How do you feel about the 9/11 attack?

[moonman239]

R.I.P to the many who were killed or injured as a result of this attack - normal citizens & rescue workers. God bless you all. I know that your murderers will one day receive a fair punishment for their actions.

[baja_yu]

Where's the: I feel happy, or the I feel said and I'm angry at Obama option?

[Justa Lol]

to be honest, i think there are too many people on this planet.. you know where i'm going with this.

[arunb]

sad..even today after these many years...

[NeedSomeAnswers]

R.I.P to the many who were killed or injured as a result of this attack - normal citizens & rescue workers. God bless you all. I know that your murderers will one day receive a fair punishment for their actions.

And all these years I was heavily under the impression that the murderers / terrorists or whatever, were actually on the planes when they crashed and therefore dead.

How exactly then do you expect them to recieve "a fair punishment for their actions" ?

[moonman239]

And all these years I was heavily under the impression that the murderers / terrorists or whatever, were actually on the planes when they crashed and therefore dead.

How exactly then do you expect them to recieve "a fair punishment for their actions" ?

In my church we believe that the unrepentant will be punished in heaven, in addition to any mortal punishments they receive. Everyone will receive punishment for their bad actions in their mortal life, but the repentant can live with our Heavenly Father (a.k.a God) and Jesus Christ.

[baja_yu]

Not everyone who deserves it receives punishment in their mortal life. Plus that repenting looks like a loophole. So someone can be as bad as they want during life, and near the end repent and it's all fine as far as God's concerned?

[szlamany]

...someone can be as bad as they want during life, and near the end repent and it's all fine...

I bet there is an app for that

[dilettante]

Reminds me of the classic:


Of course that particular group holds no monopoly on silly things either.

[Niya]

The 9/11 attacks were unfortunate and my heart goes out to the victims and their families but at the same times there are atrocities 1000x worse being committed every day yet they barely see the light of day. They don't receive nearly as much press. America is about 200 years old and that's just about the only such attack to ever take place in that country since the civil war and everybody's been fussing over that for like a decade now. Where's all the press, outcries and outrages when terrible things like that happen in places where its everyday life ? Where's all the hoopla for that most terrible drug war in Mexico, where's all the hoopla for the ungodly atrocities the weak face in places like the Congo and Somalia ? That's why I voted "don't care". As much as 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, its been given wayyy too much attention.

[FunkyDexter]

The 9/11 attacks were unfortunate and my heart goes out to the victims and their families but at the same times there are atrocities 1000x worse being committed every day yet they barely see the light of day. They don't receive nearly as much press. America is about 200 years old and that's just about the only such attack to ever take place in that country since the civil war and everybody's been fussing over that for like a decade now. Where's all the press, outcries and outrages when terrible things like that happen in places where its everyday life ? Where's all the hoopla for that most terrible drug war in Mexico, where's all the hoopla for the ungodly atrocities the weak face in places like the Congo and Somalia ? That's why I voted "don't care". As much as 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, its been given wayyy too much attention.

+1. That somes up my feeling perfectly. I can't bring myself to vote "I don't care" because I do; 9/11 was a horrible tragedy. But it was, in the end, just one tragedy in a world history that is rammed full of similar and far worse and it's scale has long since been eclipsed by the damage we inflicted in response.

[thebuffalo]

I mean, I saw it live, in person, and there were explosions going off in both buildings on the first 20 levels, below the plane. So..... I don't know how to say this without seeming "blunt" but, it wasn't just them damn terrorists.

"It was probably just gas lines"

[Hack]

Which wouldn't have gone off if the damn terrorits hadn't attacked.

I hope the people that voted "I don't care" aren't Americans.

[Niya]

I hope the people that voted "I don't care" aren't Americans.

Well I'm not. Don't get me wrong though I do sympathize but there was no "9/11 isn't the only tragedy in recent history where thousands died" option...."I don't care" was the closest.

What gets me about the whole thing is that it reeks of too much self-importance. Something like this happens in some European, African or Asian country, it gets about a week or two of heavy coverage and then it kinda dies down but when it happens in America, they wanna badger us with it for decades. Its like saying American lives are worth more than non-American lives. I actually find that offensive.

