Your Vote, Your Reasons

[temujin]

I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior of the world. I have accepted and confess Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

And I forever stand by that decision.

Praying for silly things equals believing in gods.

There is no worst offense to the Almighty.

You think you believe.

You don't.

[ElNono]

Trick as in non-obvious.

:tu
That doesn't make it invalid...

[timvp]

What exact proof would you accept that would prove to you that Jesus is in fact the son of God? I'm interested to see where your naivety ends ... if it does, at all.Bump.

TheMadHatter stumped by his own words again.

[Creepn]

What exact proof would you accept that would prove to you that Jesus is in fact the son of God? I'm interested to see where your naivety ends ... if it does, at all..

Ask him for some proof about Beowulf too.

Anyway, some real time documentation of Jesus's adventures would be good. Some dude following him around writing everything he says. I mean that would make sense right? You would want to capture every single letter of a walking god.

[LnGrrrR]

I pray all the time for all sorts of things.

These are not necessarily listed in order of importance but to give you some examples...

I pray good dreams when I sleep, to bless my food, for traveling mercies, for wisdom in decision making, for comfort when I am sad, peace when I am afraid, for the safety of loved ones and myself, for favor at work and in life.
I have prayed for the Spurs to win.

Prayer to me is conversation with God. I pray all the time the same as I frequently call up my friends and trusted mentors to visit with them.

Hmm.. interesting. Thanks for the answer. :) If I may, a followup...

When you talk to him, is it a formal thing? Like, by the bedside, on your knees, hands in prayer? Or just a quiet mental note to him? And do you think you hear a 'reply' of sorts? Or is it just 'understood' that he's listening and so you feel he will guide your heart in some other way then a 'voice'?

[TheMadHatter]

My arguments with Stout have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is the Son of God and whether we can prove that or not. Clearly we cannot.

It has to do with the historicity of the accounts of Jesus as portrayed in the NT Gospels. I can't make it any clearer than this, if you don't understand the distinction that's not my problem.

[LnGrrrR]

:tu
That doesn't make it invalid...

ElNono, I never said it did. :) I think it's a valid answer, just not an obvious one, so I can somewhat see his point as well. I don't think he was saying it was a "wrong" answer per se, just not an 'expected' answer. (Most people assume that typing is done with the hands, even though it could have been done theoretically by some other means. It reminds me of the old bus driver joke and what color his/her eyes were.)

[LnGrrrR]

What exact proof would you accept that would prove to you that Jesus is in fact the son of God? I'm interested to see where your naivety ends ... if it does, at all.

I don't know about him, but for me, it would probably take Jesus showing up on Time Square, him doing a few miracles, it being documented by many sources... and then him repeating it every weekend or so for at least a month.

But then again, I'm a skeptic. :)

[CuckingFunt]

Apology not accepted.

Apology not needed, really. I don't think anyone had/has a problem with the fact that angel chose to share her opinion, yet it's the act of voicing that opinion for which she's issued the apology.

Everyone here is entitled to have, and to voice, whatever opinion they want. Including those of us who think that opinion is frighteningly ignorant.

[timvp]

My arguments with Stout have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is the Son of God and whether we can prove that or not. Clearly we cannot.

It has to do with the historicity of the accounts of Jesus as portrayed in the NT Gospels. I can't make it any clearer than this, if you don't understand the distinction that's not my problem.

I'm not talking about your discussion with Extra Stout, I'm talking about you wanting "proof" throughout the thread. What type of proof are you looking for?

Seriously. Is there something you could see or read to make you think that the Christians may have it right?

[TheMadHatter]

I'm not talking about your discussion with Extra Stout, I'm talking about you wanting "proof" throughout the thread. What type of proof are you looking for?

Seriously. Is there something you could see or read to make you think that the Christians may have it right?

I've never demanded proof from anyone. I know it doesn't exist.

Your reading comprehension is horrible.

[timvp]

I've never demanded proof from anyone. I know it doesn't exist.

Your reading comprehension is horrible.

Wow. Just wow.

Not only are you damn dumb, but you are a liar on top of being dumb. That is the worst combination possible. Pick one trait or the other -- not both.

Never demanded proof, aye?



If you are a Christian, you have no factual proof or evidence that would indicate that Jesus is the Son of God. There is none, it just doesn't exist I'm sorry. And no, the Bible is not factual proof that would stand up in any court of law or scientific/historical debate.

You believe what you believe through FAITH. Faith is believing in something that you have no factual proof or evidence for. Therefore it is not unreasonable at all for me to ask that those who do believe in Christianity to acknowledge that they do so through complete blind faith. Not because they can factually prove what they believe is right.


As I have repeatedly said before, the burden of proof is on you to prove to me that the historicity of Jesus is true as indicated in the NT Gospels.

The situation we are in here is akin to you trying to explain to me that Bigfoot is real. The burden of proof is on you the believer to prove to me that Bigfoot indeed existed, not on me the disbeliever to come up with evidence to the contrary. If you cannot provide me with sufficient evidence then I can reasonably conclude that your argument is not valid, I cannot say that Bigfoot doesn't exist since I don't hold that proof but I can say that your argument isn't valid. Thus far you've provided me with no sufficient evidence to support your argument.

This is central to my point, Christians have no valid historical argument to make about the historicity of Jesus. I'm sorry the facts simply don't exist. What we do know is that the NT Gospels contain fabrications and that important early Christian writings were doctored by the Church to support the view of Jesus indicated in NT Gospel writings. In fact there is more evidence to suggest just the opposite, that the NT Gospel writings were completely fabricated.


The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to ME that Jesus really lived, died, and was resurrected. You need to make a convincing argument to me that all of this really happened before I ever consider the Christian faith.

The bottomline is that you CAN'T.


Jesus may have existed historically, but we have zero evidence or proof that he was the Son of God or anything of the like.

For the fifth time, I will ask you what type of proof it is that you want.

[Extra Stout]

That's sort of my point. If the only evidence that exists is clearly pro-Christian biased and doctored sources it makes it rather hard to form any definitive conclusions about anything relating to Jesus.
By the standard you demand, no information about antiquity can be known. All ancient sources have subjective bias.

[Mr. Peabody]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read in this forum. I've actually learned some things from reading it and haven't seen any sodomy/fellatio related posts yet.

[spurster]

My arguments with Stout have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is the Son of God and whether we can prove that or not. Clearly we cannot.

It has to do with the historicity of the accounts of Jesus as portrayed in the NT Gospels. I can't make it any clearer than this, if you don't understand the distinction that's not my problem.

Historicity meaning? Doubt on whether they are true? Doubt on whether the writers believed that they were writing down the truth? Doubt on when they were written? Doubt on who wrote them? Doubt on how many degrees of separation between Jesus and the writers? Putting aside the first doubt, I think scholarship is very favorable on the others.

[Tully365]

By the standard you demand, no information about antiquity can be known. All ancient sources have subjective bias.

True-- if I declared the works of Shakespeare to be my holy gospel, it would be a much more difficult task to defend them than it is to simply admire them.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

True-- if I declared the works of Shakespeare to be my holy gospel, it would be a much more difficult task to defend them than it is to simply admire them.

Are you trying to tell me that Hamlet wasn't the son of God?

[romad_20]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read in this forum. I've actually learned some things from reading it and haven't seen any sodomy/fellatio related posts yet.


no ass to mouth post yet, huh?

[timvp]

I've never demanded proof from anyone.


The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to ME that Jesus really lived, died, and was resurrected. You need to make a convincing argument to me that all of this really happened before I ever consider the Christian faith.

Astounding.

[Tully365]

Are you trying to tell me that Hamlet wasn't the son of God?

Close enough for me. There are more things in heaven and earth, MaryAnnKilledGinger, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Mr. Peabody]

no ass to mouth post yet, huh?

We'll end up there, but it may not be for another 15-20 pages.

[Tully365]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read in this forum. I've actually learned some things from reading it and haven't seen any sodomy/fellatio related posts yet.


no ass to mouth post yet, huh?

Crazy projecting going on!

[TheMadHatter]

Wow. Just wow.

Not only are you damn dumb, but you are a liar on top of being dumb. That is the worst combination possible. Pick one trait or the other -- not both.

Never demanded proof, aye?

For the fifth time, I will ask you what type of proof it is that you want.

Your taking my statements out of context and ignoring the point I was driving at. Of course I know that there isn't any definitive proof that proves Jesus is the Son of God. Again, your reading comprehension is horrific. You clearly do not understand what point I was getting at earlier in this thread so it makes no sense for us to continue this discussion. But go ahead and act like you owned me.


By the standard you demand, no information about antiquity can be known. All ancient sources have subjective bias.

By that same standard you cannot attack DaDakota for not knowing what went on in the Nicaea Council as the only information you have on that event is from biased ancient sources.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Close enough for me. There are more things in heaven and earth, MaryAnnKilledGinger, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Only if flights of angels sing me to my rest. I'm picky about angels that way.

[Shastafarian]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read in this forum. I've actually learned some things from reading it and haven't seen any sodomy/fellatio related posts yet.

I bet angel_luv gives great helmet

http://msp108.photobucket.com/albums/n8/jmgooser33/Dark_Helmet.jpg

[TheMadHatter]

Astounding.

Context, context, context. You clearly don't understand what we were arguing about in this thread. I'm not going to waste anymore time explaining this to you.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I bet angel_luv gives great helmet.

Yes, we're gonna have to go right to ludicrous speed.

[timvp]

Context, context, context. You clearly don't understand what we were arguing about in this thread. I'm not going to waste anymore time explaining this to you.So this will be another case where you refuse to answer your own questions. You want proof yet you won't detail the type of proof you want.

A troll couldn't self own himself more than you own yourself. That's a unique talent you have.

[Mr. Peabody]

Only if flights of angels sing me to my rest. I'm picky about angels that way.

You know what happened to the musically-inclined angel in the Bible, right? He ended up running for President.....

[Shastafarian]

So this will be another case where you refuse to answer your own questions. You want proof yet you won't detail the type of proof you want.

A troll couldn't self own himself more than you.

Obviously you never read BRHornet's posts.

[timvp]

Obviously you never read BRHornet's posts.Son, do you have examples of him owning himself handy? That'd be a fun read.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

You know what happened to the musically-inclined angel in the Bible, right? He ended up running for President.....

Impossible. Angels have no sex organs. ;P

[Shastafarian]

Son, do you have examples of him owning himself handy? That'd be a fun read.

Pretty much every thread he posts in he manages to own himself somehow. Like the one where he said NBA players overwhelming supporting Obama was "ironic". He never explained how it was ironic.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Pretty much every thread he posts in he manages to own himself somehow. Like the one where he said NBA players overwhelming supporting Obama was "ironic". He never explained how it was ironic.

You shouldn't talk about your father like that. It's against one of those Commandment thingys.

[TheMadHatter]

So this will be another case where you refuse to answer your own questions. You want proof yet you won't detail the type of proof you want.

A troll couldn't self own himself more than you own yourself. That's a unique talent you have.

Reading comprehension....you lack it.

I don't want proof, and the kind of proof that it would take for me to believe in Christianity does not exist at this moment in time.

If you understood how to read you'd see that I was explaining to Stout that the burden of proof is not on me to disprove the historicity of the account of Christ as stated in the NT Gospels, but on him to prove to me that his claim is correct. Clearly this went way over your head, you jumped to the part of my quote which said "you have to prove to me" and decided that was enough for you to draw another asinine conclusion.

We're going in circles here. You don't understand what I'm telling you, and I clearly have no idea where you are drawing your conclusions from.

[PixelPusher]

I know for a fact that the real Jesus isn't a Kings fan.

He sure as heaven is! Jesus is the King of Kings, the Bible tells me so.

And don't go bringing in some Gnostic gospel bullshit that says Jesus is the "Spur of Spurs".

[Phenomanul]

Impossible. Angels have no sex organs. ;P

They do... the Bible states in Genesis that some of them 'came down' and engendered 'Giants' by mating with earth's prettiest gals...

[Shastafarian]

You shouldn't talk about your father like that. It's against one of those Commandment thingys.

Despite him calling me son he can't be my father. You see I got him to admit he's gay in one of his own threads.

[timvp]

I don't want proof, and the kind of proof that it would take for me to believe in Christianity does not exist at this moment in time.Obviously. That is why I'm asking for what type of proof would it take for you to change your mind.


If you understood how to read you'd see that I was explaining to Stout Not all those examples of you "not asking for proof" were you talking to Extra Stout. Nice dodge, though.

[Tully365]

Despite him calling me son he can't be my father. You see I got him to admit he's gay in one of his own threads.

If Clay Aiken can have a baby, anyone can!

[Shastafarian]

If Clay Aiken can have a baby, anyone can!

Touché

[CuckingFunt]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read in this forum. I've actually learned some things from reading it and haven't seen any sodomy/fellatio related posts yet.

Page 9:


Your thinking Obama could be the anti-Christ is more like looking at someone with a Super Mario Bros. t-shirt and wondering if they're going to anally and vaginally rape you, simultaneously, with your own amputated limbs.

[TheMadHatter]

Obviously. That is why I'm asking for what type of proof would it take for you to change your mind.

Not all those examples of you "not asking for proof" were you talking to Extra Stout. Nice dodge, though.

If you can't understand the points I was driving at then there is no hope for you. Are you sure you're not a Republican? You are awfully good at picking out selective words in a sentence and drawing your own conclusions from it.

It's irrelevant what kind of proof it would take for me to believe in Christ. That's not what we were discussing in this thread. At least that's not what I was discussing with Stout and others.

[Extra Stout]

:bang:bang:bang. There you go again with your ASSumptions.

The point I'm trying to discuss with Extra and other conservatives is whether or not the historicity of Jesus as indicated in the NT Gospels can be trusted. He believes so, I don't. We debate. You make asinine comments and inferences. Life goes on.
The primary obstacle to the historicity of the gospels is that they record Jesus performing miracles like turning water into wine, healing people, and turning a few loaves and fish into a meal for thousands. Jesus predicted the future destruction of the Temple. There are accounts of angels appearing to people and talking to them. No scientific historian could take those kinds of claims seriously. Supernatural events do not happen, there is no such thing as future prophecy, and any account of them is fantastical. That is what started the whole question about historicity in the first place.

So many of these other arguments that have come in the intervening century, though, are speculative. There are no countervailing source documents to tell us that Jesus did not say a certain thing, or do a certain thing in his ministry. All that comes from scholars who speculate based upon the premise that if the Gospels fabricate accounts of clearly impossible miracles, they probably fabricated other things too.

On the other hand, there are things like discrepancies and possible historical errors in the accounts. There are two different genealogies of Jesus, for example. Traditionally, Christians believe one is traced through Mary and the other through Joseph, even though Joseph is only Jesus' legal guardian and not his blood relative. A skeptic has no reason to accept that and might just instead figure the authors made up the genealogies.

The same thing goes for the birth accounts. Matthew and Luke record totally different details. While a believer could piece them together into a coherent timeline, a skeptic has no reason to and could just conclude the accounts are fictional.

Luke says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Joseph and Mary travelled there to report for a census overseen by Quirinius. Extrabiblical documentation (Josephus) records an infamous census in Judaea overseen by Quirinius in AD 6, which is too late both because King Herod, who supposedly tried to kill Jesus, is recorded by extrabiblical sources to have died in 4 BC, and because Jesus could not have been thirty years old in the fourteenth year of Tiberius, i.e. AD 28, as recorded elsewhere in the Gospel, if he were born in AD 6. A Christian who insists on inerrancy might scratch his head and decide that Luke cannot be talking about the census in AD 6, but rather a possible earlier one while Quirinius was in the area leading an army up in Syria in 4 BC. A Christian who does not insist on inerrancy might figure Luke screwed up and meant Saturnius instead of Quirinius. A skeptic might just figure Luke made it up to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth and didn't catch the math error it forces him into when he cites the date for the start of Jesus' ministry.

