 15yo old boys off rooftops for the sin of allowing themselves to get raped up the ass so as to cleanse the rapists from the charge of homosexuality and advocate killing innocent people for no reason other than not worshipping their god and have nothing but contempt for the world they covet which they and they alone are ill adapted to become part of so they come here to steal it from those infidels whose religion allowed them to create this magic that surrounds us today yadda yadda...

Sorry dude, but you ever think that maybe, just MAYBE, you're right and hating, raping, enslaving, brutalizing, and murdering others for not worshipping your primitive version of God IS WRONG?
You have any idea what would happen to do simply for having your hairstyle in a country like Iran? Really, just the length. Look it up. The punishment involves having a device used to funnel water to clean anuses after using the toilet taped to the mouth as you're paraded down the street to be mocked. FOR HAIR THAT IS NOT SHORT ENOUGH.

Maybe I missed something since there's quite a bit to read which I've not had time to and the way comment chains work here the order discussions unfold can get a bit confusing, so most likely I hopped in the middle, missing some context.

But it does seem a bit of a whataboutism, one comparing behavior from ancient times most of society has moved away for obvious reasons to seemingly equivalent behavior but practiced still by one group today.

Sure, we still have some residue of not the most ideal attitudes and behavior, but who else kills their own daughters for wanting to go to college or dating someone or punishes the victims of rape with marriage to their rapist or gang rape by the village men or beheading but members of this one religion. What Saul/Paul said a couple of millenia ago in a letter hardly compares to, excuses, or justifies what people who walk among us today not only practice, but have the goal of forcing us to do so as well.

Granted, it can be argued that who are we to force our ways upon them, but if they don't like it, the solution is as simple as staying back home.

One BIG difference between Judaism and Christianity compared to Islam is that the former two have and can still evolve, whereas Islam is mired in the very attitudes of yore you criticize. Even countries like Iran and Turkey that made great strides in evolving out of that mode have retreated back into it, and those other countries more traditional have a knack for producing willing terrorists on a scale that is beyond alarming. Mind you, even the argument that would compare our military operations to them fails to recognize the difference between strategic goals and cultural ones of the most deliberately brutal sort.

"I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. You attack Islam for the bad things they've done, but never attack Christianity or the Bible for it's bad things. Why is that?"

I don't attack Christianity because Christians follow Jesus, who didn't tell any of his followers to do evil things in his name. The Old Testament Jewish stuff in the Bible is there as history, not all as things we follow. The difference is that Muhammad commanded his followers to do the evil things only the most radical ones still do now.

"You don't have to be Christian to see the evils of Islam, but being a Christian seems to make you unable to see the evils of Christianity."

What are the evils of Christianity? Not the evils of some crazy individuals. The evils of those who follow what Jesus taught. The key difference between Islam and Christianity is that those who follow Jesus are good people, and those who follow Muhammad are bad people. And no this isn't me condemning all Muslims. This is me condemning the ones who actually do what Muhammad commanded, which nowadays isn't very many. Most "Muslims" don't even know half of what they're filthy founder actually did. They've just been brainwashed by the few in power, and the ones who find the truth on their own (like Nonie Darwish for example) leave Islam because they see how evil it actually is.

If you're not defending them, why are you so against believing that they did it? There's plenty of evidence that Bid Laden was in charge of Al-Qaeda and that they were responsible for the attacks.
Where do you suppose that plane disappeared to if it didn't hit the pentagon? How do you explain all the witnesses that saw a plane?
I figured you might be a leftist since the first thing you did when you got here was blame something on Israel with no reasonable evidence. Then you continued to deny facts about Muslims, Bid Laden, and their obvious role in the attacks.

"Nobody had more motive then the bush administration, period. Not even Muslims."
Don't underestimate the motives of radical Muslims.
"The US population wasn't about to sign on for their men and children to go die for some shitty country like Israel without a reason. Elaborate yes, very elaborate, and it paid off.
Saudi Arabia was sued by the victims of 911 for their involvement and lost. Common knowledge."
A little too elaborate for no one to have found out. Hundreds of people would have all had to agree to betray the country.

