Logic dictates that there is a God!

[jay_a2j]

I gotta tell this story I just saw on tv last night. (Blackglass and others may appreciate it)


This guy was giving his testimony. He was a real devout atheist. His wife started to go to church and one day she came home and said, "I've decided to follow Jesus Christ." The man said "DIVORCE" was the first thing that entered his mind.

But after awhile he noticed something about his wife that he desired. She had peace, she was happy, all the things this man had been searching for with alcohol and such but never finding. The man was a journalist for the Chicago Times. His journalistic instinct told him to set out to PROVE that this Jesus was not who people believed him to be. In researching Jesus, along with other beliefs which "fell by the way side", he concluded that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God. He said, "the evidence was overwhelming".

It was a nice testimony of God changing a heart.

A nice story, but I doubt it's real right from the beginning with the oxymoron "devout atheist". Honestly he didn't sound like an atheist to me in the first place. Atheists simply don't believe in gods. I don't doubt that jesus existed or that he was a great influential MAN. I also find it amusing that the atheist is portrayed as such a cold heartless guy, because we all know THAT is how atheists are...right jay? FWIW if my wife came home and decided to join some religion, the first words out of my mouth certainly would NOT be "DIVORCE!", but more like "have fun, but don't expect me to come along". I also KNOW the woman I married (unlike this guy) and would never have such a profound surprise thrust on me...just as I am sure YOU know YOUR wife wouldn't walk through the door one day proclaiming to be a Satanist.

C'mon jay...YOU ARE WATCHING TELEVISION. Tip: TV is not real. Wait...you also believe that the greasy preacher on TV healed you so I guess as you will believe anything they feed you as long as it is veiled in your religion.

Look...I have said before, some people NEED the crutch of religion. Some people CAN'T change on their own and need something to help them along. For some it's Yoga, for other's it's gastric bypass surgery and for others still it is a religion. Whatever floats your boat...

Jesus is a "crutch" that is needed by every man.

[Backglass]

Jesus is a "crutch"

Agreed.

[Dancing Mustard]

Jesus is a "crutch" that is needed by every man.

Except for all of the ones that aren't Christians, apparently.

[jay_a2j]

Jesus is a "crutch" that is needed by every man.

Except for all of the ones that aren't Christians, apparently.

No, they need Him too, but if they chose to live life without Him, it will extend beyond this life and they will "live apart from Him" in the next life as well.

[Dancing Mustard]

No, they need Him too, but if they chose to live life without Him, it will extend beyond this life and they will "live apart from Him" in the next life as well.

So in your own words then, you're saying that you don't need Jesus to live (even in a magical fictional afterlife)... therefore you dont' need Jesus at all (in any real or imaginary fashion).


Wow, even if he was real it turns out that'd he'd still be irrelevant. Sucks to be Big-J eh?

[jay_a2j]

No, they need Him too, but if they chose to live life without Him, it will extend beyond this life and they will "live apart from Him" in the next life as well.

So in your own words then, you're saying that you don't need Jesus to live (even in a magical fictional afterlife)... therefore you dont' need Jesus at all (in any real or imaginary fashion).


Wow, even if he was real it turns out that'd he'd still be irrelevant. Sucks to be Big-J eh?

Separation from God in the next life = hell. If you say you don't need him, I guess YOU don't.

[Backglass]

Separation from God in the next life = hell. If you say you don't need him, I guess YOU don't.

Except that gods and hell are just myth, legend and lore from an ancient, primitive people.

Minor detail.

[jay_a2j]

Separation from God in the next life = hell. If you say you don't need him, I guess YOU don't.

Except that gods and hell are just myth, legend and lore from an ancient, primitive people.

Minor detail.

Meh, hey, lets do an experiment! Backglass, try to prove the Bible to be correct. (I know this will require some self-discipline) You can not allow yourself to use any of the "knowledge" that you currently have. (that it's a myth, fairytails, and such) Your mission is to TRY to PROVE the Bible!!!!

[Juan_Bottom]

Separation from God in the next life = hell. If you say you don't need him, I guess YOU don't.

Except that gods and hell are just myth, legend and lore from an ancient, primitive people.

Minor detail.

Meh, hey, lets do an experiment! Backglass, try to prove the Bible to be correct. (I know this will require some self-discipline) You can not allow yourself to use any of the "knowledge" that you currently have. (that it's a myth, fairytails, and such) Your mission is to TRY to PROVE the Bible!!!!

Um,..... Jay?..............If BACKGLASS didn't use "knowledge," then he'd be you.......... Maybe you should try the experiment on yourself.......BTW, wanna join a cool clan?

[kagetora]

You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence!

and remember, without us atheists, you'd all still be trying to cure your wounds and illnesses by praying, instead of, i don't know, seeing a doctor?

and us athiests, remember, that without the religious people, the world would be dirt poor. (because religion rallies people)

[heavycola]

Separation from God in the next life = hell. If you say you don't need him, I guess YOU don't.

Except that gods and hell are just myth, legend and lore from an ancient, primitive people.

Minor detail.

Meh, hey, lets do an experiment! Backglass, try to prove the Bible to be correct. (I know this will require some self-discipline) You can not allow yourself to use any of the "knowledge" that you currently have. (that it's a myth, fairytails, and such) Your mission is to TRY to PROVE the Bible!!!!

I'm looking at a copy on my shelf right now. On closer inspection it appears to be full of words. Do i win?

[Backglass]

Meh, hey, lets do an experiment! Backglass, try to prove the Bible to be correct. (I know this will require some self-discipline) You can not allow yourself to use any of the "knowledge" that you currently have. (that it's a myth, fairytails, and such) Your mission is to TRY to PROVE the Bible!!!!

Ahhh, thats easy Jay. "YA JUST GOTTA BELIEVE!"