There is another class of differences, wherein parallel Gospel accounts record the same events in a different order and with different details, but denying historicity based upon those applies an anachronistic standard of precision which no ancient work nor most contemporary eyewitness accounts can meet.

There's no reason for a skeptic to believe in miracles. Of course, Christianity makes no sense without them anyway, so if one does not believe in miracles, the point is moot. There are some possible historical problems, but we don't have enough countervailing documentary evidence to make definitive conclusions.

So it comes back to what you think is the most likely thing.

[Mr. Peabody]

Obviously. That is why I'm asking for what type of proof would it take for you to change your mind.


That's a good question and one that I've pondered myself. I am an atheist, but have nothing against religion. I've often wondered what kind of proof it would take to get me to believe in the Christian God. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that outside of a guy with a flowing beard and robes descending from the sky and saying "That whole Bible-thing. Yeah, it's all true," I'd probably evaluate any other type of evidence with a great degree of skepticism and disbelief.

I say "sadly," because at times I've been critical of believers and I've thought to myself "Man, what's it going to take before they realize that the Christian God is man-made phenomena created to provide us with a sense of security and comfort in an unpredictable and uncaring world." I'm no better than they are and really have no more evidence for my beliefs than they do.

[PixelPusher]

There's no reason for a skeptic to believe in miracles. Of course, Christianity makes no sense without them anyway, so if one does not believe in miracles, the point is moot. There are some possible historical problems, but we don't have enough countervailing documentary evidence to make definitive conclusions.

So it comes back to what you think is the most likely thing.

Why does your morality and value system depend on supernatural miracles? Would your core values crumble if someone with a time machine definitively proves Jesus didn't perform miracles or rise from the dead? Would you descend into nihilistic depravity?

[timvp]

That's a good question and one that I've pondered myself. I am an atheist, but have nothing against religion. I've often wondered what kind of proof it would take to get me to believe in the Christian God. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that outside of a guy with a flowing beard and robes descending from the sky and saying "That whole Bible-thing. Yeah, it's all true," I'd probably evaluate any other type of evidence with a great degree of skepticism and disbelief.

I say "sadly," because at times I've been critical of believers and I've thought to myself "Man, what's it going to take before they realize that the Christian God is man-made phenomena created to provide us with a sense of security and comfort in an unpredictable and uncaring world." I'm no better than they are and really have no more evidence for my beliefs than they do.Thank you. That is a very reasonable response :tu

Now I can just pretend this came from TheMadHatter and let him off the hook.

[TheMadHatter]

The primary obstacle to the historicity of the gospels is that they record Jesus performing miracles like turning water into wine, healing people, and turning a few loaves and fish into a meal for thousands. Jesus predicted the future destruction of the Temple. There are accounts of angels appearing to people and talking to them. No scientific historian could take those kinds of claims seriously. Supernatural events do not happen, there is no such thing as future prophecy, and any account of them is fantastical. That is what started the whole question about historicity in the first place.

So many of these other arguments that have come in the intervening century, though, are speculative. There are no countervailing source documents to tell us that Jesus did not say a certain thing, or do a certain thing in his ministry. All that comes from scholars who speculate based upon the premise that if the Gospels fabricate accounts of clearly impossible miracles, they probably fabricated other things too.

On the other hand, there are things like discrepancies and possible historical errors in the accounts. There are two different genealogies of Jesus, for example. Traditionally, Christians believe one is traced through Mary and the other through Joseph, even though Joseph is only Jesus' legal guardian and not his blood relative. A skeptic has no reason to accept that and might just instead figure the authors made up the genealogies.

The same thing goes for the birth accounts. Matthew and Luke record totally different details. While a believer could piece them together into a coherent timeline, a skeptic has no reason to and could just conclude the accounts are fictional.

Luke says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Joseph and Mary travelled there to report for a census overseen by Quirinius. Extrabiblical documentation (Josephus) records an infamous census in Judaea overseen by Quirinius in AD 6, which is too late both because King Herod, who supposedly tried to kill Jesus, is recorded by extrabiblical sources to have died in 4 BC, and because Jesus could not have been thirty years old in the fourteenth year of Tiberius, i.e. AD 28, as recorded elsewhere in the Gospel, if he were born in AD 6. A Christian who insists on inerrancy might scratch his head and decide that Luke cannot be talking about the census in AD 6, but rather a possible earlier one while Quirinius was in the area leading an army up in Syria in 4 BC. A Christian who does not insist on inerrancy might figure Luke screwed up and meant Saturnius instead of Quirinius. A skeptic might just figure Luke made it up to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth and didn't catch the math error it forces him into when he cites the date for the start of Jesus' ministry.

There is another class of differences, wherein parallel Gospel accounts record the same events in a different order and with different details, but denying historicity based upon those applies an anachronistic standard of precision which no ancient work nor most contemporary eyewitness accounts can meet.

There's no reason for a skeptic to believe in miracles. Of course, Christianity makes no sense without them anyway, so if one does not believe in miracles, the point is moot. There are some possible historical problems, but we don't have enough countervailing documentary evidence to make definitive conclusions.

So it comes back to what you think is the most likely thing.

Excellent post. Sums up my thoughts for the most part.

You are humble enough to admit that it really comes down to "what you think is the most likely thing". I would ask a follow up question.

Do you believe that there is a possibility your beliefs could very well be wrong?

[Mr. Peabody]

Page 9:

Ha. Yeah, but usually the sodomy/fellatio posts are directed at a poster (or a poster's mother!).

BTW, did you see that your post was mentioned in a blog -

Link to Cucking Funt reference on Holes in Thoughts (http://www.impulsenine.com/homepage/pages/2008/10/high-dialogue-on-teh-intarnet.html)

[TheMadHatter]

Why does your morality and value system depend on supernatural miracles? Would your core values crumble if someone with a time machine definitively proves Jesus didn't perform miracles or rise from the dead? Would you descend into nihilistic depravity?

Great question. If we could ascertain that the New Testament accounts of Jesus's miracles were completely fabricated would you denounce Christianity?

[Nbadan]

Ha. Yeah, but usually the sodomy/fellatio posts are directed at a poster (or a poster's mother!).

BTW, did you see that your post was mentioned in a blog -

Link to Cucking Funt reference on Holes in Thoughts (http://www.impulsenine.com/homepage/pages/2008/10/high-dialogue-on-teh-intarnet.html)

:lol Angle luv has made herself infamous

:lmao

[PixelPusher]

Ha. Yeah, but usually the sodomy/fellatio posts are directed at a poster (or a poster's mother!).

BTW, did you see that your post was mentioned in a blog -

Link to Cucking Funt reference on Holes in Thoughts (http://www.impulsenine.com/homepage/pages/2008/10/high-dialogue-on-teh-intarnet.html)


OK so Spurs fans are good for something, after all.

actually, she's a Kings fan.

Damn, that's twice today I've shown my Kings love...what the hell has gotten into me?

[anakha]

Do you believe that there is a possibility your beliefs could very well be wrong?

Are you also open to any possibility of your own beliefs being wrong as well?

[Mr. Peabody]

Great question. If we could ascertain that the New Testament accounts of Jesus's miracles were completely fabricated would you denounce Christianity?

Well, I would hope not. While I'm an atheist, I rather enjoy some of the moral teachings of the New Testament and find a great of wisdom in its pages. I think living a life according to the supposed teachings of Jesus is a great way to live. I myself live a very "Christian-like" lifestyle and I think the Bible is mostly fiction. I say "Christian-like" because many of the precepts contained in the New Testament are found in other religions and life philosophies, but that in no way takes away from the intrinsic wisdom of the book.

[Trainwreck2100]

None is a valid answer too, and it's implicit in the question. There's nothing tricky/loaded about it in the way the question was proposed. I don't need to propose toes, or dictation or using a pen with my mouth to imply that 'none' is also a valid answer.



The problem with you is that you made a stupid comment and now that you've been called out for it, don't have the balls to agree that you were wrong. And your whole premise of science being stupid because they pull out the 'we dont know' card, comes down crashing when you use pull out the exact same card every day in life.

But if you want to keep amusing us, please go ahead, and defend your 'loaded question' position one more time.


There's ZERO ambiguity in the question. Absolutely NOTHING was added to the original question. What happened is that rascal tossed a theory that the response would need to be a number between 1-10. His theory is wrong in that the response needs to be a number between 0-10, and I gave him an example to sustain that 0 is a valid answer too. Unlikely? sure, but as the question was posed, absolutely valid.


I never said ambiguity was in the original question, i said it occured when you yourself as you say provided information that fingers weren't the only possible variables.

:tu
That doesn't make it invalid...
^^^^^

I'll agree that the trick doesn't make it invalid like you did right there. It makes it a loaded question which is what i said it was.

Also i never said science was stupid. I said science was like religion, so i guess since you think religions are stupid you equated the two.

[TheMadHatter]

Are you also open to any possibility of your own beliefs being wrong as well?

Absolutely.

[TheMadHatter]

Well, I would hope not. While I'm an atheist, I rather enjoy some of the moral teachings of the New Testament and find a great of wisdom in its pages. I think living a life according to the supposed teachings of Jesus is a great way to live. I myself live a very "Christian-like" lifestyle and I think the Bible is mostly fiction. I say "Christian-like" because many of the precepts contained in the New Testament are found in other religions and life philosophies, but that in no way takes away from the intrinsic wisdom of the book.

Is there a difference between being Christian and simply being someone who tries to live his/her life by the morals in the Bible?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Is there a difference between being Christian and simply being someone who tries to live his/her life by the morals in the Bible?

"I am the way, the truth, and the light..."

etc

[Trainwreck2100]

Is there a difference between being Christian and simply being someone who tries to live his/her life by the morals in the Bible?

why would a non christian follow the bible?

[Shastafarian]

why would a non christian follow the bible?

The pictures?

[anakha]

Absolutely.

Just checking. Carry on. :p:

[PixelPusher]

The pictures?
A fully illustrated Bible would be x-rated.

[anakha]

Is there a difference between being Christian and simply being someone who tries to live his/her life by the morals in the Bible?

Would you consider the morals as stated in the Bible to be exclusive to Christianity?

[anakha]

A fully illustrated Bible would be x-rated.

Especially the Old Testament.

[Mr. Peabody]

why would a non christian follow the bible?

Why not? It's a life philosophy. Maybe my prior post was a bit misleading. I don't live my life according to the Bible, but the way I live my life is similar to what the Bible teaches.

Also, I don't think I need to be assured that I will receive eternal life or salvation in order for me to see the merit in helping others, living a simple life, caring for my fellow man, etc.

[Anti.Hero]

There is much wisdom in the bible. If some of you cannot even appreciate that aspect of it, you have failed at this life and good luck in the next.

[ElNono]

So then what makes your belief in abiological origins any more valid than my belief in a supernatural GOD?

In the meantime continue to wait for validation of said theory...

Oh... and don't pretend to lecture me on the scientific method.


I don't have 'beliefs' in abiological origins. I think it's a theory that is being scrutinized and tested whenever possible. One of this days, we're going to find out whether it's valid or not.
How often you scrutinize your god? How often you scrutinize and validate the bible writings?
And I'll keep on lecturing you on the scientific method for as long as you try to wedge in faith into to.



You're the one going in circles. Quit trying to suggest that I've somehow made a blanket statement against all science.

I'm not debating the principles behind belief in scientific theories. I'm debating the skewed nature of the 'evidence' being used to validate the theory of abiological origins... the burden of proof in this case does not fall on me, it falls on those trying to substantiate the claim that life sprung out of no where.


What 'skewed evidence'?



My claim was that belief in abiological origins requires a certain amount of faith. Why? Because as of right now that claim is only an unproven theory. You stated that much yourself, I don't know why admission of that statement is so difficult for you to accept. Also, just because you have acknowledged it as a theory doesn't mean that the mainstream audience considers it as such. They have come to accept it as fact because it was taught to them that way; most aren't even aware that this particular theory has yet to be proven.


The claim requires further study, period. This is what you can't seem to get inside your head. Science doesn't ask you to believe blindly in a theory or take it at face value. Science asks you to scrutinize it, try to prove it wrong, it actually asks you to do the opposite of what you suggest: have faith and accept it as it is. The rules, however, are that you need to prove it wrong with facts. Guessing doesn't enter the equation. If you're going to shot it down, you have to be able to demonstrate your claim irrefutably.



Furthermore, I believe there is a disconnect between our use of the word "faith". To me, faith is to believe in something without having physical proof of its existence. There is no spiritual connotation involved. Your rebuttals leave the impression that I'm somehow not disassociating the two premises.

No, actually you're right on the dot. My definition of faith matches yours exactly.



Evolution equals not abiological orgins....

One is a biological model that defines the dynamics for speciation. The other, well... attempts to define how life itself began.

The theory of evolution (lower case enphasized) is supported by much geological and empirical evidence. But it doesn't address the origins question.


I brought evolution up, because you brought Ben Stein, who criticized 'Darwinism' quite a bit.



Who says I've disregarded the research??? I've read through 65+ years worth of articles on the subject. It kind of comes with the territory of attaining a degree in Molecular Genetics.


Having a Genetic Biologist in the family, I know exactly what you mean. I'm not sure you went as deep on the RNA/DNA gene department as my sister, but I'm sure you probably touched it at least tangentially.



Collisions like the one you're suggesting would incinerate living organisms - not sprout life. Without its protective enzymes DNA would denaturalize (at temperatures slightly over 200 deg F). I believe this line of reasoning was abandoned in the early 80's because it was found that most of the 'organic' compounds required to produce amino acids would crack and oxidize. Furthermore, the concentration gradient required to keep the products from thermally breaking down after the reaction couldn't be overcome by any known natural process. As soon as amino acids were formed they would revert to lower energy states by breaking down into their constituent species. Also, the unbiased production of right-handed amino acid species curbed subsequent attempts to grow RNA chains longer than 5 base pairs long. So you see, the lab setting is an essential participant to the creation of 'life in a flask' - don't disassociate the two. We eliminate all the physical (natural) constrainsts that would otherwise negate the reaction towards viable genetic material - and even when finally produced the molecules don't survive very long.

The environments required to form the sugar-phosphate backbone polymer is radically different from the enviroment required to produce amino acids (5 of which also act as DNA/RNA base pairs). Labs are required to bring the two together. Undermining the effects of human interaction, however convenient, is what would be intellectually dishonest.


You need to read more. This is a study from the year 2000:


Other research suggests a colder start to life. Work by Leslie Orgel and colleagues on the synthesis of purines has shown that freezing temperatures are advantageous, due to the concentrating effect for key precursors such as HCN.[17] Research by Stanley Miller and colleagues suggested that while adenine and guanine require freezing conditions for synthesis, cytosine and uracil may require boiling temperatures.[18] Based on this research Miller suggested a beginning of life involving freezing conditions and exploding meteorites.[19] A new article in Discover Magazine points to research by the Miller group indicating the formation of seven different amino acids and 11 types of nucleobases in ice when ammonia and cyanide were left in a freezer from 1972–1997.[20][21] This article also describes research by Hauke Trinks showing the formation of RNA molecules 400 bases long under freezing conditions using an RNA template, a single-strand chain of RNA that guides the formation of a new strand of RNA. As that new RNA strand grows, it adheres to the template.[22] The explanation given for the unusual speed of these reactions at such a low temperature is eutectic freezing. As an ice crystal forms, it stays pure: only molecules of water join the growing crystal, while impurities like salt or cyanide are excluded. These impurities become crowded in microscopic pockets of liquid within the ice, and this crowding causes the molecules to collide more often.


