My thoughts...mmmhh....6 off the top of my head...

1) First and foremost, grief for the people that died in those attacks, and those that suffered as a result of the misguided foreign policy that followed.
2) That all conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 are BS.
3) That a super-power with military might should exercise that power with caution, intelligence and far more of a "do-as-you-would-be-done-by" philosophy.
4) That, ironically, the "just" war in Afghanistan seems doomed to failure, whereas the "unjust" war in Iraq (although I thought the reasons for it were BS) looks like it`s eventually achieved a fair degree of success.
5) That religious fundamentalism is dangerous (whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian) and has nothing to do with morality, or even reality as it happens. (Clearly muslim fundamentalism is the most dangerous thing right now, but that hasn`t always been the case).
6) That the whole concept of faith (ie belief without evidence...whether "fundamentalist" or not) should be ridiculed rather than respected...to be treated like the first (and worst) attempt by Bronze Age bewildered people to explain the world around them....lacking in any empirical evidence, and complete white noise.

sea green queen Wrote:I feel for those people above the impact area, having to choose jumping over the overwhelming heat of the burning & raw odor of the kerosene jet fuel. I actually feel more sorry for those fools that actually believe there is a place in heaven for them if they blow up crowed buildings, buses & planes. People reap what they sow, may they have an endless supply of pork to eat and their 70 odd vessel virgins be in fact drag queens with aids.

There's actually no page in the Quran that promises any of this. You would think it would be pretty important information.

Quran 17:33 Wrote:You shall not kill any person - for God has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder, he will be helped.

I'd say killing 3,000 innocent people as a so-called "order from God" is pretty unjust.

Cant Avoid the Floyd Wrote:I'd say killing 3,000 innocent people as a so-called "order from God" is pretty unjust.

Morality is subjective, and in most religions it is defined by the god or gods of that particular religion. Therefore, if the god in which one believes says that it is necessary to kill 3000 innocent people, then it is perfectly justified in the mind of the believer. Such is the dangerous power of unquestioning faith.

Robosteve Wrote:

Cant Avoid the Floyd Wrote:I'd say killing 3,000 innocent people as a so-called "order from God" is pretty unjust.

Morality is subjective, and in most religions it is defined by the god or gods of that particular religion. Therefore, if the god in which one believes says that it is necessary to kill 3000 innocent people, then it is perfectly justified in the mind of the believer. Such is the dangerous power of unquestioning faith.

See, this is basically why I'm agnostic. It's impossible to tell whether God exists or not, so why take a religious stand point on something that hasn't been confirmed? And whose only so-called "proof" is a book written thousands of years ago, several hundred years after the events in the book actually happened.

Cant Avoid the Floyd Wrote:See, this is basically why I'm agnostic. It's impossible to tell whether God exists or not, so why take a religious stand point on something that hasn't been confirmed? And whose only so-called "proof" is a book written thousands of years ago, several hundred years after the events in the book actually happened.

Oh, I agree with you completely. I consider myself a strong atheist, a belief which I justify using Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" argument (for more detail on this argument, read his book The God Delusion). But you'll never convince a dogmatic theist that what they're doing is immoral if their holy book tells them otherwise.

Robosteve Wrote:

Cant Avoid the Floyd Wrote:See, this is basically why I'm agnostic. It's impossible to tell whether God exists or not, so why take a religious stand point on something that hasn't been confirmed? And whose only so-called "proof" is a book written thousands of years ago, several hundred years after the events in the book actually happened.

Oh, I agree with you completely. I consider myself a strong atheist, a belief which I justify using Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" argument (for more detail on this argument, read his book The God Delusion). But you'll never convince a dogmatic theist that what they're doing is immoral if their holy book tells them otherwise.

Agreed. Maybe you aren't so bad after all.