Mob mentality doesn't mean it's correct. Consensus about slavery was that at one point in time it was right. Again, intention shouldn't be a motivating factor. Dehumanizing people whether for good or bad intentions is what you and the Nazis have in common. Congrats! As for how cushy a prison is, I have a hard time believing it's as nice as you say it is. But then again, you hold on to a number of misconceptions so why should this one be any different?
i won't do your research for you but suffice to say you are wrong and if you cared about your position you would do a google search and read it from the monsters mouths'
Sure you can, and many people do all the time. Indeed many of the finest and brightest The reality is that there isn't a lot of direct evidence, why I partially agree with your point. Ultimately Linda Kasabian flipped and testified that Manson instructed his followers to kill Tate. Without that testimony, it would be very hard to rightfully convict Manson. Charles Manson may have been crazy but he was also extremely bright.
Again, not arguing good/bad/right/wrong of their actions. I'm merely pointing out that you are using the same tactics and logic as they do. I fear this conversation may be a bit over your head. Again, please, I'm not trolling you, seek help for your anger. Go to a professional to dig at why you are this way, and above all, better yourself by reading. I wish you the best, but fear you will fester in your ignorance.
That in itself seems quite fallacious. Again, I'm not an atheist here, but it's faulty logic to insinuate a God because no other possible solution currently exists. That's like not believing in the cell phones in the 60s. Sure, the solution to wireless phone tech didn't exist back then, but as technologies emerged we learned more and were able to develop a solution. Again, I have no dog in this fight here, but your logic is weak sauce my friend.
There is a solution, it's been around for ages and it's a fundamental truth, but atheists don't accept it when they apply it to God. It is called cause and effect, which science itself is built upon. Every effect, in this case the universe, must have a cause. Things don't just appear out of nowhere. The cell phone example isn't applicable here because the items in question aren't the same: matter and materials existed in the 60s. In the universe example atheists say that something acted upon existing matter and created a bang. The problem is, according to cause and effect, if we ask the question, okay but where did the matter come from, an atheist then has a problem. Somebody must have created matter, right and who or what existed before the universe, to create matter? Listen, I'm not the only one saying this or being dense. Scientists know they have a problem with what come before the universe. The existence of something, matter in this case, requires us to ask what was here before matter and if it is nothing as atheists want us to believe, then they have a problem: and that is the theory of cause and effect. Meaning they would have to debunk the entire theory of cause and effect.
Hopefully no one is naive enough to believe any prisoner costs more than a few $1,000's/year to maintain.
You know what they say about those who conclude on incomplete data... I'm happy for you that you think there is enough proof of God, as a scientist, I say your thesis is incomplete. Also, your argument is a logically fallacious one, it's called shifting the burden of proof. It would be like if someone asked what is 1+1 and I say I don't know, but you say treaty of Guadalupe hidalgo. Yes, you have an answer and I don't, but it doesn't necessarily make your answer correct.
Something with Vincent Bugliosi involved, he was the DA that prosecuted all that stuff, wrote a book or 2, but there are others. It's a shame he died before Manson did.
Yes I do. What I'm saying is that the answer might be more complex than you can understand right now. Your imposition that something had to start it all does not fill the burden of proof, rather it shifts it to me say if God didn't start it what did? That's a logical fallacy and a weak sauce argument.
Our existing science supports the idea that something can emerge from nothing if given an extremely long amount of time. You can try and argue that the existing science that supports such a notion is wrong. The problem is it's based on the most accurate and tested theory in history in quantum field theory. QFT is in large part responsible for your ability to even make a post online as well as all the consumer friendly tech gadgets we engage with everyday. Let's play your game though. Nothing can't produce something. Therefore someone had to have created this universe. Someone is made of stuff, therefore can't have emerged from nothing. Where did someone emerge in order to create this universe, especially since they can't have emerged from nothing? Our creator would then have had to emerge from something. Where did that something emerge from in order for our creator to exist just so he could create the universe? Your argument has a giant hole in it aching to what came first? The chicken or the egg. But really though, what can be learned from this cause and effect type of thinking? Untested hypotheticals. That's what your opinion is. Contrasted with the most tested scientific theory in history which some of our brightest minds have meticulously tried to improve upon over the decades and I'm gonna go with where our existing science takes us. Aristotelian cause and effect thinking was cutting edge stuff 2,500 years ago. Nowadays we base our predictions of the universe with differential equations instead. Totally ripping from Sean Carroll there saying that. Just working models that don't need a creator's outside influence in order for them to work on their own.
Cause and effect has been tested and proved. Many times. You seem to think that cause and effect isn't science, but philosophical. It's not. It is science. You do realize that the scientific method is based on cause and effect, right? Beyond that, to answer your question about a creator made of stuff. Cause and effect applies to things that had a beginning. Like the universe. God, in a biblical sense, doesn't have a beginning middle or end. He always just IS. If you say, that's just unproven bullshit, well you just harpooned scientific method. And I should be able to create an iPhone from air: theoretically. At some point, for the universe to exist, there has to be an IS. Something that doesn't have a history or linage. Other than that, on a personal note, I will say that if you ask me why god would create an earth with an evolutionary track. I have no clue, it blows my mind, why he started people off so basic. I have no clue what life after death means, or even why I was born to die. I am scared shitless to meet my maker, I can't image living an afterlife and not being able to watch sports or have a fallible humanity or losing my free will, or even have a purpose or living for eternity. I can't comprehend any of it.