And while it's still a theory, which means it might still be shot down, I think it has it's merits (I guess here is where I have to add the disclaimer that I don't hold any 'beliefs' in this theory. I merely think it has it's advantages over other theories, but I anxiously await further studies on the topic).
The reality is that abiogenesis is a fairly new theory. While it was hinted at by Darwin mid 19 century, the very first advances on the topic did not happen until the 1920's and the first actual experiment, Miller-Urey, was done only 55 years ago, which conclusively demonstrated how 22 amino acids were created along with sugars and lipids from water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The latest research from this experiment dates back to, well, this month (October 2008). So this is an area that is being actively researched, and I definitely will keep an eye on.

I hope you keep your mind open too...



hardy har har... nice little red herring. Faith would undeniably be required if you wanted me to believe that something as complex as a simple desk sprung out of a tree. Of course I know who makes them. You missed the point entirely. Intelligent design is also required, the wood pieces alone don't assemble themselves.


You don't need faith because we know for a fact that at the very least a human designed the desk and most likely put it together too. You know that's a FACT. What you're trying to do, however, is take that same concept and apply it to something we don't know for a fact. You now extrapolate the concept and propose that 'God design humans' and call that Intelligent design. Now you linked in the supernatural that you can't even remotely explain or try to substantiate in science. At this point is where faith and unsubstantiated claims enter the picture.



Or that you have placed your faith in such events. Same difference... hmm where have I heard that before? Oh yeah... this "big fella in the sky," AKA GOD created the Universe... sounds like a pretty exceptional event to me!


The difference is that we know for a FACT that such exceptional events did happen. Volcanic eruptions, meteors, etc. God? Just an imaginary entity in the collective mind.



While mathematically possible it is not really plausible. You wish to hinge your faith on that one too ?


How can you postulate that it's mathematically not plausible if we don't even know the size of our universe? We have absolutely no idea what 3/4 of our universe contains either. I'd love to see the mathematical equation of probability you used on that one.
And I don't have 'faith'. I'm of the idea that our entire universe (and even any others, if they happen to exist) can be explained by science. And I'll I have no problems living with that line of thought.



Look, I've already played the numbers game with [B]RandomGuy before. Ultimately, creation of DNA from pure chance alone was on the order of 10^-289... or some rediculous number that was for all intents and purposes zero. But no, he would rather hold on to that statistical chance than to ever admit that belief in GOD was more likely. At least I'm aware of the numerical chances that people such as yourself have willingly chosen to hinge your disbelief to.


How could you calculate ANYTHING at all, if we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to discovering what's outside our galaxy alone. This is completely baffling. You actually are telling me you have any kind of authority to know every material or planet in the universe? Excuse me if I don't believe you.



No, I didn't forget it. The odds would be staggering (check your math), which is why I used it as an example. For that matter, the number wasn't chosen randomly as 50 represents the amount of base pairs for the smallest known, genetically significant RNA sequence, similar to the scale of a prion (which borrows its enzymes from pre-existing DNA/RNA organisms to replicate). It's so small and yet it's entropic order is surreal.


What math? Care to describe the math that has at least 2 unknown variables that cannot be estimated?



So says the atheistic sector of the scientific community.

Answer me this then - since no one around here has attempted to answer the question in the three years I've been around here. What differentiates a recently deceased corpse from a living person? I mean, the corpse has every necessary biological component required to live. Why then is it dead? The DNA is there? The genetic material doesn't start trying to 'jump ship' and subsist as some other form of life. DNA doesn't exhibit these properties. The corpse just withers away.


The corpse has the necessary components, but the most important component does not have the necessary energy to function. A lack of glucose or oxygen in the brain can cause it to get damaged or shut down. Since the brain controls all the other organs in a human body, the rest of the body stops functioning, and thus the person is no longer 'alive'.
For example, in the case of severe cerebral hypoxia, flow of oxygen to the brain is either lowered or completely stopped. In order to function, a human brain needs approximately 3.3ml of oxygen for each 100 grams of brain tissue each minute. When it doesn't get it, brain damage begins.




IMO life is not a physical attribute. It is gifted to us from the spiritual realm. So until that realm is physically defined, I will believe that life itself is by very definition supernatural.


I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it.



Yeah it's absurd. About as much so as belief that the most complex biological molecule suddently sprung out of a chemical broth. Except I'm not ignoring the 'big elephant' in the living room... I acknowledge the Creator's hand was involved.


Now you're ranting. What is absurd? That we know for a fact that the Empire State building was developed using sound science and not simply faith?



BTW your accusations are rather annoying.... At this point you've called me "intellectually dishonest", "uneducated", accused me of "lazy disregard"
for scientific principles... that is not how discussion is garnered.

When a self-proclaimed scientist that claims to know what the scientific method is keeps on attempting to introduce elements such as 'faith' and 'supernatural' into it, you will be called out for it. What you believe in is not called science, it's called pseudoscience, or as some like to call it, junk science.

[Mr. Peabody]

Would you consider the morals as stated in the Bible to be exclusive to Christianity?

No, not at all. In fact, most of the teachings I enjoy in the New Testament are also found in Buddhism.

[Trainwreck2100]

Why not? It's a life philosophy. Maybe my prior post was a bit misleading. I don't live my life according to the Bible, but the way I live my life is similar to what the Bible teaches.

Also, I don't think I need to be assured that I will receive eternal life or salvation in order for me to see the merit in helping others, living a simple life, caring for my fellow man, etc.

But you don't follow the bible, you live a life of morality sure but not cause of the Bible.

[Tully365]

That's a good question and one that I've pondered myself. I am an atheist, but have nothing against religion. I've often wondered what kind of proof it would take to get me to believe in the Christian God. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that outside of a guy with a flowing beard and robes descending from the sky and saying "That whole Bible-thing. Yeah, it's all true," I'd probably evaluate any other type of evidence with a great degree of skepticism and disbelief.

I say "sadly," because at times I've been critical of believers and I've thought to myself "Man, what's it going to take before they realize that the Christian God is man-made phenomena created to provide us with a sense of security and comfort in an unpredictable and uncaring world." I'm no better than they are and really have no more evidence for my beliefs than they do.

Nice post. While it's true that Christians and non-Christians are inevitably going to clash sometimes in the political arena, I accept them as I accept every other difference that I encounter in the world. I mean, I prefer basketball over baseball, cities over small towns, adidas over nike, red wine over white wine, corduroy over polyester, and pizza over seafood... does any of this really make sense...? I don't think so. All we can do is try to accumulate a good collection of preferences in this world that hopefully makes our lives more decent and beautiful, while doing as little harm as possible.

[CuckingFunt]

BTW, did you see that your post was mentioned in a blog -

Link to Cucking Funt reference on Holes in Thoughts (http://www.impulsenine.com/homepage/pages/2008/10/high-dialogue-on-teh-intarnet.html)

But it's attributed to a Spurs fan. Eeewwww!!

[timvp]

Absolutely.

What could happen for you to think you are wrong?











*tries skinning the cat another way although it might have been best to let it die*

[romad_20]

He sure as heaven is! Jesus is the King of Kings, the Bible tells me so.

And don't go bringing in some Gnostic gospel bullshit that says Jesus is the "Spur of Spurs".
:lol

Jesus, I don’t know, but I think Old Testament God is a Kings fan. How else could you describe Kings fan's "Lot-like" suffering and screw job by the Lakers.

This also proves that Satan is a Lakers fan.:cooldevil

[ElNono]

ElNono, I never said it did. :) I think it's a valid answer, just not an obvious one, so I can somewhat see his point as well. I don't think he was saying it was a "wrong" answer per se, just not an 'expected' answer. (Most people assume that typing is done with the hands, even though it could have been done theoretically by some other means. It reminds me of the old bus driver joke and what color his/her eyes were.)

By your estimate, do you think my question was a 'loaded' or 'tricky' question?

[Mr. Peabody]

But you don't follow the bible, you live a life of morality sure but not cause of the Bible.

I agree and I don't think anyone should live life of morality just because of the Bible. You should live a life of morality because you want to and not because of an external threat or promise.

[ElNono]

Close enough for me. There are more things in heaven and earth, MaryAnnKilledGinger, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.



Only if flights of angels sing me to my rest. I'm picky about angels that way.

Are you guys flirting? :lol

[anakha]

Are you guys flirting? :lol

Well, this thread has had a little bit of everything else...

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Are you guys flirting? :lol

Nah, just a pair of geeky ex-English majors i suspect.

[LnGrrrR]

That's a good question and one that I've pondered myself. I am an atheist, but have nothing against religion. I've often wondered what kind of proof it would take to get me to believe in the Christian God. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that outside of a guy with a flowing beard and robes descending from the sky and saying "That whole Bible-thing. Yeah, it's all true," I'd probably evaluate any other type of evidence with a great degree of skepticism and disbelief.

I say "sadly," because at times I've been critical of believers and I've thought to myself "Man, what's it going to take before they realize that the Christian God is man-made phenomena created to provide us with a sense of security and comfort in an unpredictable and uncaring world." I'm no better than they are and really have no more evidence for my beliefs than they do.

To be fair, I think the LACK of evidence for Jesus showing up is enough to not believe in him. Given his stated want for all of our souls to go to Heaven. :)

Of course, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster DO exist... but you being a fellow atheist, I don't have to tell you about them, right? Hehe.

[TheMadHatter]

What does it mean to be a Christian?

That you fully believe in the miracles of Christ and you accept him as the one and ONLY savior?

If you found out all of the "miracles" Jesus performed in the Bible were completely fabricated by the Church how would it affect you as a Christian? Would it make you a non-believer, or would your belief remain strong?

[LnGrrrR]

why would a non christian follow the bible?

Most of the 'major' tenets that Jesus espouses (don't lie, don't steal, be good to your parents) are followed by most functioning societies. Honestly, I can't see many societies that DIDN'T follow some of these rules existing for very long.

That's why there's so many superhero groups and not many supervillain groups. :lol

[PixelPusher]

But it's attributed to a Spurs fan. Eeewwww!!
Admit it...you're a little creeped out by this pic, aren't you?
http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Nintendo_Mario_Raccoon_Suit-T.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

By your estimate, do you think my question was a 'loaded' or 'tricky' question?

Uhm.. it's tricky. Tricky tricky tricky (here we go!)...

it's tricky
to rock a rhyme
to rock a rhyme
that's right on time
it's tricky

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[Mr. Peabody]

To be fair, I think the LACK of evidence for Jesus showing up is enough to not believe in him. Given his stated want for all of our souls to go to Heaven. :)


Yeah, but my greater point was that even if there was "evidence" I probably wouldn't be open to believing it. And that's why I made the comment that I am no better than those that I have criticized.

Also, your point goes back to the query posed by the others on the thread - what evidence WOULD convince you?

[CuckingFunt]

Admit it...you're a little creeped out by this pic, aren't you?
http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Nintendo_Mario_Raccoon_Suit-T.jpg

Yes. But only because of the douchey hipster facial hair. The t-shirt is adorable.

[Tully365]

Are you guys flirting? :lol

Ha. Just think of it as being happy to release pent up favorite literary quotations that the guys at work wouldn't approve of. And stop spying on us, ya pervert. :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

Most of the 'major' tenets that Jesus espouses (don't lie, don't steal, be good to your parents) are followed by most functioning societies. Honestly, I can't see many societies that DIDN'T follow some of these rules existing for very long.


Well, society is not really possible without these rules. That's why I believe that we can and should be moral without any external promises of salvation or threats of damnation.

[Tully365]

Uhm.. it's tricky. Tricky tricky tricky (here we go!)...

it's tricky
to rock a rhyme
to rock a rhyme
that's right on time
it's tricky

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

You never have to apologize for greatness. Loved that song from Day 1.

[CuckingFunt]

You never have to apologize for greatness. Loved that song from Day 1.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C2b8XWJnfE

[PixelPusher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C2b8XWJnfE

Wow, Penn and Teller where a team even way back then?

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, but my greater point was that even if there was "evidence" I probably wouldn't be open to believing it. And that's why I made the comment that I am no better than those that I have criticized.

Also, your point goes back to the query posed by the others on the thread - what evidence WOULD convince you?

I responded earlier upthread, but in short... Jesus stopping by Times Square, a bunch of people documenting it in a variety of ways, him performing some miracles, and then doing it every weekend or so for a month. That'd probably be enough.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Well, society is not really possible without these rules. That's why I believe that we can and should be moral without any external promises of salvation or threats of damnation.

That's probably why every successful society in history came to adopt them regardless of mythology.

[Mr. Peabody]

I responded earlier upthread, but in short... Jesus stopping by Times Square, a bunch of people documenting it in a variety of ways, him performing some miracles, and then doing it every weekend or so for a month. That'd probably be enough.

Does David Blaine hanging upside down for 30 days qualify?

[ElNono]

I never said ambiguity was in the original question, i said it occured when you yourself as you say provided information that fingers weren't the only possible variables.

^^^^^

I'll agree that the trick doesn't make it invalid like you did right there. It makes it a loaded question which is what i said it was.


How could I ever introduce any tricks or ambiguity when the question never EVER changed since I posted it. Did I change the question at ANY time?
How could it be, all of a sudden, ambiguous, loaded or tricky when the question never changed?



Also i never said science was stupid. I said science was like religion, so i guess since you think religions are stupid you equated the two.

You said many things, including:


I'm not calling out science I like science and science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything. My argument is in that original quote that he argues that we believe in something that we have no proof exists, when it's existence has yet to be disproven. So instead of believing in something they take the easy way out and play the "we don't know" card and then hate on the people that feel that they do.

First of all, I'd like to see where you got that 'science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything'. Do you have a link to this, or any kind of evidence?

Second, if there's anybody that has no intention ever to find out whether god truly exists or not is religion, the complete opposite of science. On this very topic I would ask you: If science were to prove irrefutably that god does not exist, would you still believe in him?

Third, how could you claim that 'believing in something' is the 'easy way out'? It's entirely the opposite way. In order to not believe, you have to work hard to scientifically prove what you propose. Believing in the supernatural is the easy way out. You chalk up anything you don't understand to god, and move along.

Fourth, please show me a quote of where I said that religion is stupid? I can show you a quote where I stated that I respect religious people and I think religion is what works for some people.

Fifth, the goals of science and religion have absolutely nothing in common. Please explain how you ended up with your conclusion that they're both the same thing?

[Drachen]

Answer me this then - since no one around here has attempted to answer the question in the three years that I've been a member of this forum. What differentiates a recently deceased corpse from a living person? I mean, the corpse has every necessary biological component and element required to live. Why then is it dead? The DNA is still there, no? Shouldn't life be there too then? We all know this is not the case, as corpses just wither away.

IMO life is not a physical attribute. It is a gift from the spiritual realm. So until that realm is physically defined, I will continue to believe that life itself is by very definition 'supernatural'.


Even though I know exactly where this will go the difference is that the DNA and therefore cells, etc. stop replicating.

[ElNono]

Uhm.. it's tricky. Tricky tricky tricky (here we go!)...

it's tricky
to rock a rhyme
to rock a rhyme
that's right on time
it's tricky

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

I see. It's like a tricky ricky kind of thing... :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Does David Blaine hanging upside down for 30 days qualify?

Uhm... big miracles. Not dumb, boring ones.

[LnGrrrR]

Even though I know exactly where this will go the difference is that the DNA and therefore cells, etc. stop replicating.

He would've been more effective if he had posed the mind/body duality problem... well, maybe more effective.

[anakha]

Uhm... big miracles. Not dumb, boring ones.

So how would you define a 'big miracle'? Keeping in mind the physical limitations of Times Square, of course.

[Tully365]

Does David Blaine hanging upside down for 30 days qualify?

