Question for atheists RE: 9/11

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yet, we are the only animal that does this on a regular basis. Other animals usually kill to eat, not for fun or malice.

Except cats. Which is why we are better than them. QED.

Wow, is this really true. Cats kill for sport? Just holdhold cats? Lions and Tigers Too? This is very interesting!

So do orcas. The way we can tell is that they are playing with their victims. But it is very possible that other species do similar things but that we can't tell. How could you tell if a fish is being malicious? What would that look like?

The point is not whether or not they are kind to their prey. It is whether or not they eat their prey. They may very well enjoy killing but the main purpose of the killing is for food.

Pfft. Cats kill, they play with their prey, and they'll eat their "prey" but always. Not even usually, in the case of housecats. My cat used to love killing and disembowling mice and just leaving them out in the open. I suspect you're one of those folks whose intellect operates in reverse: figure out what you want to believe, then work it backwards from there. We seem to have a lot of such folks here in America. They seem to vote in large numbers.

Anyway, keep moving those goalposts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yet, we are the only animal that does this on a regular basis. Other animals usually kill to eat, not for fun or malice.

Except cats. Which is why we are better than them. QED.

Wow, is this really true. Cats kill for sport? Just holdhold cats? Lions and Tigers Too? This is very interesting!

So do orcas. The way we can tell is that they are playing with their victims. But it is very possible that other species do similar things but that we can't tell. How could you tell if a fish is being malicious? What would that look like?

The point is not whether or not they are kind to their prey. It is whether or not they eat their prey. They may very well enjoy killing but the main purpose of the killing is for food.

Pfft. Cats kill, they play with their prey, and they'll eat their "prey" but always. Not even usually, in the case of housecats. My cat used to love killing and disembowling mice and just leaving them out in the open. I suspect you're one of those folks whose intellect operates in reverse: figure out what you want to believe, then work it backwards from there. We seem to have a lot of such folks here in America. They seem to vote in large numbers.

Anyway, keep moving those goalposts.

What the hell is wrong with you? I already said that domesticated animals kill for sport like people. Wild animals do not. It is the overfed, bored domesticated animals who kill just for the fun of it. What's your point anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yet, we are the only animal that does this on a regular basis. Other animals usually kill to eat, not for fun or malice.

What the hell is wrong with you? I already said that domesticated animals kill for sport like people. Wild animals do not. It is the overfed, bored domesticated animals who kill just for the fun of it. What's your point anyway?

This is my understaning as well. The article that I read states the domesticated animals still have the instinct to kill, but because they have an overabundance of food they are less likely to eat their prey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yet, we are the only animal that does this on a regular basis. Other animals usually kill to eat, not for fun or malice.

Except cats. Which is why we are better than them. QED.

Wow, is this really true. Cats kill for sport? Just holdhold cats? Lions and Tigers Too? This is very interesting!

So do orcas. The way we can tell is that they are playing with their victims. But it is very possible that other species do similar things but that we can't tell. How could you tell if a fish is being malicious? What would that look like?

The point is not whether or not they are kind to their prey. It is whether or not they eat their prey. They may very well enjoy killing but the main purpose of the killing is for food.

Pfft. Cats kill, they play with their prey, and they'll eat their "prey" but always. Not even usually, in the case of housecats. My cat used to love killing and disembowling mice and just leaving them out in the open. I suspect you're one of those folks whose intellect operates in reverse: figure out what you want to believe, then work it backwards from there. We seem to have a lot of such folks here in America. They seem to vote in large numbers.

Anyway, keep moving those goalposts.

What the hell is wrong with you? I already said that domesticated animals kill for sport like people. Wild animals do not. It is the overfed, bored domesticated animals who kill just for the fun of it. What's your point anyway?