To be fair though, the Tsunami in Indonesia did receive a fair worth of press and outpouring of sympathy. Only recent tragedy I can think of that could have toppled 9/11 in terms of attention.

[Shaggy Hiker]

One of the issues about 9/11 is that there was somebody to be mad at. When a tsunami hits (tidal wave is actually a better name for them, though it is out of vogue these days), there is nobody to be angry at. The US wouldn't have made nearly the same kerfuffle over it had it been a natural disaster. Sure, we would have had numerous commissions, investigations, lawsuits, and so forth, but not the same response as 9/11, since there would be nobody to seek vengeance against.

Of course, as the Economist and others have noted, there is more to it than that. The second most deadly terrorist attack in the US was Oklahoma City, which was a right-wing attack. In fact, there have been several times as many terrorist attacks in the last two decades by right-wing groups in the US as by any foreign group. However, when the FBI decided that they were going to step up surveillance on terrorist groups, they were told that they were not allowed to include right-wing group, according to the Economist. That's pretty consistent with the response to Oklahoma City. As long as it was thought to be foreign, the talking heads were shouting. As soon as it turned out to be a domestic right-wing group, the talking heads were changing the subject.

9/11 was the perfect attack for those who want to beat a drum: Somebody did it, we were the target, and it wasn't one of us.

[FunkyDexter]

One of the issues about 9/11 is that there was somebody to be mad at.

I think that's an important consideration but not the only one. Certainly it easy to distinguish the response to 9/11 from the response to the Japanese Tsunami and subsequent nuclear meltdown on that basis but it's trickier when you consider the ongoing genocides in Central Africa, the massacres that are currently occuring in Syria or, at the risk of touching too sore a point and derailing the thread, the civilian deaths we've seen in Iraq and Afganistan. Those are all very much man-made but I doubt anyone much will be talking about them in 10 years time. I'm afraid I have to say that, viewed from the outside, the ongoing emotional outpouring from Americans about 9/11 does start to look a little odd and, as Niya said, self important. Please note, that I said "looks odd" there, not "is odd". I suspect for you guys it's still genuinely raw and the reason us non-americans start to look a little perplexed is that we don't share your closeness to what happened.

I think the thing that really stands out about 9/11 is that it was so extraordinary in the context of American History. I agree with Shaggy that terrorist attachs aren't that unusual in the US if you don't exclude domestic terrorism. But 9/11 was still extra-ordinary due to it's scale, the "Hollywood" nature of it's execution and how unexpected it was. I can understand why, for you guys, it was on a par with Pearl Harbour. And I think it's probably that extra-ordinary nature that will keep it alive for you guys for some time yet. Hell, us Brits are still gnashing our teeth over Diana and she was just one person who died 5 years before 9/11.

But all that said, I can't help feeling that it's time the US found a way to put 9/11 behind them. The world has moved on there is great good you guys could be doing in it now.

[Niya]

Dexter pretty much nailed it....Good post.

[dunfiddlin]

In my church we believe that the unrepentant will be punished in heaven

Really? Kind of makes me wish I believed in the other place so I could go there for a break from your heaven then!

[Niya]

Why do people of the 21st century still believe in bronze age myths ?

[dunfiddlin]

Because we're still bronze age people! And no matter how far we may seem to have advanced, we probably always will be. There is, as one of those bronze age scriptures points out 'nothing new under the sun'. None of us is any more enlightened, free of fear or existential angst, independent of emotion, hormone or reflex, or the simple need to have something to believe in than our bronze age cousins. Anybody who believes their life is free of myth and legend just because they declare themselves to be scientific or atheist simply isn't paying attention.

And, of course, there's always the possibility, no matter how remote, that one or two or many of those myths, freed of the metaphorical and mystical accretions just might prove to be the bearer of truth.

[Niya]

Good post but I have a gripe with this:-

And, of course, there's always the possibility, no matter how remote, that one or two or many of those myths, freed of the metaphorical and mystical accretions just might prove to be the bearer of truth.

I find this laughable. I mean come on...one of those myths blames the rotten state of the world(where things like 9/11 can happen ) on a talking snake that convinced a woman to each a magic fruit. Of all the ridiculous theories about our past, this really takes the cake. There can be no more truth to that than there can truth to the existence of beings like the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Dracula, and werewolves.