Blaine's best magic trick would be showing up with a personality that isn't creepy. That would be the equivalent of God creating a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, or Michael Bolton writing a really good song... or what we mortals call impossible.

[Extra Stout]

Why does your morality and value system depend on supernatural miracles? Would your core values crumble if someone with a time machine definitively proves Jesus didn't perform miracles or rise from the dead? Would you descend into nihilistic depravity?
Christianity is not primarily a system of morality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more like a system of morality.

[Drachen]

Reading comprehension....you lack it.

I don't want proof, and the kind of proof that it would take for me to believe in Christianity does not exist at this moment in time.

If you understood how to read you'd see that I was explaining to Stout that the burden of proof is not on me to disprove the historicity of the account of Christ as stated in the NT Gospels, but on him to prove to me that his claim is correct. Clearly this went way over your head, you jumped to the part of my quote which said "you have to prove to me" and decided that was enough for you to draw another asinine conclusion.

We're going in circles here. You don't understand what I'm telling you, and I clearly have no idea where you are drawing your conclusions from.


Ok, let me try to clear this up between you two.
TheMadHatter, Don't think about these last 52 (or 53 or so) pages, brand spanking new subject. What exactly would be the proof that would be required for you to believe that Jesus lived, was the son of God (this proof would obviously have to prove to you that God exists), etc. etc.? I don't care if you think it exists or not. What kind of proof do you require?

[angel_luv]

Hmm.. interesting. Thanks for the answer. :) If I may, a followup...

When you talk to him, is it a formal thing? Like, by the bedside, on your knees, hands in prayer? Or just a quiet mental note to him? And do you think you hear a 'reply' of sorts? Or is it just 'understood' that he's listening and so you feel he will guide your heart in some other way then a 'voice'?

Just quiet mental notes, mostly. Although I pray aloud also at times.


Some prayers are more formal. For example, at meals, my family will hold hands and pray.
But most often I pray while driving, doing chores, exercising- just as I carry on all other conversations while in the midst of going about daily life.


I don't audibly hear a voice back but do sense Jesus guide me through the Bible, through words of others, through opportunities that become available to me etc.


:)

[ElNono]

Well, society is not really possible without these rules. That's why I believe that we can and should be moral without any external promises of salvation or threats of damnation.

I actually subscribe to the idea that religion had it's historical impact as a 'crowd control' system when we obviously didn't advance as a modern civilization yet. While I don't necessarily think it was the only factor building our current civil system, I think it did do it's part to stop barbaric behavior of the past.
Now, under that theory, Religion would become more and more obsolete as we progress further in our civil evolution. So, we'll see.

[ratm1221]

Ask him for some proof about Beowulf too.

Anyway, some real time documentation of Jesus's adventures would be good. Some dude following him around writing everything he says. I mean that would make sense right? You would want to capture every single letter of a walking god.

Truth is, Jesus only had maybe 1,000 followers. This crap where he addressed masses is idiotic sensationalization.

[DarkReign]

Son, do you have examples of him owning himself handy? That'd be a fun read.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2843683&postcount=51

[Extra Stout]

Excellent post. Sums up my thoughts for the most part.

You are humble enough to admit that it really comes down to "what you think is the most likely thing". I would ask a follow up question.

Do you believe that there is a possibility your beliefs could very well be wrong?
Of course I do. Sometimes I go through periods of doubt. Mother Teresa went through some terrible periods of doubt.

[timvp]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2843683&postcount=51

:lmao

Thanks for that laugh. Perhaps I was wrong about TheMadHatter after all.

[PixelPusher]

Christianity is not primarily a system of morality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more like a system of morality.
System, shmystem...what about your core values? Are they tethered or independent of your belief in this particular brand of supernaturalism?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

For the record I hate all of you. I can't find my Jesus Christ Superstar CDs and I can't stop singing it. It's like Chinese water torture with an ALW score.

[Mr. Peabody]

So how would you define a 'big miracle'? Keeping in mind the physical limitations of Times Square, of course.

Maybe staying under water for 17 minutes, encasing himself in ice for a week, reading minds or levitating would be enough. Crap, I'm still talking about David Blaine.

But, yeah, that's the issue. What "miracle" is enough? Also, I would think that "miracles" aren't possible to some people and would automatically be disbelieved.

[CuckingFunt]

For the record I hate all of you. I can't find my Jesus Christ Superstar CDs and I can't stop singing it. It's like Chinese water torture with an ALW score.

I got dragged to a production of Starlight Express when I was a child. In short... Andrew Lloyd Weber is worse than Chinese water torture.

[anakha]

Truth is, Jesus only had maybe 1,000 followers. This crap where he addressed masses is idiotic sensationalization.

Just out of curiosity - link?

[Extra Stout]

System, shmystem...what about your core values? Are they tethered or independent of your belief in this particular brand of supernaturalism?
I don't think I would start eating babies, but if I had to guess, I think I would become a lot less disciplined about consciously putting others before myself, devoting time and resources to that, etc. It takes me a lot of discipline and practice to do that consistently, and my faith is my motivation for submitting to that discipline and practice. I imagine I would stop praying and stop meditating on God's will for the universe and how I might fit in to it, and think more about trivial matters.

In sum, I think I would become more selfish, enough so that people would notice, but not enough so as to make myself loathsome.

[Tully365]

Or you could take this view of things:

"Everything is a miracle. It is a miracle that one does not dissolve in one's bath like a lump of sugar."

~Pablo Picasso

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I got dragged to a production of Starlight Express when I was a child. In short... Andrew Lloyd Weber is worse than Chinese water torture.
*hangs head* I actually like a lot of it.

Well, not Starlight...or Cats....or....

Okay look I *really* like JCS, okay!

[anakha]

Maybe staying under water for 17 minutes, encasing himself in ice for a week, reading minds or levitating would be enough. Crap, I'm still talking about David Blaine.


I never looked at Blaine's stuff in the same way after a local channel showed a Blaine street magic episode - immediately after a "Street Magic: Exposed" special. :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

I actually subscribe to the idea that religion had it's historical impact as a 'crowd control' system when we obviously didn't advance as a modern civilization yet. While I don't necessarily think it was the only factor building our current civil system, I think it did do it's part to stop barbaric behavior of the past.
Now, under that theory, Religion would become more and more obsolete as we progress further in our civil evolution. So, we'll see.

Well, that would seem to discount the personal comfort that people derive from religion. I mean, western religion is more than just a set of rules for society, it is also a promise that no matter what is wrong in your life everything is under control and that ultimately, you will be okay. That has value outside of the rules for maintaining an efficient society.

[timvp]

I don't think I would start eating babies, but if I had to guess, I think I would become a lot less disciplined about consciously putting others before myself, devoting time and resources to that, etc. It takes me a lot of discipline and practice to do that consistently, and my faith is my motivation for submitting to that discipline and practice. I imagine I would stop praying and stop meditating on God's will for the universe and how I might fit in to it, and think more about trivial matters.

In sum, I think I would become more selfish, enough so that people would notice, but not enough so as to make myself loathsome.That's a pretty damn good answer to a tough question. Too bad not all posters in this thread respond accordingly when their feet are put to the fire . . .

[anakha]

That's a pretty damn good answer to a tough question. Too bad not all posters in this thread respond accordingly when their feet are put to the fire . . .

That's just begging for an Anti-Christ Obama appearance. :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

I never looked at Blaine's stuff in the same way after a local channel showed a Blaine street magic episode - immediately after a "Street Magic: Exposed" special. :lol

I prefer street magic to the stage magic big production stuff David Copperfield does. Street magic takes a lot of practice, dexterity, and showmanship to pull off. The person is a few feet from you and you only have a few small props. You are the one creating the illusion of magic. The stuff that Copperfield does is just an issue of how much you want to spend on the prop and it's the prop that creates the illusion.

[anakha]

I like prefer street magic to the stage magic big production stuff David Copperfield does. Street magic takes a lot of practice, dexterity, and showmanship to pull off. The person is a few feet from you and you only have a few small props. You are the one creating the illusion of magic. The stuff that Copperfield does is just an issue of how much you want to spend on the prop and it's the prop that creates the illusion.

Agree on most of Blaine's street stuff - except for the 'levitation' trick, which was as much camera editing as anything else.

[PixelPusher]

I don't think I would start eating babies, but if I had to guess, I think I would become a lot less disciplined about consciously putting others before myself, devoting time and resources to that, etc. It takes me a lot of discipline and practice to do that consistently, and my faith is my motivation for submitting to that discipline and practice. I imagine I would stop praying and stop meditating on God's will for the universe and how I might fit in to it, and think more about trivial matters.

In sum, I think I would become more selfish, enough so that people would notice, but not enough so as to make myself loathsome.
After leaving the church, I had the opposite experience. I found I that love, compassion, forgiveness, and integrity meant more to me, now that I embrace those values as my own, and not something I was compelled to do while under the great surveillance camera in the sky.

[Mr. Peabody]

Agree on most of Blaine's street stuff - except for the 'levitation' trick, which was as much camera editing as anything else.

Yeah. He pissed me off with that trick in his special. That was the only trick where it was obvious that he used camera tricks and edited video to make it seem more spectacular. The actual trick makes it look like you are levitating a few inches off the ground. The special made seem as if he was four or five feet in the air.

I'm kind of a magic geek. I used to do a lot of street magic when I was a bartender. I used it as way of getting more tips. Nothing like making drunks believe you could multiply coins by merely flicking your thumbs or restore torn up packs of sugar by squeezing them in your fist.

The cards tricks were always harder because half the time those drunk fuckers couldn't remember their original card. You'd get to the end of a really cool trick and ask them "Was this your card?" and they wouldn't be able to remember.

[Drachen]

Ok, so I have two more things to say now that I finally caught up. First to PixelPusher, Jesus is KING of Kings meaning he RULES the Kings, ipso facto, he is a Spur.

Secondly, and this just came to me out of nowhere. If God is Fair and Just, and Jesus did indeed exist and did perform all of his miracles, isn't it a little unfair that his followers have a leg up as far as "faith" by the fact that they were able to witness these miracles personally and the rest of us poor souls only get to read about it 2000 years later? Doesn't the fact that He doesnt visit me (and you) personally and in the flesh, and perform some miracles prove that God is at least mildly exclusive and unjust?
Like I said, this is not some basis of my belief system, just something I literally just came up with.

[ratm1221]

Just out of curiosity - link?

I took a couple of religion classes in college. I know it's mentioned on this video, you should check it out. Interesting stuff. I love all religions, I just don't buy into it literally. There are great metaphors, though, if you don't try to make everything make sense. You can't really. That's why religious argument is so flawed. Too many holes.

http://www.amazon.com/ABC-News-Presents-Search-Jesus/dp/B0001BFDKK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1224821450&sr=8-2

I'm not saying I'm an expert by any sense, but I took the time to take some classes and learn. The religious courses I took only made me more sure of my doubt that there is any kind of supreme being out there.

[anakha]

Yeah. He pissed me off with that trick in his special. That was the only trick where it was obvious that he used camera tricks and edited video to make it seem more spectacular. The actual trick makes it look like you are levitating a few inches off the ground. The special made seem as if he was four or five feet in the air.

It didn't help my viewpoint on him any when a second "Street Magic: Exposed" special aired which showed how he pulled off the encased in ice trick.

[Trainwreck2100]

You said many things, including:



First of all, I'd like to see where you got that 'science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything'. Do you have a link to this, or any kind of evidence?

Uncertainty principles

Second, if there's anybody that has no intention ever to find out whether god truly exists or not is religion, the complete opposite of science. On this very topic I would ask you: If science were to prove irrefutably that god does not exist, would you still believe in him?

probably go on a killing spree. Strangers of course.
Third, how could you claim that 'believing in something' is the 'easy way out'? It's entirely the opposite way. In order to not believe, you have to work hard to scientifically prove what you propose. Believing in the supernatural is the easy way out. You chalk up anything you don't understand to god, and move along.

You chalk up anything you don't know to ignorance, You chalk up anything you don't understand as unnecessary and move along
Fourth, please show me a quote of where I said that religion is stupid? I can show you a quote where I stated that I respect religious people and I think religion is what works for some people.

wherein the quote "religion=science" you said i said "science=stupid" wherein relgion equals science and science=stupid(your words not mine)religion may take the place of science to say religion=stupid

Fifth, the goals of science and religion have absolutely nothing in common. Please explain how you ended up with your conclusion that they're both the same thing?
You accept certain things as fact without understanding how conclusions were made.

For example, Spacetime Geometry in a Black Hole, its something proven by science, however, if i asked someone who believed science to be an absolute, to say it back to me would they be able to? would you?

theory's are accepted as fact and yet most don't know how that theory came to be or its inner workings

Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?

Like it or not they have faith that the math is sound and that the guy smarter than them wasn't wrong, when in fact the average person couldn't prove them wrong if they tried.

[Trainwreck2100]

Ok, so I have two more things to say now that I finally caught up. First to PixelPusher, Jesus is KING of Kings meaning he RULES the Kings, ipso facto, he is a Spur.

Secondly, and this just came to me out of nowhere. If God is Fair and Just, and Jesus did indeed exist and did perform all of his miracles, isn't it a little unfair that his followers have a leg up as far as "faith" by the fact that they were able to witness these miracles personally and the rest of us poor souls only get to read about it 2000 years later? Doesn't the fact that He doesnt visit me (and you) personally and in the flesh, and perform some miracles prove that God is at least mildly exclusive and unjust?
Like I said, this is not some basis of my belief system, just something I literally just came up with.

Is it fair people back then lived without electricity. We get something and they get something, that's pretty fair

[Mr. Peabody]

Second, if there's anybody that has no intention ever to find out whether god truly exists or not is religion, the complete opposite of science. On this very topic I would ask you: If science were to prove irrefutably that god does not exist, would you still believe in him?



I don't know that science could ever irrefutably prove that God does not exist for the true believer. I think at best, it can prove that God is not necessary for the Universe to exist as it does.

I used to ponder how my life would change if one day science proved that we have no free will - that everything we did was explainable and predictable through physics. How would our society change? Probably not much. How would I change? Probably not much.

[PixelPusher]

Ok, so I have two more things to say now that I finally caught up. First to PixelPusher, Jesus is KING of Kings meaning he RULES the Kings, ipso facto, he is a Spur.


And the Lakers RULES the Spurs, ispo facto, Jesus is a Laker? Blasphemy.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I used to ponder how my life would change if one day science proved that we have no free will - that everything we did was explainable and predictable through physics. How would our society change? Probably not much. How would I change? Probably not much.

I would have some serious questions for management and dibs on the complaint forms.

[ratm1221]

I used to ponder how my life would change if one day science proved that we have no free will - that everything we did was explainable and predictable through physics.

That's awesome, I like that. You came up with that?

[Mr. Peabody]

After leaving the church, I had the opposite experience. I found I that love, compassion, forgiveness, and integrity meant more to me, now that I embrace those values as my own, and not something I was compelled to do while under the great surveillance camera in the sky.

That was my experience. After I realized that my life was finite and that this was the only life I would live, I started to notice a profound change in how I lived life and treated people.

[Drachen]

Is it fair people back then lived without electricity. We get something and they get something, that's pretty fair

Well then you are going to move into a debate of if technological advances are made through divine intervention. If you want to say that they are, I have two responses:

First nothing we humans do is bad, since our inventions are divinely inspired, if got gave us the tech, then using it cannot be bad (as long as it doesn't offend the statutes that he gave to Moses).

Second I still call unfair, I get 77 (what's the avg. lifetime??) years of Air Conditioning in return for an eternity of hellfire. THEY, have to use candles to read and go jump in a lake to cool off, but they spend their eternity doing whatever is done in heaven (supposedly better than hellfire).

