Revelation

[masak_aer]

and yet God is omnipresent ... anywhere the ball comes from IS straight from him.

I'm going to leave my views of religion out of my comments, I personally think that religion is such a charged subject for debate that expressing opinions about it are simply pointless.

Agreed. The discussion about religions have been conducted by the experts in their own field and in many online community forums which i may say never ends in one grabbing the faith of another or losing faith because of it. Name callings and not so nice words have been thrown at each other's. I have reached to a point where i think the so called "atheist" start bringing the informative and educative discussion down.

The video is no masterpiece, and certainly has many holes in it. However there is definently some points that are brought up that have sufficient legitimate source material to merrit further consideration. Regarding the 9/11 portion especially I should say. For anyone to blindly believe without reservations that 9/11 was the complete work of a relatively small group of radical muslims is amusing to me. There are far too many inconsistencies in the explanations held popular today to account for all of what was achieved on that day. Before some of you start firing back with comments about specialists confirming data taken, I would just like to say that I am well aware of the data. I've read the 9/11 Commission, I've done a decent amount of research of my own and I will be the first to admit that I am in no position to make judgement in any which way. I don't feed into the conspiracy theories that believe it was all contrived by the US Government to wage a war overseas.

Halon451 made this comment, and I think it is a very interesting one indeed;


This is truly the central issue of 9/11 in many aspects when one considers the inconsistencies in the whole events of that tragic day. Seven days after it, only the most basic understanding of the cause of the events were understood by the public. Unified by a common belief, the Government had the green light to ratify many acts which impede upon civil liberties in the United States. It had the green light to launch a war campaign against a nation who was not responsible for the acts of 9/11. It generated a fear for possible repeat actions by rogue nations such as Iraq, which in turn gave fertile soil for more war. Right or wrong, for better or worse, this is true.

Seven years later, we have the benefit of multiple studies and commissions investigating the events of that day. The burden of continued combat operations overseas in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And the failure to truly say we have held accountable those who committed, orchestrated, and made possible this atrocity. No one has benefitted from this, other then those whose purses have grown fatter loaning the government the money to operate overseas, and those getting the contracts to manage the oil industry over there. This too is a fact, right or wrong, for better or worse.

The cost for all of this continues to be paid by the public, day in and day out. Through loss of life, through inflation of the dollar, through so many other ways. Were I you, I am sure I would still believe that answers to many questions must still be addressed and answered. Were I you, I am sure I would still want Justice to be issued to those responsible.


For myself, I'm military. I'm light infantry currently, and I've done my stint in the special forces here in Canada. At the end of the day, I don't really care about the situation in Afghanistan, I care about my family. I get paid peanuts compared to those who benefit from my service overseas, and I don't resent that. I chose the combat arms because it was a calling for me, I'm a violent individual, and I am comfortable in theatre. When the Canadian government sends me places to kill other people I am fine with that at the end of the day. So this is my advice. I think if even I can manage not to be a zealot of the governments propaganda, where I've been taught by the government to do its dirty work, then you owe it to yourself not to take everything told to you by them as the truth. You all have the luxury of excercising your freewill, to demand more complete answers to the questions raised from the ashes of 9/11. It is not unpatriotic to think something has gone afoul within the government, its unpatriotic to turn a blind eye to it.

Yes, i watched the video not into its entirety but only on the 9/11 portion. I drew my conclusion that this is just an exaggeration of the conspiracy theory. There was similar video some time ago with similar sources cited. We have the 9/11 Commission report, yes, that's true. It doesn't mean everybody here who criticize the "posted" video link agrees to that report. Nobody even talk about it until you brought it up. Yes, that report contains inconsistencies but that's not the case here. You bring up about the government used this incident to wage war against Iraq, did i hear anybody mentioning that? I criticize you for talking down to everybody here like we are not as smart and diligent to look at the legitimacy of the sources. The sources may be legitimate, with their own credentials but you have to ask yourself, what is the movie maker trying to point out here? Conspiracy theory? If the answer is yes, then that assumption had been debunked numerous time before and the legitimacy of the sources doesn't matter much anymore, does it? I personally do not want to sit down and watch a 1:30 movie and check the legitimacy of each of the sources cited, anybody else here with me? Nobody here ever mentioned about wars as the result of the tragedy. Clearly, you are bringing different things up while you don't know what we are talking about and we are only 100 posts away.

