Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

So Jesus is aliveFollow

#102 Jan 22 2007 at 8:58 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Just for ***** and giggles, and an extra post pharm:

PAGE CLAIM
#103 Jan 22 2007 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So if I found awatch and thought it was complex enough that it had to be designed by a human and then decided that humans were so complex that they only could have been designed by God, wouldn't it stand to follow that any God complex enough to design pocketwatch-building humans had to have been designed by an even greater deity?

Or do we just arbitrarily end the false equivalency argument there because it's no longer convenient to the point?


nice. but this assumes that God is just another PART of things as opposed to All things, all emcompassing and beyond our personally assigned values of Space and Time.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#104 Jan 22 2007 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
nice. but this assumes that God is just another PART of things as opposed to All things, all emcompassing and beyond our personally assigned values of Space and Time.
And?

I mean, if I'm assigning random characteristics to things outside my comprehension, I can make an equally valid claim that God must have been designed. We both have equal evidence to our claims.

Or, as I said, we could we just arbitrarily end the false equivalency argument there because it's no longer convenient to the point. Like you're doing.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 9:16am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#105 Jan 22 2007 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Or do we just arbitrarily end the false equivalency argument there because it's no longer convenient to the point?
Dr. Dino tells me how to answer this. OMGPwned!
#106 Jan 22 2007 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Did you link to the correct article? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Jan 22 2007 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
because it's no longer convenient to the point.



It seems folly to stop dead in your tracks because you have seemingly come to an impass.
If the conclusion is reached: We can never know and you stick with it, then I agree.. the argument is no longer convienient..
But if you conclude that further info CAN be deduced by calculating the variables.. then EVEN IF your next conclusiuon is more variables it is still progress... The variables that I produced take into account the unknowableness of the nature of "god" and yet still constructs a framework which can be pondered upon.
If it is improbable that we cannot ever understand the nature of this "Prime Mover" then it IS probable that it would exist outside the scope of our currently standard physio-dimensional status.
A progressive conclusion is reached to that extent.
Now I grant that this does nothing to actually prove that this Prime Mover actually exists.. but the variable is there and so deductions can legitimately be made IMO.

and if that made no sense... I blame it on lack of caffeine..

Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 12:44pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#108 Jan 22 2007 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Did you link to the correct article? Smiley: dubious
You would say that, because you have teh Satan in your tongue.
#109 Jan 22 2007 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
well , I know at least Patrician's got my back Smiley: glare
right , Pat? RIGHT?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#110 Jan 22 2007 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Now I grant that this does nothing to actually prove that this Prime Mover actually exists.
Well, that's pretty much the point of it. If you want to give your creator an infinite amount of arbitrary traits under the heading of "Well, we can't possibly comprehend" then it's just as likely to have been "Nature" or "Entropy" or "Chaos" or whatever else as it's likely to have been Jehovah.

The pocketwatch story is a flawed and loaded example, anyway. We automatically picture an object which we know to have been designed and milled and constructed by humans for our example and say "Sure, it must have been designed!" When the first aboriginal Australians saw domesticated horses and cats, they probably didn't think "These animals could have only been the result of thousands of years of selective breeding and careful animal husbandry and, therefore, they prove intelligent design." They just saw an animal which, at its most basic, was like thousands of other animals they've seen. Likewise, if Earth was a planet composed of thousands of clockwork objects and I came across a pocketwatch, I wouldn't think "Proof of God!". I'd think it was just another naturally occuring mechanical object I haven't previously encountered. But the example intentionally uses something out of place to reinforce the idea of it being created.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#111 Jan 22 2007 at 10:30 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Why is it the oddball groups and kooks are always the ones found and quoted?

Why is it that real Christians are never found and quoted?

Most Christians that bother to research their faith, and the creation of the world, find that the world is far, far, older that Catholicism gives credit for. Let's note that to the creator of all, 1000 years is but a day, and a day is but 1000 years (Second Peter). By Bible terms, it took more than likely, 7000 years to create the world as it was then. Still that doesn't seem a long time to me, but I'm no miracle worker, nor am I God.