[Trainwreck2100]

Well then you are going to move into a debate of if technological advances are made through divine intervention. If you want to say that they are, I have two responses:

First nothing we humans do is bad, since our inventions are divinely inspired, if got gave us the tech, then using it cannot be bad (as long as it doesn't offend the statutes that he gave to Moses).

Second I still call unfair, I get 77 (what's the avg. lifetime??) years of Air Conditioning in return for an eternity of hellfire. THEY, have to use candles to read and go jump in a lake to cool off, but they spend their eternity doing whatever is done in heaven (supposedly better than hellfire).

If you don't believe in hellfire then you're fine

[Drachen]

And the Lakers RULES the Spurs, ispo facto, Jesus is a Laker? Blasphemy.

Nowhere does it say king of spurs, it says king of KINGS. (insert latin word du jour) Jesus is a Spur!

By the way, the fact that you would even put that last question into writing leads me to want to call the anti-christ and tell him not to wait for the end of the world to take you.

[Drachen]

If you don't believe in hellfire then you're fine

Unless its true and atheists are wrong. (I dont claim to be athiest anymore, but I also dont claim to not be athiest. In the last year or so, l have kept going back and forth on it.)

[Tully365]

.

I used to ponder how my life would change if one day science proved that we have no free will - that everything we did was explainable and predictable through physics. How would our society change? Probably not much. How would I change? Probably not much.

I was having a joking conversation about free will with a co-worker one day and one of our newer part-time employees-- a 20 year old girl in college-- interrupted us and said, "there's no such thing as free will... I learned that in philosophy class yesterday."

[TheMadHatter]

Ok, let me try to clear this up between you two.
TheMadHatter, Don't think about these last 52 (or 53 or so) pages, brand spanking new subject. What exactly would be the proof that would be required for you to believe that Jesus lived, was the son of God (this proof would obviously have to prove to you that God exists), etc. etc.? I don't care if you think it exists or not. What kind of proof do you require?

I have no idea what that proof would look like.

All I can say is that it would have to lead me to believe that Jesus Christ is real beyond any reasonable doubt.

[ElNono]

You said many things, including:



First of all, I'd like to see where you got that 'science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything'. Do you have a link to this, or any kind of evidence?

Uncertainty principles

Second, if there's anybody that has no intention ever to find out whether god truly exists or not is religion, the complete opposite of science. On this very topic I would ask you: If science were to prove irrefutably that god does not exist, would you still believe in him?

probably go on a killing spree. Strangers of course.
Third, how could you claim that 'believing in something' is the 'easy way out'? It's entirely the opposite way. In order to not believe, you have to work hard to scientifically prove what you propose. Believing in the supernatural is the easy way out. You chalk up anything you don't understand to god, and move along.

You chalk up anything you don't know to ignorance, You chalk up anything you don't understand as unnecessary and move along
Fourth, please show me a quote of where I said that religion is stupid? I can show you a quote where I stated that I respect religious people and I think religion is what works for some people.

wherein the quote "religion=science" you said i said "science=stupid" wherein relgion equals science and science=stupid(your words not mine)religion may take the place of science to say religion=stupid

Fifth, the goals of science and religion have absolutely nothing in common. Please explain how you ended up with your conclusion that they're both the same thing?
You accept certain things as fact without understanding how conclusions were made.

For example, Spacetime Geometry in a Black Hole, its something proven by science, however, if i asked someone who believed science to be an absolute, to say it back to me would they be able to? would you?

theory's are accepted as fact and yet most don't know how that theory came to be or its inner workings

Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?

Like it or not they have faith that the math is sound and that the guy smarter than them wasn't wrong, when in fact the average person couldn't prove them wrong if they tried.

Well, I can't respond to these long posts from my iPod, but fear not, I am a very patient man, so you'll have your response to this clusterfuck you posted tomorrow...

[LnGrrrR]

So how would you define a 'big miracle'? Keeping in mind the physical limitations of Times Square, of course.

Uhm... making everyone in Times Square float, making a dinosaur appear, changing every building to look at a mushroom, make everyone start speaking in a totally unknown language that they all fully understood, warp through space/time... some of these would suffice. I'm not too picky after all. ;)

[Drachen]

I have no idea what that proof would look like.

All I can say is that it would have to lead me to believe that Jesus Christ is real beyond any reasonable doubt.

Really? Have you no understanding of your own mind? I am not asking what proof he should give the world that he exists, just you personally. Would it be living in a bottle, calling you master and getting you ready for your space flights? I mean, the world is yours here, what exactly would make you believe that Jesus Christ is real beyond any reasonable doubt?

[LnGrrrR]

Well, I can't respond to these long posts from my iPod, but fear not, I am a very patient man, so you'll have your response to this clusterfuck you posted tomorrow...

You know, I never get this. Why would the non-existence of God mean it was ok to just start doing whatever you want? Do the liberties/rights of other people not matter?

And if God DOES exist, what type of signal are these people sending that they're only moral due to his existence, and not to some inner morality/reasoning/beliefs?

[Drachen]

Uhm... making everyone in Times Square float, making a dinosaur appear, changing every building to look at a mushroom, make everyone start speaking in a totally unknown language that they all fully understood, warp through space/time... some of these would suffice. I'm not too picky after all. ;)

Did you mean look like a mushroom?? If so I think you found your way to make all of your "miracles" happen. Just take a bite out of one of those buildings!!

[LnGrrrR]

Unless its true and atheists are wrong. (I dont claim to be athiest anymore, but I also dont claim to not be athiest. In the last year or so, l have kept going back and forth on it.)

Yeah, but given the odds, being a Christian is really a minority belief. Best not to pick one in particular, I find. :D

[LnGrrrR]

Did you mean look like a mushroom?? If so I think you found your way to make all of your "miracles" happen. Just take a bite out of one of those buildings!!

Ha! Yes, good catch.

[Mr. Peabody]

That's awesome, I like that. You came up with that?

I don't know that I came up with it out of nothing. I took a philosophy of science class and the professor was discussing how some (maybe all?) physicists have posited that physics is the basis for all of the other sciences and how according to them, at some point we should be able to use physics to predict the outcome of any science experiment.

Hell, it was over my head (I was a philosophy major, not a physics or any other science major), but I started to wonder about the implications on my life and society if this was true.

Ultimately, I decided that not much would change. We could still find reasons to punish people for crime, even though there was no choice involved during the commission of crime. There could still be societal consequences for people's actions.

In our own lives, we would still have the illusion of choice and that would be enough to sustain us from day to day. If I felt like I wanted a hamburger, it wouldn't necessarily matter to me whether my craving was based on the actions of some subatomic particles or whether it was my independent mind craving a hamburger. The fact would be that I would want a hamburger and would eat one.

Obviously there was more to it, but that's just a short summary of the process.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Really? Have you no understanding of your own mind? I am not asking what proof he should give the world that he exists, just you personally.

I actually can't imagine what proof would look like to me, either. No matter how spectacular the actions, I'd likely think it was a hoax.

But, in theory if the whole God and Jesus thing is true, they would know my mind and my heart better than myself and know exactly what to show me.

[Mr. Peabody]

I was having a joking conversation about free will with a co-worker one day and one of our newer part-time employees-- a 20 year old girl in college-- interrupted us and said, "there's no such thing as free will... I learned that in philosophy class yesterday."

:lol
Nice.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

[ratm1221]

I don't know that I came up with it out of nothing. I took a philosophy of science class and the professor was discussing how some (maybe all?) physicists have posited that physics is the basis for all of the other sciences and how according to them, at some point we should be able to use physics to predict the outcome of any science experiment.

Hell, it was over my head (I was a philosophy major, not a physics or any other science major), but I started to wonder about the implications on my life and society if this was true.

Ultimately, I decided that not much would change. We could still find reasons to punish people for crime, even though there was no choice involved during the commission of crime. There could still be societal consequences for people's actions.

In our own lives, we would still have the illusion of choice and that would be enough to sustain us from day to day. If I felt like I wanted a hamburger, it wouldn't necessarily matter to me whether my craving was based on the actions of some subatomic particles or whether it was my independent mind craving a hamburger. The fact would be that I would want a hamburger and would eat one.

Obviously there was more to it, but that's just a short summary of the process.

Interesting, thanks.

[Drachen]

Yeah, but given the odds, being a Christian is really a minority belief. Best not to pick one in particular, I find. :D

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but those who claim to be Christians outnumber the other religions. Catholicism alone makes up 1.1 B people. Interestingly enough Atheism/Agnosticism is the 3rd largest "religion" in the world behind Christianity and Islam.

[Drachen]

ok, well I am being told by my smarter half that it is time to go to bed, so I will continue this tomorrow, enjoy!

[Tully365]

Uhm... making everyone in Times Square float, making a dinosaur appear, changing every building to look at a mushroom, make everyone start speaking in a totally unknown language that they all fully understood, warp through space/time... some of these would suffice. I'm not too picky after all. ;)

:lol
Though, to be fair, given these examples, it seems that miracles are very much tied to certain time periods, right? In the year 500 BC, the empire state building, a cell phone, a 757, and Golden Gate Bridge would all astound people as miracles, wouldn't they?

[LnGrrrR]

Just quiet mental notes, mostly. Although I pray aloud also at times.


Some prayers are more formal. For example, at meals, my family will hold hands and pray.
But most often I pray while driving, doing chores, exercising- just as I carry on all other conversations while in the midst of going about daily life.


I don't audibly hear a voice back but do sense Jesus guide me through the Bible, through words of others, through opportunities that become available to me etc.


:)

Thanks for answering! I sometimes 'wish' to no one in particular for something to happen, but I just consider it superstitious hopes of my own. I'm not completely rational; I'll readily cop to that. Most sports fans will. :)

When I was younger, I used to actually "pray", but I wouldn't say God. I'd just ask whoever was listening to help me out.

[Trainwreck2100]

You know, I never get this. Why would the non-existence of God mean it was ok to just start doing whatever you want? Do the liberties/rights of other people not matter?

And if God DOES exist, what type of signal are these people sending that they're only moral due to his existence, and not to some inner morality/reasoning/beliefs?

If God don't exist then Dawinism takes over. Less people on Earth, more resources for me.

I'd steal from Wal Mart to, fuck Wal Mart, they want you to steal from them, why else would they be so understaffed.

[Mr. Peabody]

I have no idea what that proof would look like.

All I can say is that it would have to lead me to believe that Jesus Christ is real beyond any reasonable doubt.

Sometimes DNA evidence doesn't even get you there. Just ask O.J.!

[LnGrrrR]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but those who claim to be Christians outnumber the other religions. Catholicism alone makes up 1.1 B people. Interestingly enough Atheism/Agnosticism is the 3rd largest "religion" in the world behind Christianity and Islam.

Yes, but if you take EVERY belief, then Christianity is less of a percentage. (Ie. if Christianity is the most believed religion at 36 percent, then there are still 64 percent of people that don't believe in it.)

[Mr. Peabody]

If God don't exist then Dawinism takes over. Less people on Earth, more resources for me.

I'd steal from Wal Mart to, fuck Wal Mart, they want you to steal from them, why else would they be so understaffed.

So, it's God that keeps you from stealing at WalMart? I would think the fact that you could get caught and if caught, would get arrested for stealing at WalMart might also be a deterrent.

[LnGrrrR]

:lol
Though, to be fair, given these examples, it seems that miracles are very much tied to certain time periods, right? In the year 500 BC, the empire state building, a cell phone, a 757, and Golden Gate Bridge would all astound people as miracles, wouldn't they?

Pretty much. So I guess you could sum it up as, if someone was able to traverse/bend/warp spacetime, without having any sort of obvious means/technology to do so, and claimed to be Jesus/son of God (without anyone else showing up to do the same thing).... yes. I'd probably believe then. :)

Edit: Though if they couldn't turn those buildings into mushrooms, I'd totally know it was a fake. :)

[Tully365]

Pretty much. So I guess you could sum it up as, if someone was able to traverse/bend/warp spacetime, without having any sort of obvious means/technology to do so, and claimed to be Jesus/son of God (without anyone else showing up to do the same thing).... yes. I'd probably believe then. :)

Edit: Though if they couldn't turn those buildings into mushrooms, I'd totally know it was a fake. :)

What if it is a completely different god, on a higher plane than Jesus, who just for the fun of it, performs "miracles" for naive earthlings and holds in his own giggles while telling you that he is (hee hee hee) Jesus, and around the celestial corner all of his immortal pals are laughing hysterically because Booboo or Bubbles or whatever his name is just pulled the old "goof on an earthling gag" for the millionth time?

[timvp]

Really? Have you no understanding of your own mind?

:lmao That might have overtaken CF for best line in the thread.

Thanks for trying. You got a lot further than I did ... even though we asked the same question. Maybe he'll come back and at least try to answer it but I won't hold my breath.

[Trainwreck2100]

So, it's God that keeps you from stealing at WalMart? I would think the fact that you could get caught and if caught, would get arrested for stealing at WalMart might also be a deterrent.

Do you have any idea how easy it is to steal from Wal Mart?They greatest detterent is the worker and they understaff. The stores have blind spots on the cameras, and if you can't find one just head into the McD's or bathroom. Open package deposit contents in cargo pants and walk away.

[TheMadHatter]

Do you have any idea how easy it is to steal from Wal Mart?They greatest detterent is the worker and they understaff. The stores have blind spots on the cameras, and if you can't find one just head into the McD's or bathroom. Open package deposit contents in cargo pants and walk away.

you wouldn't happen to have 1st hand experience with this now would you? :)

[Trainwreck2100]

you wouldn't happen to have 1st hand experience with this now would you? :)

I know people,

fuckin morals :depressed

[LnGrrrR]

What if it is a completely different god, on a higher plane than Jesus, who just for the fun of it, performs "miracles" for naive earthlings and holds in his own giggles while telling you that he is (hee hee hee) Jesus, and around the celestial corner all of his immortal pals are laughing hysterically because Booboo or Bubbles or whatever his name is just pulled the old "goof on an earthling gag" for the millionth time?

Uhm... good for him? :) I mean, if I had that power, I'd probably do the same thing.

[Mr. Peabody]

What if it is a completely different god, on a higher plane than Jesus, who just for the fun of it, performs "miracles" for naive earthlings and holds in his own giggles while telling you that he is (hee hee hee) Jesus, and around the celestial corner all of his immortal pals are laughing hysterically because Booboo or Bubbles or whatever his name is just pulled the old "goof on an earthing gag" for the millionth time?

Wow. I suppose if we go that far, we could just go Cartesian and suppose that there is an evil god who is deceiving us about everything. Therefore, can we really know anything?

[LnGrrrR]

Wow. I suppose if we go that far, we could just go Cartesian and suppose that there is an evil god who is deceiving us about everything. Therefore, can we really know anything?

Cogito ergo sum. That's really all, I suppose.

[Tully365]

Uhm... good for him? :) I mean, if I had that power, I'd probably do the same thing.

True. At that point, you've seen and done everything. Might as well raise some harmless hell, so to speak.

[TheMadHatter]

Wow. I suppose if we go that far, we could just go Cartesian and suppose that there is an evil god who is deceiving us about everything. Therefore, can we really know anything?

Read 1984 by George Orwell. Particularly the last segment of the book. It was perhaps the most thrilling intellectual text I've ever read in my life. Mindfuck would be the best way of describing it.

[ElNono]

You know, I never get this. Why would the non-existence of God mean it was ok to just start doing whatever you want? Do the liberties/rights of other people not matter?

And if God DOES exist, what type of signal are these people sending that they're only moral due to his existence, and not to some inner morality/reasoning/beliefs?