You are weirdly anthropomorphizing the issue. It's not a matter of some "moral failing" on the part of "overfed, bored domesticated" animals. Wild animals toy with their prey. If they're hungry, they'll eat it. If not, not. The toying with prey is a constant. It has nothing to to do with some fantastical corruption of morals that your kitty cat suffers from by exposure to the stultifying effects of 21st century living. As much as you'd like it to be a parable about human dissipation, it just ain't.

[Anonymous]

People want to have some kind of explanation or rationale and don't want to believe something "just happens". It sounds like one of the things OP find perplexing is that both the terrorists and victims all die together and could share the same fate. Some people want to imagine the victims in white nighgowns with wings and halos ascending to the heavens while the terrorists go burn and suffer in the fires of hell. Somehow OP and others want there to be some "justice" or reason why it happens or punishment for those who deserve it. Seems very childish to me and the very reason why religion exists--to explain the inexplicable and provide people with a really simplisitc and satisfying explanation. Obviously there is not enough real justice on this planet/in this life and it's very, very satisfying to imagine that the bad dudes will die but go on to get their big ol' punishment from the devil and the good guys will really be rewarded in the afterlife, achieving peace and loveliness, etc.

OP here. I see the discussion went a little off with talk of animals and humans being equal and such, but I want to back up a little to my original question.

I don't want to imagine the victims in halos and the terrorists with pitchforks in their backs. I want everyone to be with God for all eternity, and I want perfect justice.

But it doesn't matter what I want. What matters is what is real, what is fact, what is true.

If the atheists have the real facts, then humans are just matter and energy, there is no such thing as perfect justice, and evil and good are subjective rather than objective.

I did not hear anyone publicly offer that perspective on 9/11/11. No one stood up and said "dust to dust, the victims got screwed in our opinion, but in the terrorists' opinion, they got what they deserved, and that's all just reality, so let's drop the fairy tales and face facts."

If the atheists are right, why do most people walk around deluding themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yet, we are the only animal that does this on a regular basis. Other animals usually kill to eat, not for fun or malice.

Except cats. Which is why we are better than them. QED.

Wow, is this really true. Cats kill for sport? Just holdhold cats? Lions and Tigers Too? This is very interesting!

So do orcas. The way we can tell is that they are playing with their victims. But it is very possible that other species do similar things but that we can't tell. How could you tell if a fish is being malicious? What would that look like?

The point is not whether or not they are kind to their prey. It is whether or not they eat their prey. They may very well enjoy killing but the main purpose of the killing is for food.

Pfft. Cats kill, they play with their prey, and they'll eat their "prey" but always. Not even usually, in the case of housecats. My cat used to love killing and disembowling mice and just leaving them out in the open. I suspect you're one of those folks whose intellect operates in reverse: figure out what you want to believe, then work it backwards from there. We seem to have a lot of such folks here in America. They seem to vote in large numbers.

Anyway, keep moving those goalposts.

What the hell is wrong with you? I already said that domesticated animals kill for sport like people. Wild animals do not. It is the overfed, bored domesticated animals who kill just for the fun of it. What's your point anyway?

You are weirdly anthropomorphizing the issue. It's not a matter of some "moral failing" on the part of "overfed, bored domesticated" animals. Wild animals toy with their prey. If they're hungry, they'll eat it. If not, not. The toying with prey is a constant. It has nothing to to do with some fantastical corruption of morals that your kitty cat suffers from by exposure to the stultifying effects of 21st century living. As much as you'd like it to be a parable about human dissipation, it just ain't.

More here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-266415.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

People want to have some kind of explanation or rationale and don't want to believe something "just happens". It sounds like one of the things OP find perplexing is that both the terrorists and victims all die together and could share the same fate. Some people want to imagine the victims in white nighgowns with wings and halos ascending to the heavens while the terrorists go burn and suffer in the fires of hell. Somehow OP and others want there to be some "justice" or reason why it happens or punishment for those who deserve it. Seems very childish to me and the very reason why religion exists--to explain the inexplicable and provide people with a really simplisitc and satisfying explanation. Obviously there is not enough real justice on this planet/in this life and it's very, very satisfying to imagine that the bad dudes will die but go on to get their big ol' punishment from the devil and the good guys will really be rewarded in the afterlife, achieving peace and loveliness, etc.