It's very believeable in my mind that God created many wonders that we'll not see in our lifetimes. This is no biggie to me. I can deal with that, as there is FAR to much crap to deal with on a daily basis to worry about something that is a few million years old.

Evolution is something that I cannot believe as anything other than a THEORY, only because there are no real linking animals that have been discovered yet. One thing that is proven, is adaptation, which in my mind proves that we were created by a higher being (God), and that there is a lot of wisdom in the underlying structure of life. The fact that humans alone, have adapted to fit climates, and geographical areas so different, far apart, and can adapt to a new area with little effort or issue, is amazing. Animals have shown that same ability, look at polar bears in a zoo for example.

Just a side note, Adam and Eve were not tempted to eat a mere apple, but the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil. What that fruit is/was, is still unknown.

I will admit that I am not the most knowledgable source of information for Christianity, but damn people, it's sad when I know more information than most of the *** monkeys running around spouting off scriptures as if they understand the meaning.

Stop prosthelitizing is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, that whole part about not getting on the VIP list into Heaven if you're not a believer...yeah, that's likely true. I belive that it was in James, where it was said that "faith without works is dead", and "works without faith is dead". You can be as good of a person as you want, but that doesn't open the gate for you. You can have all the faith in the world, but that doesn't get you in, either. In case you haven't noticed, God isn't all inclusive. You actually have to believe, and follow the instructions. You have to spread the word, but you're not supposed to shove it down someones throat. That isn't being a good Christian, it's being an *******. No one likes an *******. Oddly, no one likes most Christians either...I'm guessing it's because of the ********.

On the subject of "horrible people in history", there is only one unpardonable sin, which is blasphmey. As yet, there is officially recorded one who has commited that sin, which was Lucifer, now known as Satan.

Also, I personlly trust the wiki, far more than I'd trust most of the oddball sites which "Christians" have created, most of which, want money to continue the good works. The Tithe, is supposed to be a showing of faith, not an obligation to give money to every moron claiming to be a prophet.

The only Christian sites that I trust, pull directly from the Bible and do not shorten the quotes that they use, or adjust them to suit their needs. Sites such as www.bible.com, rank highly on my list of reading when I'm in a troubled time. Psalms is great reading for anyone who is in dire need of a spirtual pick me up.

Do not follow blindly, for by following blindly, you have nothing for your faith to stand on. By questioning, and looking for answers, you can find that rock to anchor your faith to.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, and arguing on the internet IS just like running in the Special Olympics, (even if you win, so what? Is my e-peen going to be bigger than yours then? Whoo boy, let me start caring!), I'm just hoping that maybe, maybe, you guys won't lump all Christians in with ones that insist that you "MUST HEAR MY WORDS".
#112 Jan 22 2007 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Metastophicleas wrote:
Most Christians that bother to research their faith, and the creation of the world, find that the world is far, far, older that Catholicism gives credit for.
These Bible belt attempts in Pennsylvania and Kansas to put ID into the classroom aren't being driven by Catholics. It's a Protestant/"Non-Demoninational" effort.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Jan 22 2007 at 10:39 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Most of those people fall into that whole "kook" think in my opinion. It's not for me to force you to believe, it's up to you to believe. Besides, the Catholics have their own schools in which to ***** up education, they don't need to further complicate things in public schools.


Also, I think that we should have all possible explinations for the begining of the world/universe. Allow the students to research them, and debate them in class. It will help the students learn to actually understand their arguments, and how to back them up, rather than just say: "I learned it in _____".

Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 1:40pm by Metastophicleas
#114 Jan 22 2007 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So if I found awatch and thought it was complex enough that it had to be designed by a human and then decided that humans were so complex that they only could have been designed by God, wouldn't it stand to follow that any God complex enough to design pocketwatch-building humans had to have been designed by an even greater deity?

Or do we just arbitrarily end the false equivalency argument there because it's no longer convenient to the point?