Well, I don't think everybody would react the same way, so I frankly prefer not to generalize. For example, I think a girl like angel would go in denial mode, other people would go into severe depression/suicide, other people would claim at that point that 'they already knew', but it's the moral message what was important anyways and they'll still cling to it, and some other people would go back to barbaric ways.

Now, as far as why would go postal, one theory would be that they no longer need to fear a powerful god that will punish them for their sins. I would have to give this more thought to think of other theories.

[Tully365]

Wow. I suppose if we go that far, we could just go Cartesian and suppose that there is an evil god who is deceiving us about everything. Therefore, can we really know anything?

Yeah, but to look at it somewhat seriously, even our wackiest, most creative scenarios are nothing compared to an infinity of time and space-- there are possibilities that exist that even the most brilliant minds haven't considered yet. Imagine that person from 500 BC being amazed by a 757 flying over the Empire State Building and think what it would take for us to feel that same sort of disbelief and astonishment.... whatever that is will someday come into existence. I don't know what that'll be, but it'll be pretty amazing to ordinary folks from the year 2008.

[Trainwreck2100]

Now, as far as why would go postal, one theory would be that they no longer need to fear a powerful god that will punish them for their sins. I would have to give this more thought to think of other theories.

1 word.........................rapeparty

[Tully365]

Cogito ergo sum. That's really all, I suppose.

Dude, that would be a great name for our band!

[Mr. Peabody]

Yeah, but to look at it somewhat seriously, even our wackiest, most creative scenarios are nothing compared to an infinity of time and space-- there are possibilities that exist that even the most brilliant minds haven't considered yet. Imagine that person from 500 BC being amazed by a 757 flying over the Empire State Building and think what it would take for us to feel that same sort of disbelief and astonishment.... whatever that is will someday come into existence. I don't know what that'll be, but it'll be pretty amazing to ordinary folks from the year 2008.

So, then essentially you're saying that there can't possibly be any evidence of Jesus that would convince the non-believer, right? Because today's miracle is tomorrow's science.

But, if that's the case and there is no evidence possible, how can we dismiss the notion for lack of evidence?

[ElNono]

1 word.........................rapeparty

Unfortunately for you, society morals don't currently hinge on religion. So the odds that you can rape somebody and not end up locked up in jail are pretty slim.
Now, getting life imprisonent in these circumstances would be pretty idiotic. I mean, you spent a portion of your life restraining yourself because of this false god, and now that youre finally free, the very first idea you have is to get restrained again by the law?

[Tully365]

So, then essentially you're saying that there can't possibly be any evidence of Jesus that would convince the non-believer, right? Because today's miracle is tomorrow's science.

But, if that's the case and there is no evidence possible, how can we dismiss the notion for lack of evidence?

I'd say dismissing it becomes a function of understanding all of the infinite possibilities out there and the decision that, pragmatically, the likelihood is so miniscule that this one religion-- which borrows so heavily from previous myths, religions, and literatures-- is the single most important and divine of all of the hundreds of thousands of religions rather than just another in the group of supposedly divine philosophies... well, it just seems like a bet I wouldn't make if I'd been born somewhere else-- China in 300 AD, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Ethiopia, an Incan, Mayan, or Aztec, etc., etc. Why would God be so geographically limited and biased? isn't it much much more likely that the "holy books" of a certain region are simply regional literature that thrives to be inspired by an all knowing diety, even though it seemingly isn't, since it is so ignorant of all the same things that the people transcribing it are?

[rascal]

I know I said the last post was my last one, but I need to say the following- to everyone and particulary to Pee Wee.

I want to apologise for mentioning my stated concerns about Senator Obama.
I said what I did because I was asked a direct question and felt responsible to answer it directly and truthfully.

While I do not regret my attempts at completely honest disclosure , I have no proof that Senator Obama is not a good person and have no business making suggestions about anyone, especially things I cannot substansiate.


So regarding my personal comments about the Senator, I do apologise. I was out of line.

This really is my last post in this thread.


Wecome back. No need for it to be your last post. This is an entertaining thread and you are a big part of it. Stand up to your beliefs and don't turn away from any challenges to them. Have an open mind to come to an understanding of others points of views. Don't run away because your view may not be the popular view.

What is the criteria for the future anti-christ? Where is he suppose to come from? Is there anything in the Bible that states where he will come from?

[101A]

I was having a joking conversation about free will with a co-worker one day and one of our newer part-time employees-- a 20 year old girl in college-- interrupted us and said, "there's no such thing as free will... I learned that in philosophy class yesterday."


Cool. You can learn a lot in school.

RATM1221, for instance, learned that Jesus never preached to a bunch of people.

[Mr. Peabody]

I'd say dismissing it becomes a function of understanding all of the infinite possibilities out there and the decision that, pragmatically, the likelihood is so miniscule that this one religion-- which borrows so heavily from previous myths, religions, and literatures-- is the single most important and divine of all of the hundreds of thousands of religions rather than just another in the group of supposedly divine philosophies... well, it just seems like a bet I wouldn't make if I'd been born somewhere else-- China in 300 AD, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Ethiopia, an Incan, Mayan, or Aztec, etc., etc. Why would God be so geographically limited and biased? isn't it much much more likely that the "holy books" of a certain region are simply regional literature that thrives to be inspired by an all knowing diety, even though it obviously isn't, since it is so ignorant of all the same things that the people transcribing it are?

Oh hell, you're preaching to the choir brother. I've also wondered about what it means if we discover life on other planets? Clearly, God involved himself in our activities here on Earth according to the Bible, so we must be his chosen people, right? How fortunate for us that we are always among "the chosen people"? And I guess the aliens might be screwed if they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior? How could they know him though? He existed here on Earth.

Let's face it, God's Earth-centric. He's no friend to ET.

[ratm1221]

Cool. You can learn a lot in school.

RATM1221, for instance, learned that Jesus never preached to a bunch of people.

What college did you graduate from?

[LnGrrrR]

So, then essentially you're saying that there can't possibly be any evidence of Jesus that would convince the non-believer, right? Because today's miracle is tomorrow's science.

But, if that's the case and there is no evidence possible, how can we dismiss the notion for lack of evidence?

Hey, I just listed tons of evidence that Jesus could provide. :) I fail to see any of those things happening. Bending space/time would be pretty impressive.

And again, turning buildings into mushrooms or some other fantastical act would probably be on my checklist too, just in case. If you claim to be all-powerful, you're going to get alot of silly requests for proof. :D

[peewee's lovechild]

Pee Wee,

Thanks to this thread, I will forever go down in history as someone who thought Senator Obama was the anti Christ.

For better or worse, I have made my peace with being so categorized.
Why can't you?

Because you said that you came to the conclusion that Obama might be the Anti-Christ based on the assumption that he never has publicly accepted Jesus Christ as his savior.

You've been given a bounty of proof that he has.

You also said that the Anti-Christ would never accept Jesus as his savior and that he wouldn't even utter his name.

You've been given proof that Obama has done all of that.

And yet, you still haven't said that Obama is not, in fact, the Anti-Christ.

Until then, Angel, I have no other choice but to call you out for it.

[peewee's lovechild]

Seriously. Is there something you could see or read to make you think that the Christians may have it right?

A facsimile of Jesus' face on a grilled cheese sandwich, or on a tortilla.

[peewee's lovechild]

They do... the Bible states in Genesis that some of them 'came down' and engendered 'Giants' by mating with earth's prettiest gals...

When the materialized as humans on Earth.

They're androgenous in heaven.

Did I spell androgenous right?

[peewee's lovechild]

I don't think I would start eating babies, but if I had to guess, I think I would become a lot less disciplined about consciously putting others before myself, devoting time and resources to that, etc. It takes me a lot of discipline and practice to do that consistently, and my faith is my motivation for submitting to that discipline and practice. I imagine I would stop praying and stop meditating on God's will for the universe and how I might fit in to it, and think more about trivial matters.

In sum, I think I would become more selfish, enough so that people would notice, but not enough so as to make myself loathsome.

You can get the same effect by following the Buddhist philosophy.

[Trainwreck2100]

Until then, Angel, I have no other choice but to call you out for it.

you could also drop it like everybody else has

[peewee's lovechild]

you could also drop it like everybody else has

I'll drop it when the record is set straight by Angel.

[101A]

What college did you graduate from?

Southwestern University (http://www.southwestern.edu/); Georgetown, Texas. (Please don't confuse it with SWT State)

[Drachen]

Southwestern University (http://www.southwestern.edu/); Georgetown, Texas. (Please don't confuse it with SWT State)

Did you ever eat at the Wild Rose Cafe right down MLK from the school?

[101A]

Did you ever eat at the Wild Rose Cafe right down MLK from the school?


When the parents came up, we ate at Cafe on the Square; on my own it was Sonic, Taco Bueno, or that little 'burger drive trough place in the Appletree parking lot. Understand, this was '86 - '90.

[ElNono]

You said many things, including:


First of all, I'd like to see where you got that 'science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything'. Do you have a link to this, or any kind of evidence?

Uncertainty principles


That's not a scientific law. As a matter of fact, Einstein and Bohr debated about it for years. I'm of the opinion that Einstein got it right when he said that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality. But feel free to side with Bohr's opinion. At the end, your statement that 'science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything' is incorrect, no matter what side you chose.




Second, if there's anybody that has no intention ever to find out whether god truly exists or not is religion, the complete opposite of science. On this very topic I would ask you: If science were to prove irrefutably that god does not exist, would you still believe in him?

probably go on a killing spree. Strangers of course.


But would you still believe that god exists or not?




Third, how could you claim that 'believing in something' is the 'easy way out'? It's entirely the opposite way. In order to not believe, you have to work hard to scientifically prove what you propose. Believing in the supernatural is the easy way out. You chalk up anything you don't understand to god, and move along.
You chalk up anything you don't know to ignorance, You chalk up anything you don't understand as unnecessary and move along


Quote where I said that? For the record, and as I explained various times already, I chalk up both anything I don't know or don't understand to 'requires more research'.




Fourth, please show me a quote of where I said that religion is stupid? I can show you a quote where I stated that I respect religious people and I think religion is what works for some people.

wherein the quote "religion=science" you said i said "science=stupid" wherein relgion equals science and science=stupid(your words not mine)religion may take the place of science to say religion=stupid


Well, that's where your proposition goes wrong. YOU equaled science and religion, I did not. So your logical construction is entirely flawed.




Fifth, the goals of science and religion have absolutely nothing in common. Please explain how you ended up with your conclusion that they're both the same thing?
You accept certain things as fact without understanding how conclusions were made.


I certainly do not. Link where I stated otherwise?
I accept certain things as fact when they're been verified to be factual.



For example, Spacetime Geometry in a Black Hole, its something proven by science, however, if i asked someone who believed science to be an absolute, to say it back to me would they be able to? would you?


Spacetime geometry inside a blackhole is not a scientific law. It's a theory, and as it's based on another theory, the general relativity theory, it won't become a scientific law, or factual, until both theories' claims are tested and verified to be accurate. So, your claim that this theory is proven by science is bollocks. I do believe science to be an absolute, but within science's rules. Science clearly states that theories are not fact, and they need to be scrutinized and verified before they can be upgraded to scientific law.



theory's are accepted as fact and yet most don't know how that theory came to be or its inner workings


If you think theories are accepted as a fact, then you need to educate yourself. And if somebody is trying to pass a theory for a fact to you, then that person is just trying to take advantage of your ignorance on that matter.
The other point, how theories came to be, well, every single scientific theory has been properly documented, so the only thing stopping you from researching what the theory is about is your own willingness to learn about it.



Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?


Familiar to what?



Like it or not they have faith that the math is sound and that the guy smarter than them wasn't wrong, when in fact the average person couldn't prove them wrong if they tried.

Actually, 'faith' has nothing to do with it. If you're building a theory on top of another theory, you're just taking a chance that if the other theory is debunked so will be your own theory. That's why EVERY theory is scrutinized and retested all the time. New tests are conducted on old and new theories all the time when new technology or testing methods become available.
Science establishes a strict set of rules to find answers through testing and scrutiny. Revisiting and retesting theories and even laws are encouraged, not the other way around. It's an evolving process.
Religion, on the other hand, does not scrutinize or test any of their claims. There's no active pursue to challenge it's own core beliefs, or to test them.
In a nutshell, science and religion have nothing in common.

[ElNono]

Well, that would seem to discount the personal comfort that people derive from religion. I mean, western religion is more than just a set of rules for society, it is also a promise that no matter what is wrong in your life everything is under control and that ultimately, you will be okay. That has value outside of the rules for maintaining an efficient society.

I'm talking about the fear factor of facing a powerful, all-knowing god. That's indeed a very handy tool when you have to do crowd control. I'm already on the record about the comfort part. I said that I know religion is what works for some people, and I'm A-OK with that.

[Trainwreck2100]

That's not a scientific law. As a matter of fact, Einstein and Bohr debated about it for years. I'm of the opinion that Einstein got it right when he said that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality. But feel free to side with Bohr's opinion. At the end, your statement that 'science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything' is incorrect, no matter what side you chose.

ok than einstein has proven that humans will be limited by their ignorance, if you want to side with that its fine
So humanity's ignorance will keep it from finding the truth
But would you still believe that god exists or not?
If i believe in God how could i believe it can be determined that God doesn't exist? They only firm evidense that can be made is to die
Quote where I said that? For the record, and as I explained various times already, I chalk up both anything I don't know or don't understand to 'requires more research'.


so you don't know
Well, that's where your proposition goes wrong. YOU equaled science and religion, I did not. So your logical construction is entirely flawed.


you said i said science was stupid how else could you come to that conclusion if you didn't think religion was stupid since i said science=religion
I certainly do not. Link where I stated otherwise?
I accept certain things as fact when they're been verified to be factual.



Spacetime geometry inside a blackhole is not a scientific law. It's a theory, and as it's based on another theory, the general relativity theory, it won't become a scientific law, or factual, until both theories' claims are tested and verified to be accurate. So, your claim that this theory is proven by science is bollocks. I do believe science to be an absolute, but within science's rules. Science clearly states that theories are not fact, and they need to be scrutinized and verified before they can be upgraded to scientific law.



If you think theories are accepted as a fact, then you need to educate yourself.

i don't know where you went to school but every law was once a theory. A law is an accepted theory. Laws=accepted theorys, laws =fact.

You're an adult now, but does that mean you're not somebody's kid? So if i call you a kid would i be wrong?




Science establishes a strict set of rules to find answers through testing and scrutiny. Revisiting and retesting theories and even laws are encouraged, not the other way around. It's an evolving process.
Religion, on the other hand, does not scrutinize or test any of their claims. There's no active pursue to challenge it's own core beliefs, or to test them.
In a nutshell, science and religion have nothing in common.

So you are saying there's no difference between somebody accepting God when they don't understand it and accepting science when the don't understand it. And in both cases "common folk" trust the words of another to come to conclusions.

[Tully365]

Oh hell, you're preaching to the choir brother. I've also wondered about what it means if we discover life on other planets? Clearly, God involved himself in our activities here on Earth according to the Bible, so we must be his chosen people, right? How fortunate for us that we are always among "the chosen people"? And I guess the aliens might be screwed if they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior? How could they know him though? He existed here on Earth.

Let's face it, God's Earth-centric. He's no friend to ET.

:lol so true!

Maybe in the giant universal picture of lifeforms, we are the equivalent of goats or llamas, not the smartest and not the dumbest, but somewhere humbly in the middle.

Your analogy reminds me of people who go to psychics and believe that they were Napolean, Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, or Casanova in a previous life... it's never Billy the bedpan emptier, or Sootie, the chimney sweep!

[DarkReign]

:lol so true!

Maybe in the giant universal picture of lifeforms, we are the equivalent of goats or llamas, not the smartest and not the dumbest, but somewhere humbly in the middle.