 

[masak_aer]

The correct phrase is "Evolution by natural selection."

That's a cute name but not as catchy. "Intelligent Design" seems much more scientific. Ah well, may be just call it "Natural Selection Evolution"? or "Evolution Theory"? What do you think? You have to name a branch of science with a more catchy name for youngsters to be interested and remember.

 

[stratman]

The Discovery Channel had an excellent program on the 911 conspiracies floating on the net, they took the most prominent one, I think it was called "Loose Change," and they detailed how Popular Mechanics dismantled it piece by piece and what looked like a legitimate, well researched piece of film making turned out to be pure rubbish, bad science, bad research, heresy, 2nd and 3rd witness accounts, misinformation and at the end a bias against the US government.

It's obvious you don't take all that the authorities say without question, but to go and make a movie full of distortions and deceit to make a political point in light of what happened and the victims and families that suffered is utterly shameful.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

That's a cute name but not as catchy. "Intelligent Design" seems much more scientific. Ah well, may be just call it "Natural Selection Evolution"? or "Evolution Theory"? What do you think? You have to name a branch of science with a more catchy name for youngsters to be interested and remember.

"Intelligent Design" is not another name for Evolution, it is another name for the Theory of Creationism.

 

[avaserfi]

A little know piece of information about "Loose Change" is the creators were actually making a spoof of other 9/11 conpiracy theories the problem is they were trying to use factual information in this spoof. As the production went on the makers ended up convincing themselves with their own consipriacy and lost their original sight. Once released "Loose Change" spread like wild fire and parts of the posted video are stolen from it .

 

[masak_aer]

"Intelligent Design" is not another name for Evolution, it is another name for the Theory of Creationism.

I am not arguing with you on the meaning and background of the "intelligent design" name. I am fully aware of it. I am just saying it's a more catchy name. Please relax and take the front view seat.

 

[dronezero]

You wrote that, huh? You sure about that?

Yes, that is an echo of the sentiment of my post.

It is. I refrained from writing what I was thinking. That is courteous.

So let me get this straight. When we say what you write is foolish it is an insult, but when you say that what we write is drivel it is being courteous. That is a double standard.

Because of...? Separation of church and state. The comment you wholly disagreed with is that this country was founded on Judeo Christian principles...and you are just wrong on that. I'll ask you this, regardless of the absence of the word "god" in the constitution, how many times a day do you think you see that word? And, oh, it's not the evil empire forcing subliminal messages upon you. Let me help you out. Your currency is rife with God references. Specifically, "In God We Trust" has been on some form of our currency since Lincoln's death.

Your confusion seems to lie in that you think seperation of church and state is a Judeo Christian principle.

And I see the word god far too often. Part of it is my own fault though because I frequent forums where discussions such as these take place. And that IGWT is on the currency goes against the seperation of church and state as well.

This is the part where you and your atheist bretheren can stick your your heads together...as it makes no sense to me. But I like how you regurgitate the nonsensical drivel. You just reaffirm by belief.

You're confused. There is no atheist creed. We don't come to a consensus on anything because we are not defined except by our lack of a belief in a diety. So that you expect that we will stick our heads together and present some unified front is absurd.

Let me help you again. It is not insulting for me to write If there is any shame (on those atheists), they have perpetrated that indignity upon themeselves. "Shame" was first proposed by your atheist bretheren. I denied any shame being forced upon them by the Deists, because the atheists continuously interject themseves into these spiritual/faith-driven/religious threads, and they are the ones that continually deride and ridicule those that have faith. Nowhere that I've read is any person of faith ridiculing the atheists for they're lack of belief. Nowhere.

There is a problem here. You are over generalizing. There as been one poster that has attacked Christians. But instead of addressing that one poster you attack all atheists by calling what we write drivel. I agree with you that the one poster is not being polite and considerate, but that does not make you in the right when you call everything that the atheists have written in this thread and elsewhere drivel.