I'd go with the inductive argument; a guy wanted to know what time it was so invented a watch. Another guy wanted to know how to make a person that could tell time, so he studied up, discussed the question with his contemporaries and started creating a guy that could tell time.

Perhaps God will exist when we can figure out how to make one. First we have to agree on what it is though.

I was rolling thru Kentucky last week and saw this cross on the side of the highway taking up space between a Walmart and a Cracker Barrell. Must have been 4 stories high, just a big ol cross. It had some benches around it. I'm sure it's some kind of spaceship right?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#115 Jan 22 2007 at 10:47 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
The Elinda of Doom wrote:
It had some benches around it. I'm sure it's some kind of spaceship right?



It may be...wasn't there a nutjob back in the '80s who was building a spaceship to leave the planet when nuclear war broke out, or some such stupidity?
#116 Jan 22 2007 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Metastophicleas wrote:
Most of those people fall into that whole "kook" think in my opinion. It's not for me to force you to believe, it's up to you to believe. Besides, the Catholics have their own schools in which to ***** up education, they don't need to further complicate things in public schools.
That's fine and all but it makes me wonder why you singled out Catholicism as the faith saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Particularly in the modern climate or in regards to the ID/Creationism debate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Jan 22 2007 at 11:12 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Because I like to beat up on people that think it's ok to rape little boys.


Seriously, out of all the groups that I've run into(we've got some pretty smart Christian scientists here in VA), Catholics tend to be the ones most likely to believe that the world is only 6000 years old. Most of the churches around here (I attend random churches, just because I get bored always hearing the same voice, and like to hear the word come from new teachers), tend to believe that the world is far older, and that it's likely that we'll not know the exact age in this life.

Then, most of them acknowledge that much of the mysteries of life are still out there to be learned. Maybe we're in the smarter, more open part of the bible belt, who knows? I think that it's because we have a ton of people coming here, with different ideas and theories. Virginia sees an influx of new people daily, being the home of the larges naval base in the world, and having some of the most largest, and most important shipping terminals in the country. Because of this, I'd argue that people here are more likely to be openminded, and explore different theories, and look for truth to explain those theories. Pat Robertson excluded. I don't pay too much attention to him personally, but I know that he has done some great humanitarian things around the world, other than that I usually just ignore him.

I'd like to believe that most of the churches around here teach what is actually in the Bible, also, rather than informing you of their "opinion". A good teacher uses the tools in front of them to teach you. A great teacher finds better tools to teach you with. With too many Bible colleges around here to list, I'd also like to think that we're a hub of Biblical learning, and that we have more people that want to understand the truth, and what it actually is, rather than what it's accepted to be.

Example: Many people on this planet accept the theory of evolution to be fact, without actually bothering to research it themselves. This leads to people that believe that man can hump a monkey, or vise versa, and create offspring, which is false. This also leads to the common misconception that monkies (apes in general) are the closest animal to man on the genetic level, which is also false. It's the common mouse. This is why mice are used for most medical tests now (that and their hyper metabolism).

Were people to actually research their "faith", they can argue the facts that are contained in evolution, and there are some, which is why Darwin theorised it to begin with. Problem is, there are still no linking animals yet. Even then, evolution does not disprove the existance of God, which is another common misconception. Just because God created man in His image, doesn't mean he didn't create animals to evolve. This brings other questions forth, that I don't have all the information to even begin to discuss, so I'll leave that to others. You could litteraly bog yourself down with possiblities, and lose sight of the point rather quickly, which I think I may have done, so I'm going to end this paragraph now.

Side note: The people that **** me off the most, are the Sunday Christians. They're also the ones that you're most likely to run into on the street, thumping their $50 Bible as though they know what they're talking about. They don't bother to research their faith, or have a true grasp of what their faith is.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 2:14pm by Metastophicleas
#118 Jan 22 2007 at 11:15 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Off topic question that's been bugging me for a week now:

Joph, where did you find that avi?
#119 Jan 22 2007 at 11:25 AM Rating: Decent
Tare wrote:
Mistress Laeinea wrote:
Yes it's a creationist website Smiley: yikes, but atleast there it's a reliable source of info unlike wikipedia.