Your analogy reminds me of people who go to psychics and believe that they were Napolean, Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, or Casanova in a previous life... it's never Billy the bedpan emptier, or Sootie, the chimney sweep!


http://blog.mrfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/laughing-jesus.jpg

[ElNono]

That's not a scientific law. As a matter of fact, Einstein and Bohr debated about it for years. I'm of the opinion that Einstein got it right when he said that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality. But feel free to side with Bohr's opinion. At the end, your statement that 'science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything' is incorrect, no matter what side you chose.

ok than einstein has proven that humans will be limited by their ignorance, if you want to side with that its fine.


Einstein didn't prove anything. He proposed an idea it so we can have further research into it. Gee, you're slow.



So humanity's ignorance will keep it from finding the truth


?????





But would you still believe that god exists or not?
If i believe in God how could i believe it can be determined that God doesn't exist? They only firm evidense that can be made is to die


Not really, no. If say, an alien race were to show up and claim and factually prove they created us, then that would be a valid way to prove that god doesn't exist, regardless wether you believe or not. My question was wether you would still believe after such hypothetical case played out.




Quote where I said that? For the record, and as I explained various times already, I chalk up both anything I don't know or don't understand to 'requires more research'.


so you don't know


Of course not. But we encourage people to research and find out, so one day e will know. What's so wrong with that? Not knowing something is a daily occurrence to a lot of people, myself included.




Well, that's where your proposition goes wrong. YOU equaled science and religion, I did not. So your logical construction is entirely flawed.

you said i said science was stupid how else could you come to that conclusion if you didn't think religion was stupid since i said science=religion


Exactly.



I certainly do not. Link where I stated otherwise?


Your entire disdain for science is nothing but an insult to scientific people, as shown in these posts.





I accept certain things as fact when they're been verified to be factual.
Spacetime geometry inside a blackhole is not a scientific law. It's a theory, and as it's based on another theory, the general relativity theory, it won't become a scientific law, or factual, until both theories' claims are tested and verified to be accurate. So, your claim that this theory is proven by science is bollocks. I do believe science to be an absolute, but within science's rules. Science clearly states that theories are not fact, and they need to be scrutinized and verified before they can be upgraded to scientific law.
If you think theories are accepted as a fact, then you need to educate yourself.


i don't know where you went to school but every law was once a theory. A law is an accepted theory. Laws=accepted theorys, laws =fact.


A scientific law was a theory VERIFIED and SCRUTINIZED to be factual. It's not longer a theory, it's a law.



You're an adult now, but does that mean you're not somebody's kid? So if i call you a kid would i be wrong?


LOL, your analogy fails because there's no actual factual way to determine when you stop being a 'kid'. I'll give you a better analogy of how theory-to-law works: You were once a student, but after passing all the respective tests, you're now a graduate.
Does that mean you were once a student? Sure. But in order to be a graduate, your knowledge had to be scrutinized and tested. Not all theories become law. Not all students become graduates.






Science establishes a strict set of rules to find answers through testing and scrutiny. Revisiting and retesting theories and even laws are encouraged, not the other way around. It's an evolving process.
Religion, on the other hand, does not scrutinize or test any of their claims. There's no active pursue to challenge it's own core beliefs, or to test them.
In a nutshell, science and religion have nothing in common.

So you are saying there's no difference between somebody accepting God when they don't understand it and accepting science when the don't understand it. And in both cases "common folk" trust the words of another to come to conclusions.

Nobody 'accepts' science when they don't understand it. Science doesn't asks you to take theories at face value. Science asks you to help scrutinize, test and validate those theories so one day they can be a scientific law, or they can be debunked. On the other hand, Religion asks you to accept it without room for scrutiny. They're two completely different things.

[LnGrrrR]

Einstein didn't prove anything. He proposed an idea it so we can have further research into it. Gee, you're slow.

IIRC, Einstein did prove that light behaves as both a particle and wave. (And again, IIRC won the Nobel Prize for that.)

[Drachen]

When the parents came up, we ate at Cafe on the Square; on my own it was Sonic, Taco Bueno, or that little 'burger drive trough place in the Appletree parking lot. Understand, this was '86 - '90.

Wild rose was on MLK across from the jail, and the last time I ate at it was 98. It is no longer there, but it was hands down, by far the absolutely best hamburgers I have ever eaten in my life. It was ridiculous. The Wild Rose special was 1 hamburger, 2 one pound patties that were seasoned so well, 3 strips of 1/3 inch thick bacon on EACH patty, 4 different types (and slices) of cheese melted onto EACH patty, and your favorite assortment of vegetables on the bun. This masterpiece of confection came with the rest of the plate overflowing with fresh cut (when you ordered them) homestyle french fries, and a drink. All of this was only $6.95. You should have been there, you could have eaten for 3 days just on 1 purchase! The place looked like a clean but not very "wealthy" establishment on the outside, nestled amongst nothing but houses (I think it was a converted house itself) so perhaps that is why you missed it.

[101A]

Wild rose was on MLK across from the jail, and the last time I ate at it was 98. It is no longer there, but it was hands down, by far the absolutely best hamburgers I have ever eaten in my life. It was ridiculous. The Wild Rose special was 1 hamburger, 2 one pound patties that were seasoned so well, 3 strips of 1/3 inch thick bacon on EACH patty, 4 different types (and slices) of cheese melted onto EACH patty, and your favorite assortment of vegetables on the bun. This masterpiece of confection came with the rest of the plate overflowing with fresh cut (when you ordered them) homestyle french fries, and a drink. All of this was only $6.95. You should have been there, you could have eaten for 3 days just on 1 purchase! The place looked like a clean but not very "wealthy" establishment on the outside, nestled amongst nothing but houses (I think it was a converted house itself) so perhaps that is why you missed it.

Don't think it was there - and back in the day, G-Town wasn't big enough for me to have missed anything in the 4 years I wandered and rolled it's streets. My brother graduated 5 years after me, I'll ask him about it. Now you've made me homesick, however; I'm in Pa now; and THERE ARE NO good hamburgers here, much less ones that comparable to the heart attack on a bun you describe.

[Drachen]

Of course not. But we encourage people to research and find out, so one day e will know. What's so wrong with that? Not knowing something is a daily occurrence to a lot of people, myself included.



Now while I may side with your opinion on supernatural v. science, he is right about the fact that what the religious chalk up to the supernatural, others chalk up to ignorance. I don't know = ignorance, regardless of one's intentions to research what one doesn't know or not. He didn't say that it was chalked up to ignorance and leaves it alone, just that it gets chalked up to ignorance. Until one knows, they are ignorant of what they were searching. Now I don't know if you misunderstood him, or if you were just trying to counterpoint every single point he made just for the sake of counterpointing every single point he made, but at least in this instance, its a silly debate.

[ElNono]

IIRC, Einstein did prove that light behaves as both a particle and wave. (And again, IIRC won the Nobel Prize for that.)

No, I meant Einstein didn't prove anything with regards to the Uncertainty Principle.

[Drachen]

Don't think it was there - and back in the day, G-Town wasn't big enough for me to have missed anything in the 4 years I wandered and rolled it's streets. My brother graduated 5 years after me, I'll ask him about it. Now you've made me homesick, however; I'm in Pa now; and THERE ARE NO good hamburgers here, much less ones that comparable to the heart attack on a bun you describe.

Oh, it was ridiculous, I almost got sick the first time I went there from trying to eat the whole meal at one sitting. Wasn't going to happen! Well if you ask your bro, and are trying to jog his memory, tell him it was on the same side of MLK as the jail, but across the cross street (can't remember the name). I am very sad for you that there are no good hamburgers. Can't you go to western PA. I heard there are a lot of rednecks out there, surely one of them cooks good burgers and has a restaurant. :P

[ElNono]

Now while I may side with your opinion on supernatural v. science, he is right about the fact that what the religious chalk up to the supernatural, others chalk up to ignorance. I don't know = ignorance, regardless of one's intentions to research what one doesn't know or not. He didn't say that it was chalked up to ignorance and leaves it alone, just that it gets chalked up to ignorance. Until one knows, they are ignorant of what they were searching. Now I don't know if you misunderstood him, or if you were just trying to counterpoint every single point he made just for the sake of counterpointing every single point he made, but at least in this instance, its a silly debate.

Thanks. I *did* understand it that way. That's why I agreed that I didn't know. That ignorance is a necessary state in science. It's what sparks research. I think it's important to remark science doesn't stop at that point. It actually encourages finding a rational answer to that unknown. Religion, on the other hand, once you assigned it to the supernatural, that's exactly where you stop.

[Drachen]

Thanks. I *did* understand it that way. That's why I agreed that I didn't know. That ignorance is a necessary state in science. It's what sparks research. I think it's important to remark science doesn't stop at that point. It actually encourages finding a rational answer to that unknown. Religion, on the other hand, once you assigned it to the supernatural, that's exactly where you stop.

In that point he wasn't debating anything other than "religion chalks up to supernatural, what science chalks up to ignorance" which is true. I understand the debate about where each goes from there, but you had chosen to say that it does not chalk it up to ignorance, instead it sparks interest in research. The latter is true, the former is false. It just seemed like there was either a misunderstanding, or you were trying to get into a silly pissing match about this word ignorance.

[ElNono]

In that point he wasn't debating anything other than "religion chalks up to supernatural, what science chalks up to ignorance" which is true. I understand the debate about where each goes from there, but you had chosen to say that it does not chalk it up to ignorance, instead it sparks interest in research. The latter is true, the former is false. It just seemed like there was either a misunderstanding, or you were trying to get into a silly pissing match about this word ignorance.

I probably didn't understood him when he put it that way, then. Thanks for pointing it out! :toast

[Drachen]

Np

[Trainwreck2100]

Einstein didn't prove anything. He proposed an idea it so we can have further research into it. Gee, you're slow.



?????




Not really, no. If say, an alien race were to show up and claim and factually prove they created us, then that would be a valid way to prove that god doesn't exist, regardless wether you believe or not. My question was wether you would still believe after such hypothetical case played out.

Aliens :lmao you're arguing God's existense with Aliens
Of course not. But we encourage people to research and find out, so one day e will know. What's so wrong with that? Not knowing something is a daily occurrence to a lot of people, myself included.





LOL, your analogy fails because there's no actual factual way to determine when you stop being a 'kid'. I'll give you a better analogy of how theory-to-law works: You were once a student, but after passing all the respective tests, you're now a graduate.
Does that mean you were once a student? Sure. But in order to be a graduate, your knowledge had to be scrutinized and tested. Not all theories become law. Not all students become graduates.

[QUOTE]A scientific law was a theory VERIFIED and SCRUTINIZED to be factual. It's not longer a theory, it's a law.
ok i'm gonna go slowly here for ya,
1st is the hypthothesis
Lets call him Harry the hypothesis.
Now harry worked long and hard to come up with something and finally he invented a little guy he named the"ory"
Everyone liked the"ory" it made sense, it worked well, nobody could find flaws, and it got accepted into law school.

Now Back to your analogy, Not all students are graduates but all graduates were once students. So since you are saying calling a graduate a student would be wrong. I guess to you graduates just poof out of nowhere.

How can you deny that laws are accepted theories, if nobody accepts them, they are not laws. The only reason they would not be accepted is if they were proven non factual. They were once theories, and now they are laws accepted as truth.

Nobody 'accepts' science when they don't understand it. Science doesn't asks you to take theories at face value. Science asks you to help scrutinize, test and validate those theories so one day they can be a scientific law, or they can be debunked. On the other hand, Religion asks you to accept it without room for scrutiny. They're two completely different things.

So if i were to walk up to a race car driver on the street and ask them to tell me Newton's 1st law and explain to me all the details including symbols and what they mean, would they be able to do that?

[ElNono]

Not really, no. If say, an alien race were to show up and claim and factually prove they created us, then that would be a valid way to prove that god doesn't exist, regardless wether you believe or not. My question was wether you would still believe after such hypothetical case played out.

Aliens :lmao you're arguing God's existense with Aliens


I really don't understand why religious people dodge this question so much.
It's just an hypothesis. Would you you still believe in god if he was factually proven not to exist (Aliens or no Aliens)?





LOL, your analogy fails because there's no actual factual way to determine when you stop being a 'kid'. I'll give you a better analogy of how theory-to-law works: You were once a student, but after passing all the respective tests, you're now a graduate.
Does that mean you were once a student? Sure. But in order to be a graduate, your knowledge had to be scrutinized and tested. Not all theories become law. Not all students become graduates.

And yet all graduates were once students. So since you are saying calling a graduate a student would be wrong. I guess to you graduates just poof out of nowhere. Just because they are a graduate doesn't make them not a student. When a pre-med student graduates with a bio bachelor's he's not a student anymore so go ahead pre-med graduate cut me open.


You keep flipping it around. Not all students become graduates. And the reason they graduated it's because they went through rigorous testing. Whether they were students or if they still are is irrelevant. In order to be a graduate you have to pass scrutiny and testing. If all of a theory's claim passed scrutiny and testing, then it's a scientific law. That it once was a theory is completely irrelevant at that point.






Nobody 'accepts' science when they don't understand it. Science doesn't asks you to take theories at face value. Science asks you to help scrutinize, test and validate those theories so one day they can be a scientific law, or they can be debunked. On the other hand, Religion asks you to accept it without room for scrutiny. They're two completely different things.

So if i were to walk up to a race car driver on the street and ask them to tell me Newton's 1st law and explain to me all the details including symbols and what they mean, would they be able to do that?

Only if the driver had a previous interest in Newton's 1st law. The thing is, if you truly had an interest in that law, it's a lot easier to go to Wikipedia or a library than going to a 'race car driver on the street' for that information.

[Trainwreck2100]

[QUOTE=ElNono;2848334]I really don't understand why religious people dodge this question so much.
It's just an hypothesis. Would you you still believe in god if he was factually proven not to exist (Aliens or no Aliens)?



You keep flipping it around. Not all students become graduates. And the reason they graduated it's because they went through rigorous testing. Whether they were students or if they still are is irrelevant. In order to be a graduate you have to pass scrutiny and testing. If all of a theory's claim passed scrutiny and testing, then it's a scientific law. That it once was a theory is completely irrelevant at that point.



Really do you have scientific proof that it is irrelevant, or is it just irrelevant to you.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that
Accepted theories=laws
non accepted theory=not laws
I'm not quite sure you understand thatwhen a theory is tested and proven for validity it becomes accepted as a law. , but we'll get there.


Only if the driver had a previous interest in Newton's 1st law. The thing is, if you truly had an interest in that law, it's a lot easier to go to Wikipedia or a library than going to a 'race car driver on the street' for that information.
[/COLOR]
I could tell the guy "it's what makes your car go" and let's say he believes me. He doesn't know what it is yet he believes that its what makes his car go cause a guy told him that to be truth.

[ElNono]

You keep flipping it around. Not all students become graduates. And the reason they graduated it's because they went through rigorous testing. Whether they were students or if they still are is irrelevant. In order to be a graduate you have to pass scrutiny and testing. If all of a theory's claim passed scrutiny and testing, then it's a scientific law. That it once was a theory is completely irrelevant at that point.

Really do you have scientific proof that it is irrelevant, or is it just irrelevant to you.


As defined by scientific method, yes, it's a fact that once all of the theory's claims are verified it no longer is classified a theory and it attains the level of scientific law. At that point it's a fact that the original proposition is no longer a theory, but a law, and all it's claims have been verified.



Why is it so hard for you to understand that
Accepted theories=laws
non accepted theory=not laws

Just so you know when a theory is tested and proven for validity it becomes accepted as a law.