 

[aberkowitz]

A little know piece of information about "Loose Change" is the creators were actually making a spoof of other 9/11 conpiracy theories the problem is they were trying to use factual information in this spoof. As the production went on the makers ended up convincing themselves with their own consipriacy and lost their original sight. Once released "Loose Change" spread like wild fire and parts of the posted video are stolen from it .

Interesting quote that I stole from Wikipedia regarding Loose Change:

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has written that the 9/11 truth movement: "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes."[39]

Hey- it at least made me laugh

 

[Alex2507]

Interesting quote that I stole from Wikipedia regarding Loose Change:

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has written that the 9/11 truth movement: "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes."[39]

Hey- it at least made me laugh

A rather well placed kick straight to the balls.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It will take you places.

You mean it comes with a personal time warp craft?

 

[mtrycrafts]

The universe is a vast place. While we humans might think that we have come a long way since our origins as singled cell organisms in all these billions of years, compared to the immensity of what is out there, we as a species have just started on this journey..

There are bound to be beings millions if not billions of years older than us. They were old when the universe was young. Giants, who freely walked amongst the stars and the galaxies. Stars were their building blocks. Galaxies were their playgrounds. Timeless, ageless. Perhaps one day, far into the distant future, humanity's descendants will be lucky enough to join their ranks.

I like science fiction.

You mean all the intelligent races out there are all like us too? Or, that 'creator' changes his image at each experiment?

 

[mtrycrafts]

What about believing in human nature? All those things can be achieved by men! No need for divine intervention.

But, it is much simpler to just accept that intervention

 

[mtrycrafts]

The Discovery Channel had an excellent program on the 911 conspiracies floating on the net, they took the most prominent one, I think it was called "Loose Change," and they detailed how Popular Mechanics dismantled it piece by piece and what looked like a legitimate, well researched piece of film making turned out to be pure rubbish, bad science, bad research, heresy, 2nd and 3rd witness accounts, misinformation and at the end a bias against the US government.

It's obvious you don't take all that the authorities say without question, but to go and make a movie full of distortions and deceit to make a political point in light of what happened and the victims and families that suffered is utterly shameful.

Well stated. Interesting how those conspiracy guys know so much and not be an expert in any of the fields necessary to examine the evidence properly

 

[Johnd]

Yes, that is an echo of the sentiment of my post.

Ahhh. But you wrote that you wrote it. Fuzzy?

So let me get this straight. When we say what you write is foolish it is an insult, but when you say that what we write is drivel it is being courteous. That is a double standard.

No, it is not a double standard. Try to understand this. The one that you write is "impolite and inconsiderate" consistently agrees with you. And he is consistently far more than "impolite and inconsiderate". He readily attacks people's core beliefs...and so do you. That is a far cry from my post that an attack as such is drivel. Get it? It's rather simple.

Your confusion seems to lie in that you think seperation of church and state is a Judeo Christian principle.

I'm not confused. See my first paragraph above. Nor did I ever write that the "seperation of church and state is a Judeo Christian principle." Never. Who's confused? Finally separation has only one "e". More confusion?

And I see the word god far too often.

Then go to a place where it is not a part of society, and the right to embrace and express it is not law!

You're confused. There is no atheist creed.

No, I'm not. I never wrote that there is an atheist credo.

We don't come to a consensus on anything because we are not defined except by our lack of a belief in a diety.

And your infantile quick manner wherein you so readily attack those with faith.

So that you expect that we will stick our heads together and present some unified front is absurd.

No, it's not absurd. Your failure to recognize it does not make it an absurdity. Again, YOU are very quick to attack other's faith. That makes you intolerant, and absurd (in the context of not worthy of meaningful discourse...by fiat).

There is a problem here. You are over generalizing. There as been one poster that has attacked Christians.

It's not just Christians, but anyone that believes in God that you so readily attack that I take a personal affront to...it is our right in this country...let alone the world to believe and have faith.

But instead of addressing that one poster you attack all atheists by calling what we write drivel.