But I realize that is not enough. So I provide to you UNDENIABLE PROOF!

Jesus discovered all the heavens and was FIRST to walk on the moon!


MCDonalds didn't give us the Big Mac...it was HIM!



OH SURE! You have seen the Grilled Chesse Sandwich.

But have you seen the JESUS FISHSTICK?



OR the Jesus Perogi?



PROOF! HALLELUJAH!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well? How did I do?

[jay_a2j]

Not up to the challenge I see, That's ok. All you had to do is say "No, I can't do it.", that would have sufficed.

[Juan_Bottom]

Not up to the challenge I see, That's ok. All you had to do is say "No, I can't do it.", that would have sufficed.

Is it just me, or does the Jesus Burgers's Jesus look a bit too much like Osama?

[Backglass]

Not up to the challenge I see, That's ok. All you had to do is say "No, I can't do it.", that would have sufficed.

What?! My "proof" is just as good as yours. And I have pictures!

[ParadiceCity9]

Not up to the challenge I see, That's ok. All you had to do is say "No, I can't do it.", that would have sufficed.

What?! My "proof" is just as good as yours. And I have pictures!

Quite true.

[Jenos Ridan]

The difference, I think, between how you think and how I do now (I used to not believe, I've explained that many times and why I don't now) is that I understand that a "partial explaination" is not an explaination at all. It basically leaves us with more questions than answers, just as cyclical as the Chicken and the Egg.

So, I cannot accept any incomplete explaination as such. Either it (whatever "it" is) has an explaination or it does not. Either it is explainable or it is not. If it is not, then it is unintellegable and if it is explainable then it is intellegable. And the rest, I've said already.

If you choose to see things differently, that's cool. I can't knock freedom of will and I will not knock you for exercising it.

I guess at this point we could agree to disagree and maybe discuss the universe's contingency or lack thereof, but I have a feeling that would be ultimately futile since neither of us holds a degree and a nobel prize in theoretical physics and advanced mathematics.

Or Philosophy. Or Theology for that matter. But do go on.

So I guess we're better off debating the nature of explanations/descriptions.

Ok.

You say that an explanation is only really an explanation if it is complete, if it covers the whole causal chain of events. I say that there is no such thing.

I think we already established that.

The adequacy of an explanation depends on who is asking and who is answering the question. (<- very important bit)

Just like that old movie line "So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view". I'll be keeping this in mind as I read this.

Example in society: A wife has killed her husband because he abused her, but there are causes for why he abused her in the first place, whether genetic predispositions, traumas in his childhood, stress, poverty, drugs or whatever. There are further causes for why she didn't choose a different solution, like divorce and a restraining order, but went for the ultimate solution instead. Causes for the causes for the causes for the causes... The adequate explanation ends at "because he abused her, and this is why she didn't choose any other solution"; murder but there are mitigating circumstances. Period. But it is not the full explanation of what happened.

so it's the old cliche "the Chicken and the Egg" after all.

To state it again: my point of view is that a truly full explanation/description of a phenomenon is not attainable, therefore it is unreasonable to make that your definition in any argument.

Again, "the Chicken and the Egg", reinforced by "it's all purely subjective". Basically, we can never have even the slightest clue about what the answer is because the question is subjective and we don't know in which order it should be.

Did I understand you correctly?

Feel free to prove me wrong or to offer a better definition of what explanations entail.

I might not have too, your posts are begining to resemble Humeist gibberish more and more.

[MeDeFe]

Did I understand you correctly?

No, you did not.

Firstly, where did subjectivity enter my definition? It must have been when I wasn't looking, or even writing it, I guess that would make it your subjective point of view at best, maybe a strawman at worst. It would really help if you explained your point of view, though. The same goes for "chicken and egg", I really don't at all see where the question of which of two things that seem to cause each other appeared first comes into this argument.

What I have been trying to convey is that the amount of details you need to give when explaining something depends on the context, which in my two examples is defined by the consensus within society, in the hypothetical court case I described most of the reasons for why the abuse took place are irrelevant, the important thing is that it did and what it led to.
If you understand that as being subjective, well, I disagree, while it's not independent of us humans, it's not solely dependent on one single human either. It's a matter of what society as a whole agrees about, and I think you would agree with me that in a court case it's entirely irrelevant what someone's great-grandparents did that lead to their descendants being poorer than the average population, leading to unstable families for them which culminated in a case of murder.

Or Philosophy. Or Theology for that matter. But do go on.

At least one of us is studying one of the fields you named. But neither is relevant in a discussion regarding the state of existence of the most basic building blocks of the universe.

[AlgyTaylor]

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/ ... matechange

Creationist fail!

[AlgyTaylor]

Oh, and this

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... e-lab.html


Looks like you've just falled flat on your arses eh?

[MeDeFe]

Creationist fail!

Got any news? ;-}




But interesting article(s).

[AlgyTaylor]

Hehe ... well ....



Just thought it might be worth pointing out that the 2 reasons for creationists to believe what they do ('major' evolutionary changes don't happen and that you can't "create" life) are basically a load of shit. Which can be backed up with actual, real, tangible evidence

Course we knew that full well anyway, but there's examples of it now - which is the difference

[jay_a2j]

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/ ... matechange

Creationist fail!

The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks for easy recognition.

It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form.

Did that just say "then transplanted into a LIVING bacterial cell"?

Life can not come from non-life.

Evolutionists FAIL!

[heavycola]

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/ ... matechange

Creationist fail!

The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks for easy recognition.

It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form.

Did that just say "then transplanted into a LIVING bacterial cell"?

Life can not come from non-life.

Evolutionists FAIL!

Excellent point. If only Darwin could have read this post we could have saved ourselves a century of misleading blasphemy.

[Neoteny]

Awesome thread is awesome.