That's actually what I've been telling you for a while now. I'm glad we're making progress here. Now, how does the fact that a scientific law was a theory before it was verified somehow invalidated the law's credibility?




]
Only if the driver had a previous interest in Newton's 1st law. The thing is, if you truly had an interest in that law, it's a lot easier to go to Wikipedia or a library than going to a 'race car driver on the street' for that information.

I could tell the guy "it's what makes your car go" and let's say he believes me. He doesn't know what it is yet he believes that its what makes his car go cause a guy told him that to be truth.

Actually, he trusts that what you told him is true. Now, this driver can easily go and verify if what you told him is actually right or wrong. That's called scrutiny, and it's what religion doesn't have.

[Trainwreck2100]

As defined by scientific method, yes, it's a fact that once all of the theory's claims are verified it no longer is classified a theory and it attains the level of scientific law. At that point it's a fact that the original proposition is no longer a theory, but a law, and all it's claims have been verified.


That's actually what I've been telling you for a while now. I'm glad we're making progress here. Now, how does the fact that a scientific law was a theory before it was verified somehow invalidated the law's credibility?


Actually I've been saying that longer than you, I've been saying it this whole time. I never said that it was invalidated, point me to where i said its invalidated. You agree that Accepted theory=law so if they are equal, one should be able to call a law an accepted theory because they are the same thing.

I'll make it easy for you if 2x2=4 then you could also say 4=2x2 both would be correct.

when something equals something, it's origins don't vanish
Actually, he trusts that what you told him is true. Now, this driver can easily go and verify if what you told him is actually right or wrong. That's called scrutiny, and it's what religion doesn't have.

the capability for scrutiny is there but do most people scrutinize or do they just believe it cause it was told to them?

[ElNono]

As defined by scientific method, yes, it's a fact that once all of the theory's claims are verified it no longer is classified a theory and it attains the level of scientific law. At that point it's a fact that the original proposition is no longer a theory, but a law, and all it's claims have been verified.
That's actually what I've been telling you for a while now.[/COLOR] I'm glad we're making progress here. Now, how does the fact that a scientific law was a theory before it was verified somehow invalidated the law's credibility?

Actually I've been saying that longer than you, I've been saying it this whole time. I never said that it was invalidated, point me to where i said its invalidated. You agree that Accepted theory=law so if they are equal, one should be able to call a law an accepted theory because they are the same thing.
I'll make it easy for you if 2x2=4 then you could also say 4=2x2 both would be correct.
when something equals something, it's origins don't vanish


The problem is that you simply used the term 'theory', and not 'accepted theory' or 'verified theory' or simply 'law'. The word theory when used alone implies that there are claims on it that have not been verified.




Actually, he trusts that what you told him is true. Now, this driver can easily go and verify if what you told him is actually right or wrong. That's called scrutiny, and it's what religion doesn't have.
the capability for scrutiny is there but do most people scrutinize or do they just believe it cause it was told to them?

That's a personal choice. I personally like to scrutinize if I'm not familiar with what's being suggested to me. That's exactly why you can't just generalize.

[Trainwreck2100]

The problem is that you simply used the term 'theory', and not 'accepted theory' or 'verified theory' or simply 'law'. The word theory when used alone implies that there are claims on it that have not been verified.

I used the word accept
That's a personal choice. I personally like to scrutinize if I'm not familiar with what's being suggested to me. That's exactly why you can't just generalize.

Well I didn't say "elnono follows it blindly" i said it was like religion. Do you acknowledge that there are people out there who follow science without scrutinizing. Not scientists, but normal people, who accept things as facts just because it was told to them?

[ElNono]

The problem is that you simply used the term 'theory', and not 'accepted theory' or 'verified theory' or simply 'law'. The word theory when used alone implies that there are claims on it that have not been verified.

I used the word accept


LOL, now you're just being silly. You said, and I quote: "You accept theory as fact".
I certainly do not.




That's a personal choice. I personally like to scrutinize if I'm not familiar with what's being suggested to me. That's exactly why you can't just generalize.

Well I didn't say "elnono follows it blindly" i said it was like religion. Do you acknowledge that there are people out there who follow science without scrutinizing. Not scientists, but normal people, who accept things as facts just because it was told to them?

Now, there's certainly people out there that believes anything you tell them. But saying that 'most people' do is generalizing. Most of the people I know will scrutinize an opinion when they suspect it's bullcrap.

[Trainwreck2100]

LOL, now you're just being silly. You said, and I quote: "You accept theory as fact".
I certainly do not.

I wasn't takling about you i was talking about science and the only time theory is accepted as fact in science is when its a law.

Now, there's certainly people out there that believes anything you tell them. But saying that 'most people' do is generalizing. Most of the people I know will scrutinize an opinion when they suspect it's bullcrap.

i'm not talking about opinions i'm talking about what people say are facts

[Mr. Peabody]

I don't know if Trainwreck is being "sarcastic" in all of his posts or if he just doesn't like to use the quote function. I'm so confused.....:wtf

[ploto]

I knew I had a busy week but I can not believe I missed this entire thread. All I ask is that people do not stereotype all people of faith based upon a small sampling.

[ElNono]

LOL, now you're just being silly. You said, and I quote: "You accept theory as fact".
I certainly do not.

I wasn't takling about you i was talking about science and the only time theory is accepted as fact in science is when its a law.


Great! Finally on the same page. That surely took long enough!




Now, there's certainly people out there that believes anything you tell them. But saying that 'most people' do is generalizing. Most of the people I know will scrutinize an opinion when they suspect it's bullcrap.

i'm not talking about opinions i'm talking about what people say are facts

How do you know anything is a fact? Either a) you already researched it and you know it's a fact, or b) you don't know about it and you actually care, so you go and research it and find out it's a fact.
I don't know any other conditions. Do you?

[ploto]

I tried to read the entire thread but I am still confused about one thing.

Did Angel ever explain why it is that she holds Obama to such a high level of scrutiny and standard to which she does not hold McCain to. From what I could see, she kept moving the bar with regards to the "proof" she needed about Obama, but McCain saying he prayed while a POW was enough to satisfy her.

I have no problem with a person choosing to base their vote upon faith (people base it on all kinds of things) but shouldn't they at least have the proper information about the candidate's faith to make that an informed choice about faith? I did not see her sending letters to McCain asking for proof of anything to which she expected of Obama. She also stated that Obama might misuse the power of the office but she was sure McCain would not-- how?

If she had researched the candidates she would know that McCain as much as any recent Republican has distanced himself from the far right religious conservative faction of the Republican party. I still do not know how she has come to this assurance that McCain is more Christian than Obama- since that is how she said she would vote.

I also think it is misinformed to believe that every Christian is going to hold to the exact same form of Christianity to which one professes.

Angel- do you even think that all people who claim to be Christian are saved- or only the ones who agree with you on everything. For example, are only fundamentalist Christians saved- because lots of Christians around the world are not Biblical literalists. The notion of fundamentalist Christianity is, if I remember correctly, very much an American movement of the past 100 to 150 or so years.

[LnGrrrR]

I think we've all determined that Angel, nice though she may be, is quite good at rationalization.

[Spurminator]

Are we still talking about who we voted for?

If so, I voted Democrat for President, Republican for U.S. Senate and Reps, Democrat for State Senate and Reps, Republican for Supreme Court judges, Democrat for Criminal Court and Appeals judges, and I think I threw in a Libertarian for Railroad Commissioner or something.

[MannyIsGod]

Are we still talking about who we voted for?

If so, I voted Democrat for President, Republican for U.S. Senate and Reps, Democrat for State Senate and Reps, Republican for Supreme Court judges, Democrat for Criminal Court and Appeals judges, and I think I threw in a Libertarian for Railroad Commissioner or something.

Can I ask why you voted for Cornyn? I'm just curious, not looking to attack your view.

[Spurminator]

Can I ask why you voted for Cornyn? I'm just curious, not looking to attack your view.

I wish I had a better answer but it was really a last minute decision based on my hesitation to help Democrats gain seats in the Senate.

[MannyIsGod]

I wish I had a better answer but it was really a last minute decision based on my hesitation to help Democrats gain seats in the Senate.

I kinda figured as much because I was going to do the same, but after I researched some of Cornyn's positions relative to my interests I decided not to. That being said I think he should have this election pretty much locked up barring a huge surprise. I don't think he represents the 60th or even 61st seat for the Dems but the 64th or 65th.

[Kip Dynamite]

Your mom is the Anti-Christ!

[Findog]

I tried to read the entire thread but I am still confused about one thing.

Did Angel ever explain why it is that she holds Obama to such a high level of scrutiny and standard to which she does not hold McCain to. From what I could see, she kept moving the bar with regards to the "proof" she needed about Obama, but McCain saying he prayed while a POW was enough to satisfy her.


I'm guessing that most churches are politicized and the anti-Democrat message is there, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt.

Here's a great article from Matt Taibbi which lays out the case that McCain is not very religious at all, but is posing as such for the election:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/21896154/without_a_prayer


Sitting here in the North Phoenix Baptist pews, McCain has a look on his face like he'd just as well suck a cock as do an altar call. It's one of his most likable qualities.

[angel_luv]

Angel- do you even think that all people who claim to be Christian are saved- or only the ones who agree with you on everything. For example, are only fundamentalist Christians saved- because lots of Christians around the world are not Biblical literalists. The notion of fundamentalist Christianity is, if I remember correctly, very much an American movement of the past 100 to 150 or so years.

The underlined above is not my call to make.


I would have been wise to have remembered the following verses back at the beginning of this thread.

1 Samuel 16:7- But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

John 10:14- "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.

[rascal]

The underlined above is not my call to make.


I would have been wise to have remembered the following verses back at the beginning of this thread.

1 Samuel 16:7- But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

John 10:14- "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.

Then why believe that Jesus is the only right way? Isn't the message more important than the messenger? And all religions have much of the same core beliefs.

What is important is the heart as you listed above. But you believe all other religions Jews, Muslims, Hindus ect. all are doomed for hell? There is contradiction there.

[angel_luv]

Then why believe that Jesus is the only right way? Isn't the message more important than the messenger? And all religions have much of the same core beliefs.

What is important is the heart as you listed above. But you believe all other religions Jews, Muslims, Hindus ect. all are doomed for hell? There is contradiction there.



1 Samuel 16 is the story how David was chosen King even though in comparison to his stronger, older brothers he was the least likely candidate.
That Scripture shows us that God's logic does not always line up with our own.



The verse I quoted in John 10 , which clearly states that Jesus knows who belong to Him and those who belong to Jesus know that they do, was in answer to Ploto's direct question to me.




John 10 the chapter in its entire context deals much more specifically with the questions you posed.

I have copied the entire thing for your consideration.




"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.

The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep.

The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.

But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."

Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.


Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.

All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.

I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.

The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—

just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

At these words the Jews were again divided.

Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,

and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade.

The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,[c] tell us plainly."
Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,

but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?

If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.

But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed
and many people came to him. They said, "Though John never performed a miraculous sign, all that John said about this man was true."
And in that place many believed in Jesus.

[clambake]

holy shit

[angel_luv]

Some verses I would like you all to consider in regards to faith and logic.



Hebrews 11:1-3- Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

1 Corinthians 13: 12- 13-
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


Matthew 18:1-4- At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them.
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 6:33- But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well

Proverbs 3:5-6- Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

[clambake]

have you ever considered one of those nice white jackets.....that ties in the back?

[ElNono]

Some verses I would like you all to consider in regards to faith and logic.

Hebrews 11:1-3- Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

1 Corinthians 13: 12- 13-
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Matthew 18:1-4- At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them.
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 6:33- But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well

Proverbs 3:5-6- Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

You left out the logic part. Where is it?

[SnakeBoy]

Back to who we voted for.

I voted McCain/Palin because Obama wants to raise my taxes.

Voted for the Libertarian candidate the senate/rep races specifically because of the bailout package. A vote against the R incumbents but not for the dems.

[LnGrrrR]

I voted for Obama because I absolutely loathe the idea of the unitary executive, and hope he'll dismantle some of the Patriot Act bills. (Of course, his vote for FISA/telecom immunity doesn't give me lots of hope, but moreso than McCain.)

[angel_luv]

have you ever considered one of those nice white jackets.....that ties in the back?

I prefer to take Jesus up on His promise to:

" Provide for those who grieve in Zion— to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor."
- Isaiah 61:3

Thanks though. :)

[angel_luv]

You left out the logic part. Where is it?

Proverbs 3:5-6 summed it up best.

Trust God. Don't lean on your understanding. Acknowledge God and He will make your path straight.

[clambake]

holy shit

[Centaur of the Sun]

I'm going to go out on a not so long limb and say that people like Angel_Luv drive far more people from religion than they would actually draw to it.

If I was religious I would read what she's posted and say to myself "THIS is what I'm supposed to become? THIS?"

[Centaur of the Sun]

I'm not a big fan of zombies. Something about the undead that frightens me.

[ashbeeigh]

I voted for Barack Obama and Joe Biden today because I want my kids to have $4,000 for college for doing what I did every summer for free; community service. :elephant

[RandomGuy]

I voted for Obama because I absolutely loathe the idea of the unitary executive, and hope he'll dismantle some of the Patriot Act bills. (Of course, his vote for FISA/telecom immunity doesn't give me lots of hope, but moreso than McCain.)

That is one of the things I really really hope he reverses, and would be the one thing I would tell him if I had to chose one topic to talk to him about.

There are a lot of power that the Bush white house has attempted to claim for the executive that need to be stomped on and stomped on hard before they become lasting precedents.

Given that he was a constitutional law professor at one point, I do hold out hope for that. (HA!)

[ElNono]

Proverbs 3:5-6 summed it up best.

Trust God. Don't lean on your understanding. Acknowledge God and He will make your path straight.

That's completely illogical.

[I Love Me Some Me]

That's completely illogical.

Maybe...but just to rehash what I said in a different thread - people need to not only know what the Scriptures say, but they need to understand why they say it. I believe in God, and I believe that he is a rational and logical God. So when he gives instruction in the Bible, it is just as important to understand WHY He gives the instructions he gives, and not just what those instructions are.

That's where Christians fail in these conversations. They cannot support what they believe, with logistical, rational explanations to those who do not believe. Repeatedly quoting scripture to a non-believer is mostly ineffective. They are going to want to know why, and if you cannot tell them, then your argument will fail. Badly.

[ElNono]

Maybe...but just to rehash what I said in a different thread - people need to not only know what the Scriptures say, but they need to understand why they say it. I believe in God, and I believe that he is a rational and logical God. So when he gives instruction in the Bible, it is just as important to understand WHY He gives the instructions he gives, and not just what those instructions are.

That's where Christians fail in these conversations. They cannot support what they believe, with logistical, rational explanations to those who do not believe. Repeatedly quoting scripture to a non-believer is mostly ineffective. They are going to want to know why, and if you cannot tell them, then your argument will fail. Badly.

+1

[MannyIsGod]

I voted for Barack Obama and Joe Biden today because I want my kids to have $4,000 for college for doing what I did every summer for free; community service. :elephant

:tu

[Bender]

:vomit:

[Tully365]

Has the possibility been raised yet that the creator of this never-ending thread is the anti-christ? I mean, c'mon people! He's as clever as that little devil that sits on your shoulder and "innocently" encourages you to debate controversial topics, and his name is Dark Reign, for god's sake!! I can't believe I almost fell for it! From now on, I will wear a necklace of 20 garlic cloves and rinse my contact lenses will holy water every time I visit this thread.

[LnGrrrR]

Proverbs 3:5-6 summed it up best.

Trust God. Don't lean on your understanding. Acknowledge God and He will make your path straight.

Uhm... what about the arguments that Job and others had with God? God seems to APPRECIATE people who try to use understanding, instead of blind obedience.