"Once again the whole thing was very elaborate and very rewarding for everyone involved. The whole event had more holes than Swiss cheese and any halfwit could figure out the truth with half a day of research. Almost 20 years later and here you are, blindly defending the biggest conspiracy theory of them all, (the official story)."
I don't think believing in the report is what makes someone a conspiracy theorist. Your idea about the pentagon plane has quite a few holes in it. It can't explain the eyewitnesses. The first thing you said when you came here was "Israel did 911," but now you're saying it was the Bush administration. Which do you think it was?

"You said there were witnesses, you did... and you can't provide evidence of them."
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
The plane turning sideways also explains why the hole wasn't as long as the wingspan. You claimed there were eyewitnesses who saw a missile. Do you have evidence of that?

"What do I find so revolting about a country that did 911, is committing genocide against Palestinians who are ASLO SEMITES, uses the United States soldiers to fight its wars for them and is activity destabilizing the whole region to steal land and expand its empire???????!!!!!!!
US soldiers are still dying over there, for their wars, these soldiers are kids, teenagers, sick. You advocate for endless war, send your kids to die for Israel then."

You have no proof that Israel did 9/11, only conspiracy theories. And on the contrary, it's the Muslims who commit genocide against the Jews. I suggest you read Now They Call Me Infidel by Nonie Darwish, who was a Muslim in Egypt. She attests to the morality of the Israeli army. Her father was a Muslim commander, and the Israelis came to her house one night to kill him, but he wasn't there, so they left her and her family alone.

"Right so no eyewitness then..."
Same for you then I suppose.
"The entire bush administration were zionist, sworn allegiance to Israel, thats why every president after elected goes directly to Israel to kiss their wall, and vow allegiance."
What do you find so revolting about supporting a nation that's constantly trying to be annihilated by a bunch of radical Muslim countries? Is it that you're antisemetic?

What group do you think actually did it then? The evidence shows the it was members of Al-Qaeda, a group of Muslims who actually carry out Muhammad's commands to violently subjugate the world.
There's plenty of evidence that Osama was in charge of the attacks. A few years before they happened, someone even did an interview with him and asked what his plans were for the future, and he said he hoped they would hear about it in the news.
Okay but still how would you explain the disappearance of the flight that crashed into the Pentagon and the people who watched it crash?

"Where are the eye witnesses?"
They were at the same place your supposed eyewitnesses were when they saw a "missile."
"Israel did 911, its arguable who benefitted more, but they are definitely the ones we cannot mention without being called a racist, so they are the ones I name the most. One thing is certain, all involved were zionists, so one can make the argument that all involved vow allegiance to Israel."
So not the Bush administration then? Or do you think the entire Bush admin swore allegiance to Israel?

"I think it was the Bush administration #1 they had the most motive, and made the most money taking over the oil supply."

Muslim terrorists have plenty of motive.

"#2 Israel, they wanted the United States military to destabilize the region and get rid of their opposition. Netanyahu is on record saying 911 was great for Israel."

If by great for Israel you mean it caused the US to start fighting Muslim terrorists more, then yes I guess it did have that effect. But that's a rather elaborate and unnecessary plan for Israel to carry out. If they did 9/11 because they wanted to get rid of their opposition, why didn't they use the power they used on America on their opposition instead? Why would they need to attack the people they wanted to help them?

"#3 Saudi Arabia, its common knowledge they were accomplices."

Accomplices with who?

"There are theories about the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon, it could have been flown to a secret location and the passengers killed. There was a video after 911 exposing the GPS signal of a passengers cell phone going to some island if i remember right. Will try to find it."

Once again that's a rather elaborate and unnecessary plan that could have easily been exposed if it were true. Why wouldn't anyone call someone if they were being flown hours away from where they were supposed to be going? And it doesn't explain all the people at the Pentagon who saw the plane. If you could find evidence for it, I'd be happy to go over it.

A passport that was found is proof that the Saudis were't there, that makes sense. One of MANY holes, k.

Obama got Osama in his 2nd year.

an untouched unburned passport...
He faked Osamas death in his 3rd year, when he was tanking in the poles after bailing out the banks and continuing the wars. His base was upset obviously, so he gained some support from the right.

You're silly.

https://youtu.be/yTZzfdDfsuQ