OP here. I see the discussion went a little off with talk of animals and humans being equal and such, but I want to back up a little to my original question.

I don't want to imagine the victims in halos and the terrorists with pitchforks in their backs. I want everyone to be with God for all eternity, and I want perfect justice.

But it doesn't matter what I want. What matters is what is real, what is fact, what is true.

If the atheists have the real facts, then humans are just matter and energy, there is no such thing as perfect justice, and evil and good are subjective rather than objective.

I did not hear anyone publicly offer that perspective on 9/11/11. No one stood up and said "dust to dust, the victims got screwed in our opinion, but in the terrorists' opinion, they got what they deserved, and that's all just reality, so let's drop the fairy tales and face facts."

If the atheists are right, why do most people walk around deluding themselves?

I recognize you from your pedantic and sanctimonious tone. You were the progenitor of the endless post wondering "Why Don't You Believe In God??"

Anyway, my favorite bit about your song and dance is this part:

"It doesn't matter what I want. What matters is what is real, what is fact, what is true" followed instantly by a naked appeal to wishful thinking. To paraphrase (whether you realize it or not, and you don't seem to be able to process it):

It doesn't matter what I want. Having said that, there must be a God because the alternative would just be to painful to contemplate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yet, we are the only animal that does this on a regular basis. Other animals usually kill to eat, not for fun or malice.

Except cats. Which is why we are better than them. QED.

Wow, is this really true. Cats kill for sport? Just holdhold cats? Lions and Tigers Too? This is very interesting!

So do orcas. The way we can tell is that they are playing with their victims. But it is very possible that other species do similar things but that we can't tell. How could you tell if a fish is being malicious? What would that look like?

The point is not whether or not they are kind to their prey. It is whether or not they eat their prey. They may very well enjoy killing but the main purpose of the killing is for food.

Pfft. Cats kill, they play with their prey, and they'll eat their "prey" but always. Not even usually, in the case of housecats. My cat used to love killing and disembowling mice and just leaving them out in the open. I suspect you're one of those folks whose intellect operates in reverse: figure out what you want to believe, then work it backwards from there. We seem to have a lot of such folks here in America. They seem to vote in large numbers.

Anyway, keep moving those goalposts.

What the hell is wrong with you? I already said that domesticated animals kill for sport like people. Wild animals do not. It is the overfed, bored domesticated animals who kill just for the fun of it. What's your point anyway?

You are weirdly anthropomorphizing the issue. It's not a matter of some "moral failing" on the part of "overfed, bored domesticated" animals. Wild animals toy with their prey. If they're hungry, they'll eat it. If not, not. The toying with prey is a constant. It has nothing to to do with some fantastical corruption of morals that your kitty cat suffers from by exposure to the stultifying effects of 21st century living. As much as you'd like it to be a parable about human dissipation, it just ain't.

I said nothing of the sort. Where are you getting the idea that I am anthropomorphizing anything? You are creating an argument where there isn't one. "Fantastical corruption?" "A parable about human dissipation?" Where are you getting this shit? It's funny but not useful. You are basically just arguing with yourself over nothing. Animals in the wild do not kill for sheer pleasure. Domesticated animals do. I placed no moral value on any of it and don't really give a shit one way or the other. I just don't think humans are superior- that's all.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and as far as your question: "If the atheists are right, why do most people walk around deluding themselves?"