[baja_yu]

Didn't 9/11 happened because of gay people?!

[thebuffalo]

9/11 happened because of oil. It was an after affect of the Gulf War. George W. Bush is to blame, and his father. 9/11 happening allowed us to invade the Middle East is several different countries, giving us control and making us able to scare oil/barrel price down.

[FunkyDexter]

Of all the ridiculous theories about our past, this really takes the cake.

Is it any more ridiculous than the concept that all matter exists in an indefinite probablistic state and which only becomes deterministic when it interacts with the rest of reality, meaning (in a nutshell) that everything exists everywhere at the same time? Or that you are travelling through time at a different rate to me because you live on a hill? Some of the stuff we believe today is pretty damn ridiculous but that doesn't stop it from being true (probably). Face it, the whole of reality's just one big bundle of murky philosophy so lately I've just taken to enjoying the pretty colours, Man. Anyone for Pizza?

[dunfiddlin]

I find this laughable. I mean come on...one of those myths blames the rotten state of the world(where things like 9/11 can happen ) on a talking snake that convinced a woman to each a magic fruit. Of all the ridiculous theories about our past, this really takes the cake. There can be no more truth to that than there can truth to the existence of beings like the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Dracula, and werewolves.

No it doesn't. This is the whole point. You are treating it as a literal truth in order to dismiss it as a myth which is the equivalent of using a rule from hockey to determine a decision in baseball. The depressing fact that a lot of 'believers' do exactly the same thing explains why it all gets lost these silly arguments about whether it really happened or not which is nothing to do with its truth value.

This particular myth says that the reason things went wrong for human beings was (and is) a combination of the inability to resist temptation, a rabid desire for knowledge wherever it may lead, and just plain old cat-killing curiosity (of the 'what happens if I press this big button marked "Do Not Press This Button Because It Will Blow Up Half The Northern Seaboard" variety'). In that, it is the equivalent of Douglas Adams wondering whether it was a good idea for us to come down from the trees in the first place, and if not the whole truth then certainly a turth with not much more than a slice missing.

Your assumption (and that of a lot of idiot creationists) that it is meant to be 'real' is a category error par excellence and more importantly one which is demonstrably not made by the original collector, interpreter and editor of those myths which make up Genesis.

[Niya]

Is it any more ridiculous than the concept that all matter exists in an indefinite probablistic state and which only becomes deterministic when it interacts with the rest of reality, meaning (in a nutshell) that everything exists everywhere at the same time? Or that you are travelling through time at a different rate to me because you live on a hill? Some of the stuff we believe today is pretty damn ridiculous but that doesn't stop it from being true (probably). Face it, the whole of reality's just one big bundle of murky philosophy so lately I've just taken to enjoying the pretty colours, Man. Anyone for Pizza?

Ahh...I'm glad you raised this point. Yes it does sound ridiculous. I mean time dilation ? Matter being everywhere simultaneously ? It does sound quite absurd, just like our little creation fairy tale. However if you delve into the foundations upon which each of these theories were built you would realize that one of these theories is just probable while the other is so astonishingly ridiculous that anyone championing them should be shamed into everlasting exile far from another human being so that the risk of infecting them with such cancerous ideas is practically zero.

Lets start with this. If I told you that one plus one is four, you'd probably call me a moron and proceed to correct me. "The answer is two you," might say with a bewildered look on your face. You'd be right. But assuming I am a moron how do you get a such a sad specimen of humanity like me to accept your assertion ? You would prove it. You'd probably show me a rock and ask me to count it. Then you'd show me another and ask me to count it. Then you'd put them together and tell me count each. Unable to reach four as I'd run out of rocks, I'd have to accept your assertion as valid.

One plus one is two. There is no disputing that. There can be no doubt as to the validity of it. The point I'm trying to drive in here is that math is truth. In no reality, no corner of the universe can you ever get one plus one to become four. Math is truth and it is universal. Simple elegant truth.

