Your Vote, Your Reasons

[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 cir stances 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 , 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.

[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; Georgetown, Texas. (Please don't confuse it with SWT State)

[Drachen]

Southwestern University; 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 do ented, 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 nuts , 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 nuts , 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 , 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.

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]

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!

[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 nuts , 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.