Every single thing you've ever written on this topic answers your question. People love to hear pleasant-sounding myths, regardless of whether they're true or not. And they have very, very little self-awareness.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read past the first page of this thread, but to answer the OP-

I don't think about what happened to the victims of 9/11 in terms of what happened to them after they died. I just think about how sad it is that life was lost, that so many people lost friends, family members, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

People want to have some kind of explanation or rationale and don't want to believe something "just happens". It sounds like one of the things OP find perplexing is that both the terrorists and victims all die together and could share the same fate. Some people want to imagine the victims in white nighgowns with wings and halos ascending to the heavens while the terrorists go burn and suffer in the fires of hell. Somehow OP and others want there to be some "justice" or reason why it happens or punishment for those who deserve it. Seems very childish to me and the very reason why religion exists--to explain the inexplicable and provide people with a really simplisitc and satisfying explanation. Obviously there is not enough real justice on this planet/in this life and it's very, very satisfying to imagine that the bad dudes will die but go on to get their big ol' punishment from the devil and the good guys will really be rewarded in the afterlife, achieving peace and loveliness, etc.

OP here. I see the discussion went a little off with talk of animals and humans being equal and such, but I want to back up a little to my original question.

I don't want to imagine the victims in halos and the terrorists with pitchforks in their backs. I want everyone to be with God for all eternity, and I want perfect justice.

But it doesn't matter what I want. What matters is what is real, what is fact, what is true.

If the atheists have the real facts, then humans are just matter and energy, there is no such thing as perfect justice, and evil and good are subjective rather than objective.

I did not hear anyone publicly offer that perspective on 9/11/11. No one stood up and said "dust to dust, the victims got screwed in our opinion, but in the terrorists' opinion, they got what they deserved, and that's all just reality, so let's drop the fairy tales and face facts."

If the atheists are right, why do most people walk around deluding themselves?

Because it makes them and presumably you feel better and cope with life. My mom is deeply religious and honestly, if she didn't believe in God she would be depressed and probably fall apart. She needs to believe in God to deal with her parents' death and events like 9/11. Even though I don't need to believe in God, Heaven and Hell to deal with tragedy I don't feel the need to take this away from my mom. If believing helps her make sense of her life, so be it. What I don't accept is when she tries to convince me that I am wrong or should think like her. I realize that I live my life now and she lives her life in what may or she perceives will be. I don't get it and she can't imagine how I can think they way I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yet, we are the only animal that does this on a regular basis. Other animals usually kill to eat, not for fun or malice.

Except cats. Which is why we are better than them. QED.

Wow, is this really true. Cats kill for sport? Just holdhold cats? Lions and Tigers Too? This is very interesting!

So do orcas. The way we can tell is that they are playing with their victims. But it is very possible that other species do similar things but that we can't tell. How could you tell if a fish is being malicious? What would that look like?

The point is not whether or not they are kind to their prey. It is whether or not they eat their prey. They may very well enjoy killing but the main purpose of the killing is for food.

Pfft. Cats kill, they play with their prey, and they'll eat their "prey" but always. Not even usually, in the case of housecats. My cat used to love killing and disembowling mice and just leaving them out in the open. I suspect you're one of those folks whose intellect operates in reverse: figure out what you want to believe, then work it backwards from there. We seem to have a lot of such folks here in America. They seem to vote in large numbers.

Anyway, keep moving those goalposts.

What the hell is wrong with you? I already said that domesticated animals kill for sport like people. Wild animals do not. It is the overfed, bored domesticated animals who kill just for the fun of it. What's your point anyway?

You are weirdly anthropomorphizing the issue. It's not a matter of some "moral failing" on the part of "overfed, bored domesticated" animals. Wild animals toy with their prey. If they're hungry, they'll eat it. If not, not. The toying with prey is a constant. It has nothing to to do with some fantastical corruption of morals that your kitty cat suffers from by exposure to the stultifying effects of 21st century living. As much as you'd like it to be a parable about human dissipation, it just ain't.