Not to mention completely biased.

Smiley: rolleyes


So is most of the information about evolution funnily enough. Smiley: oyvey

#120 Jan 22 2007 at 11:31 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Mistress Laeinea wrote:
Tare wrote:
Mistress Laeinea wrote:
Yes it's a creationist website Smiley: yikes, but atleast there it's a reliable source of info unlike wikipedia.


Not to mention completely biased.

Smiley: rolleyes


So is most of the information about evolution funnily enough. Smiley: oyvey



Not to pick on you, but that's not a good argument. Most of the information on the net is biased. That can easily be accepted as fact. To prove your point, I'd simply try and find a non-biased site, rather than firing off the obligatory "takes one to know one" arguments.

Oh, and "I'm rubber, you're glue" doesn't work around here either.
#121 Jan 22 2007 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Metastophicleas wrote:
Joph, where did you find that avi?
Made it myself.

I won't expend a lot of effort trying to refute your own experiences and simply state that, demographically speaking, the southern and central states who are pushing for Creationism in public schools are largely Protestant (namely Bapist & Methodist).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Jan 22 2007 at 11:51 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
I won't argue it at all, because you are 100% correct. I will admit that I've noticed a huge difference in actual belief and accepted teaching in other states.

While I was still on active duty in GA for example, there were more people than I care to admit, that were of the "believe our way or else we'll burn you at the stake and call you a blasphmer". Those people scare me, and rightfully so. To be honest, most of the conversations that I had there about Christianity, the only group that didn't refuse to talk about the history of the earth, was fiercly adamat of the 6000 year thing, was the snake charmers. Penticostals? I think that's them...(slap me with a spoon if I'm wrong). Actually, I think I am wrong, but the Penticostal pastor that I met and spoke to was very vague about his actual beliefs, and instead fell back on the 7 days listed in the Bible.


About the avi: Think I can get a copy of that, because that avi is absolutely the best I've seen in months?

Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 2:53pm by Metastophicleas
#123 Jan 22 2007 at 12:08 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,328 posts
http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D8152208608191358213%26q%3Dpenn%2B%2526%2Bteller%2Bbible&docid=8152208608191358213&ev=v&esrc=sr1&usg=AL29H235siUr-qq2_JNsqR01MVVaTm__5A
#124 Jan 22 2007 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Metastophicleas wrote:
About the avi: Think I can get a copy of that, because that avi is absolutely the best I've seen in months?
Right Click -> Save As... Smiley: grin

If you're asking for my blessing to use it on some other forum, go for it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#125 Jan 22 2007 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Thank you sir, as that was the next question in my post count pharming expedition today!
#126 Jan 22 2007 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
What we have here is nothing more than cognitive dissonance (open a sociolgy textbook) in a sense.

You have people being raised in a society that gives status to logic and scientific thought. However it is also society that is heavily influenced by christianity, where christian thought is also given status and respect. So when evolution doesn't jive with the Bible there is a need by the individual or society as a whole to invent or modify current beliefs to minimize the difference.

Which is where people like Laeinea come into the picture. There is conflict between the two ideals. So she will try to defend her BELIEF in the Bible and Christ, against any perceived attacks on said belief by Evolution, in a scientific manner. However trying to defend belief via science is **** poor science. Which is where she fails. However she will desperately cling to any science she can, no matter how debunked or completely misunderstood or taken out of context it is. No matter how solid the argument against it is. iShe will remain clinging on to her belief, her social contruction of reality designed to minimize the chafing between to social ideals.

That is why Creationism and Intelligence Design fail. Because in the end they are never science but rather a social force trying to rationalize the clashing realities of Science and Faith.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 10:33pm by bodhisattva

Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 10:37pm by bodhisattva
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 321 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (321)