Now take this truth and twist it up. What do you get ? Subtraction, which is addition in reverse. Multiplication which is in essence, just repeated addition and division which is multiplication in reverse. These new operations are extrapolations from our first truth hence they must also be true. From these basic truths you can extrapolate even more extraordinary truths. Algebra, Calculus, Trigonometry, Geometry are all such extrapolations of the basic truth that one plus one is equal to two.

Someone may have at one point drop something of a specific weight from a specific height an noticed that no matter how many times you repeat this, the object takes the same amount of time to hit the ground. If you make similar observations about other things around you, you will come to realize that our reality itself follows a very predictable pattern. Since our basic truth, one plus one being equal to two is predictable as it can never be equal to three or to four, it should then become obvious that we can define our reality with mathematics since our reality is also predictable. Doing so would give us a true view of reality since it can be defined using math which, as I spent that every ten words since the beginning of this pounding into your heads, is true.

As we continue to refine these truths, our algebra and geometry and so forth we can begin to predict things about our reality that we haven't even seen yet. Someone didn't just sit there in a daze and suddenly realized that space and time are intertwined or that gravity is the result of matter warping space. No, they used math to determine these things. If the equations are sound then we can assume truth because math is truth.

It stands the same for those things you mentioned. Theories about time dilation and indefinite probablistic states are also based on some mathematical model. Now the only reason we haven't accepted these things as a fact of our existence is not because the math lies but because its incomplete. The model is not finished. There are many behaviors in our reality that have yet to be quantified and we can only do so when we can recognize a predictable pattern in our reality he haven't encountered yet. If our hypothetical guy in the 5th paragraph hadn't observed that acceleration by gravity was predictable, we'd have no mathematical model for acceleration, deceleration, momentum etc.

Now lets tackle our creation myth. We start with this. Guy tending his herd decides to take hit of opium or marijuana or whatever drug was cool back then, falls asleep and has a dream about a snake and a woman and just decides it means that man has fallen because the snake corrupted the woman. That's it. No proof or foundational truth. Just the assertion of man jacked on some high grade stuff. We don't even know if he really dreamed it. Where is the foundation of truth, the one thing we can be sure of ?

Pay attention to this: You know what it would take for the idea of time dilation to be equally as implausible ? For one plus one to somehow be equal to four even when its two. Makes sense ? Of course not its just as ridiculous as our creation myth.

[baja_yu]

This particular myth says that the reason things went wrong for human beings was (and is) a combination of the inability to resist temptation, a rabid desire for knowledge wherever it may lead, and just plain old cat-killing curiosity (of the 'what happens if I press this big button marked "Do Not Press This Button Because It Will Blow Up Half The Northern Seaboard" variety').

So, instead of being curious and having a desire for knowledge, people should just do as they're told. And what's up with the incest thing? If we all became from Adam and Eve, who boinked whom after the first batch of kids?
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the apple wasn't labeled like "If you eat this apple you're going to suffer for the eternity", but I'm not sure, I don't remember the story that well.

[Niya]

They never mentioned what type of fruit it was.

[Niya]

No it doesn't. This is the whole point. You are treating it as a literal truth in order to dismiss it as a myth which is the equivalent of using a rule from hockey to determine a decision in baseball. The depressing fact that a lot of 'believers' do exactly the same thing explains why it all gets lost these silly arguments about whether it really happened or not which is nothing to do with its truth value.

This particular myth says that the reason things went wrong for human beings was (and is) a combination of the inability to resist temptation, a rabid desire for knowledge wherever it may lead, and just plain old cat-killing curiosity (of the 'what happens if I press this big button marked "Do Not Press This Button Because It Will Blow Up Half The Northern Seaboard" variety'). In that, it is the equivalent of Douglas Adams wondering whether it was a good idea for us to come down from the trees in the first place, and if not the whole truth then certainly a turth with not much more than a slice missing.

Your assumption (and that of a lot of idiot creationists) that it is meant to be 'real' is a category error par excellence and more importantly one which is demonstrably not made by the original collector, interpreter and editor of those myths which make up Genesis.

I've read Genesis. I reallyyyy don't think the guy that made it up meant for it to be taken metaphorically

[baja_yu]

Ok. So I looked it up on Wikipedia. Lets see.