I said nothing of the sort. Where are you getting the idea that I am anthropomorphizing anything? You are creating an argument where there isn't one. "Fantastical corruption?" "A parable about human dissipation?" Where are you getting this shit? It's funny but not useful. You are basically just arguing with yourself over nothing. Animals in the wild do not kill for sheer pleasure. Domesticated animals do. I placed no moral value on any of it and don't really give a shit one way or the other. I just don't think humans are superior- that's all.

Yes, of course I was being unnecessarily snarky, but surely you won't deny there was a judgmental component to your characterization of "overfed, bored domesticated animals". The link I posted had plenty of references to sated, mentally engaged animals, wild and otherwise who also engage in what would be considered casual cruelty. But who are we to assign them motives, anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People want to have some kind of explanation or rationale and don't want to believe something "just happens". It sounds like one of the things OP find perplexing is that both the terrorists and victims all die together and could share the same fate. Some people want to imagine the victims in white nighgowns with wings and halos ascending to the heavens while the terrorists go burn and suffer in the fires of hell. Somehow OP and others want there to be some "justice" or reason why it happens or punishment for those who deserve it. Seems very childish to me and the very reason why religion exists--to explain the inexplicable and provide people with a really simplisitc and satisfying explanation. Obviously there is not enough real justice on this planet/in this life and it's very, very satisfying to imagine that the bad dudes will die but go on to get their big ol' punishment from the devil and the good guys will really be rewarded in the afterlife, achieving peace and loveliness, etc.

OP here. I see the discussion went a little off with talk of animals and humans being equal and such, but I want to back up a little to my original question.

I don't want to imagine the victims in halos and the terrorists with pitchforks in their backs. I want everyone to be with God for all eternity, and I want perfect justice.

But it doesn't matter what I want. What matters is what is real, what is fact, what is true.

If the atheists have the real facts, then humans are just matter and energy, there is no such thing as perfect justice, and evil and good are subjective rather than objective.

I did not hear anyone publicly offer that perspective on 9/11/11. No one stood up and said "dust to dust, the victims got screwed in our opinion, but in the terrorists' opinion, they got what they deserved, and that's all just reality, so let's drop the fairy tales and face facts."

If the atheists are right, why do most people walk around deluding themselves?

Because it makes them and presumably you feel better and cope with life. My mom is deeply religious and honestly, if she didn't believe in God she would be depressed and probably fall apart. She needs to believe in God to deal with her parents' death and events like 9/11. Even though I don't need to believe in God, Heaven and Hell to deal with tragedy I don't feel the need to take this away from my mom. If believing helps her make sense of her life, so be it. What I don't accept is when she tries to convince me that I am wrong or should think like her. I realize that I live my life now and she lives her life in what may or she perceives will be. I don't get it and she can't imagine how I can think they way I do.

Uh oh. We're about one non-believer short of OP entering full Christian martyr mode. Testify!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yet, we are the only animal that does this on a regular basis. Other animals usually kill to eat, not for fun or malice.

I said nothing of the sort. Where are you getting the idea that I am anthropomorphizing anything? You are creating an argument where there isn't one. "Fantastical corruption?" "A parable about human dissipation?" Where are you getting this shit? It's funny but not useful. You are basically just arguing with yourself over nothing. Animals in the wild do not kill for sheer pleasure. Domesticated animals do. I placed no moral value on any of it and don't really give a shit one way or the other. I just don't think humans are superior- that's all.

Yes, of course I was being unnecessarily snarky, but surely you won't deny there was a judgmental component to your characterization of "overfed, bored domesticated animals". The link I posted had plenty of references to sated, mentally engaged animals, wild and otherwise who also engage in what would be considered casual cruelty. But who are we to assign them motives, anyway?

No seriously, I do NOT think there is any morality to it whatsoever. I think that humans and domesticated animals share a propensity for being overfed and bored. I also believe that being bored and overfed might lead to an interest in killing for sport in some cases. That's all. Really. My only point was that humans are not superior or gentler creatures. And that point seems to be moot at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Oh, well. I tried to crop that last post and messed up. You get the point though.