Again, the "drivel" is the repeated attacks on our faith. Why can you not understand that simple premise?

I agree with you that the one poster is not being polite and considerate, but that does not make you in the right when you call everything that the atheists have written in this thread and elsewhere drivel.

I have never, nor would I ever "call", say or write such a thing. Please quote me if I have. You continually misquote me and misrepresent what I mean. Why is that?

 

[Alex2507]

You mean that 'creator' changes his image at each experiment?

Oddly enough I just had a thought on this an hour ago. Why not is my response to the question. A question raised by your question for me is what is meant by image or likeness in some translation or another.

It occurred to me that since God is all powerful that maybe the different religions get what they expect. Reincarnation, 77 virgins and being seated on the right hand of the Father is all possible. A kind of to each his own thing. Paradoxically every body would get to be right and wrong at the same time. A Will Farrel Deep Thoughts moment if you will.

 

[dronezero]

...

This going back if forth is not getting us anywhere. The discussion is turning into word salad. Suffice it to say I don't think Joe Schmoe's posts have been polite and I don't think your posts have been polite.

I would like to go back to where this tanget started. You and stratman are claiming that the US is founded on Judeo Christian principles and ethics. So I will ask for a second time. Which Judeo Christian principles specifically?

 

[Johnd]

This going back if forth is not getting us anywhere. The discussion is turning into word salad. Suffice it to say I don't think Joe Schmoe's posts have been polite and I don't think your posts have been polite.

I would like to go back to where this tanget started. You and stratman are claiming that the US is founded on Judeo Christian principles and ethics. So I will ask for a second time. Which Judeo Christian principles specifically?

Oh. Now you desire civil discourse.

Next time you misquote me and misrepresent what I write I'll be there to call you on it...again.

Civil discourse. I believe that is how I have conducted myself in this thread. I'll let strat field your question. When you've substantiated to me that you're able to engage in civil discourse absent the blanket atheist (or other) agenda, I'll be happy to get involved by asking questions (hopefully the right ones) and give my humble opinion.

 

[dronezero]

Oh. Now you desire civil discourse.

Next time you misquote me and misrepresent what I write I'll be there to call you on it...again.

Civil discourse. I believe that is how I have conducted myself in this thread. I'll let strat field your question. When you've substantiated to me that you're able to engage in civil discourse absent the blanket atheist (or other) agenda, I'll be happy to get involved by asking questions (hopefully the right ones) and give my humble opinion.

Welcome to my ignore list. I have been on a dozen forums over the years most of them had thousands of active members. And I have run across some colossal ********. You however are the first person I have ever put on an ignore list. You would do well to consider why that is.

 

[Johnd]

Welcome to my ignore list. I have been on a dozen forums over the years most of them had thousands of active members. And I have run across some colossal ********. You however are the first person I have ever put on an ignore list. You would do well to consider why that is.

Why don't you say what you mean, and mean what you say?

Curiously, you've been here at Audioholics for what, a whole six weeks? And every one of your posts but three, that is 3, has been in two threads, this one and America's... And all but one of those posts of yours was directed at me. I see you as you have presented yourself...a troll.

It's now time for you to put up or shut up. Disprove your brief but notorious legacy...ignore me, and offer some meaningful substance to this site. I'm sure that would be appreciated by all over this fodder. Perhaps in another life...or not (we weren't clear on your depth of Existentialism).

 

[Joe Schmoe]

This going back if forth is not getting us anywhere. The discussion is turning into word salad. Suffice it to say I don't think Joe Schmoe's posts have been polite and I don't think your posts have been polite.

I would like to go back to where this tanget started. You and stratman are claiming that the US is founded on Judeo Christian principles and ethics. So I will ask for a second time. Which Judeo Christian principles specifically?

I have expressed some strong opinions, which some here disagree with, but I don't think that that is in any way rude. Other people frequently express opinions with which I strongly disagree, but I don't consider them impolite either (like me, they have every right to say what they think.)

I agree that it would be interesting to see which principles they are referring to. My understanding is that most of the ideas in the constitution came from ancient Greece, long before the christian era.