"The Genesis creation narrative opens with God creating the first human, whom he places in the divine garden "in Eden in the east". God tasks the man to tend the garden..."

Hmm. Looks like he just wanted a gardner. Couldn't he just have gotten some Mexicans to do that? One would expect an omnipotent being of being able to do that. And why does the "garden of eden" need gardening anyway?

", but forbids him to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God then forms a woman from a rib of the man to be a companion to the man."

I guess Adam was touching himself too much. But lets proceed.

"The first man and woman break God's command and eat the fruit of the forbidden tree..."

Isn't that a bit rude? He doesn't want them to get the 'knowledge of good and evil'. And if they ate from it, didn't they get that knowledge? You'd think with the ultimate knowledge they could have made an iPhone back then. That way Icyculyr could be looking forward to buying the iPhone 6012.

", and God expels them from the garden to prevent them from eating of a second tree, the Tree of Life, which would give them god-like immortality as well as god-like wisdom;"

Looks like Adam and Eve weren't that smart to begin with. I'd have eaten from that tree first, then use the god-like immortality and wisdom to stay in the garden of eden.

"... a cherub and a flaming sword at the gate bars their return."

Well, he could've moved the tree somewhere else.

[Niya]

Ok. So I looked it up on Wikipedia. Lets see.

"The Genesis creation narrative opens with God creating the first human, whom he places in the divine garden "in Eden in the east". God tasks the man to tend the garden..."

Hmm. Looks like he just wanted a gardner. Couldn't he just have gotten some Mexicans to do that? One would expect an omnipotent being of being able to do that. And why does the "garden of eden" need gardening anyway?

", but forbids him to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God then forms a woman from a rib of the man to be a companion to the man."

I guess Adam was touching himself too much. But lets proceed.

"The first man and woman break God's command and eat the fruit of the forbidden tree..."

Isn't that a bit rude? He doesn't want them to get the 'knowledge of good and evil'. And if they ate from it, didn't they get that knowledge? You'd think with the ultimate knowledge they could have made an iPhone back then. That way Icyculyr could be looking forward to buying the iPhone 6012.

", and God expels them from the garden to prevent them from eating of a second tree, the Tree of Life, which would give them god-like immortality as well as god-like wisdom;"

Looks like Adam and Eve weren't that smart to begin with. I'd have eaten from that tree first, then use the god-like immortality and wisdom to stay in the garden of eden.

"... a cherub and a flaming sword at the gate bars their return."

Well, he could've moved the tree somewhere else.

[dunfiddlin]

One plus one is two. There is no disputing that.

Yes there is. Not only does nature have thousands of counterexamples (how many rainstorms do you have when one is added to another or living entities do you get when you join a sperm and an egg) but the whole thing is based on what is essentially a logical conceit. Arithmetic is simply a subset of the logical system that is mathematics and is therefore only true when expressed in terms of that system. Even within that system it is notoriously difficult to 'prove' that 1 + 1 = 2 (formal proofs stretch to 40 pages!) but outside it there is not only no proof but it is not even a fact. At best arithmetic is a convenient analog of the real world (if such a thing can even be said to exist). It is not in any sense independently factual or true. All truth, including scientific truth, is relative. All knowledge, no matter how near it may come to describing reality, is ultimately a matter not of fact but of opinion.

It's particularly interesting that you have picked time dilation as one of your examples as, even with some measured examples, it remains essentially theoretical and utterly dependent on the speed of light being a constant, a truth once believed unassailable and yet now being called into question. And our current creation myth, evolution by natural selection, is as much a matter of faith, myth, and special pleading as the one it replaced and will, almost certainly be itself replaced within half a century. Nobody (well nobody that matters anyway) denies that there is greater reason to accept that some things are more adjacent to reality than others. But even the most 'certain' of 'facts' is no more than an approximation of what is actually 'out there' squeezed into the constricted box of a mind that constructs as much of our world as it perceives.

[baja_yu]

"...living entities do you get when you join a sperm and an egg..."

Actually, both the sperm and egg carry half the genetic material. So 0.5 + 0.5 is 1.

[Shaggy Hiker]

9/11 happened because of oil. It was an after affect of the Gulf War. George W. Bush is to blame, and his father. 9/11 happening allowed us to invade the Middle East is several different countries, giving us control and making us able to scare oil/barrel price down.

How'd that work out?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Didn't the Genesis story mention that there were other people around outside the garden? After all, aside from the incest bit, Adam and Eve had only two children mentioned, and both were boys, yet there were wives for them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

By the way, I believe that we are living in a universe with 8 or 11 dimensions (or possibly more), and that the reason we only perceive 3 is either that there is no biological reason to perceive more (not counting time as a fourth dimension, as I'm not entirely sold on that), or that we are simulations living in a virtual world.

[FunkyDexter]

Ahh...I'm glad you raised this point. etc

I really didn't expect my somewhat flippant hippy ramblings to evince such a serious response.

I'd take issue with some of what you've put though. For me your argument began to unravel right about here:-

One plus one is two. There is no disputing that.

Unlike dunfiddlin (who made some excellent point BTW) I'd allow you that argument, but I'd go on to examine why. It's not because I couldn't make a rock plus another rock equal 4 rocks. That sort of a proof would fail at Maths GCSE. I'd probably point out that one rock plus another rock was ten rocks... if I decided to use binary. And that's the point, maths is nothing but a frame of reference to allow us to have a conversation. One plus one is two only because we both agree it does. As such the only thing you can use maths to prove is other maths, and then only within the terms established between the prover and the provee.

Then it's worth examining your assertion that an object will always fall at the same speed and that this phenomenon is caused by gravity. I think that's probably true... probably. At the end of the day it's nothing but a correlation that hasn't yet failed. Our scientific method accepts that, as long as you can use a theory to make a prediction and the prediction proves to be true then the theory is sound. But again that is really just repeatedly demonstrating the same correlation. There is no such thing as a true proof outside of maths and, as already described above, mathmatical proofs are only useful for proving other maths.

Proofs just don't exist in reality. Decartes went looking for a single indisputable non-mathematical truth he could use as a starting point from which he could use predicate logic to construct real world proofs. He came up with "I think therefore I am"... and got no further. Putting aside the fact that people have been misconstruing this as a philosphical rather than a logical statement ever since (which would really have stuck in his craw as a devoted logician) the really significant point is that he failed in his goal. He was unable to use that truth to prove anything further.

With that in mind there is really only one rational position to take: Agnosticism tempered by the humility to accept that none of us have a clue what's really going and the common sense to accept that if the sharpest minds the human race has to offer all agree that a given theory is correct then it's probably our best bet for now and it's probably a good idea to leave 'em to get on with it.



As a foot note, it's worth mentioning that the probablistic nature of quantum mechanics actually predicts that one day the object won't fall to earth, it'll spontaneously snap into existing aproximately half a foot behind you head... or in the fridge. It's just that the probability of it falling to the ground is so overwhelmingly massive that you'd have to wait billions of times longer than the lifetime of the universe to observe any other outcome... probably.


edit> To quote Professor Stephen Hawing : Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?

and to quote Professor Brian Cox : Wait, are we in G? I thought this one was in D minor.

and to quote Professor Shaggy Hiker :

By the way, I believe that we are living in a universe with 8 or 11 dimensions

Parking must be a nightmare!


edit>Another Hawking quote occurred to me after signing off last night and it seemed far more apt to this thread:-
Although September 11 was horrible, it didn't threaten the survival of the human race, like nuclear weapons do.
I think that sums up my position on 9/11 in a nutshell. It most certainly was horrible but there are greater evils in this world that still need our attention.

[Shaggy Hiker]

edit>Another Hawking quote occurred to me after signing off last night and it seemed far more apt to this thread:-
Although September 11 was horrible, it didn't threaten the survival of the human race, like nuclear weapons do.
I think that sums up my position on 9/11 in a nutshell. It most certainly was horrible but there are greater evils in this world that still need our attention.

Like Moonman never giving us enough options in his polls?

[honeybee]

Over here if you commit sins you go to hell, so there's no chance you will receive your 'fair punishment' in heaven. So I am not voting.

.

[Aash]

i think this thread is about religion and should be closed.
the fact is Al-Quaeda didn't do this. Even it has been viewed in different history channels and has shown who is actually responsible for this.