Conquer Club

Woo, I'm still hooked that CA agreed with me about some questions he shot at me.

CrazyAnglican wrote:I've often felt backglass challenging me through his posts (scriptures) as well. That is evidence enough for me, like I said I'm a believer.

He smote me in a classic game as well. Wouldn't answer my game chat or anything.

This is all very funny but only shows me that you guys will go to the ends of the earth to explain away your absent gods existence.

Using this silly line of reasoning Bigfoot exists (many have felt his presence), Alien Abductions are real (many have felt their presence in "sensitive area's ) and the Chupacabra exists (many have seen the results of it's work).

Backglass wrote: This is all very funny but only shows me that you guys will go to the ends of the earth to explain away your absent gods existence.

I'm glad you found it amusing, but as for providing evidence of God's existence; I wasn't and had no intention of doing so. I was merely poking fun at the flimsy arguments on both sides of that issue.

With one argument you can debunk the existence of anything (some that are very real). With the other it becomes impossible to debunk anything (as you stated Bigfoot, etc.). This is really why I don't argue this point. Whether someone believes in God or not it's largely due to their own interpretation of evidence in their lives. I was merely having fun with a bit of satire.

So Coffee are you still reading? where are you by now?

DangerBoy wrote:So Coffee are you still reading? where are you by now?

Yeah, I'm on John 9. It makes a little bit more sense after getting some insight from you guys. Part of the problem before was that I always listened to other peoples version of why they thought the Bible was wrong but now I'm reading it for myself to form my own opinion.

I am a real atheist, but sometimes i wonder at some of the interesting facts, like why the bones of a human were found that dated farther back then the evolution theory suggested. But overall i stand by science, their theories are far more logical and factual

wait your an atheist because you stand by science? that doesn't make any sense, if you want to be what science leads you to be the your probably an agnostic.

Jehan wrote:wait your an atheist because you stand by science? that doesn't make any sense, if you want to be what science leads you to be the your probably an agnostic.

Considering the fact that the chance of science proving god's existence is comfortably small, I think it's possible to be an athiest that follows science.

I think what Jehan is trying to say is that the chances of DISPROVING God's existence is equally small, that someone truly adhering to science would be purely agnostic.

MR. Nate wrote:I think what Jehan is trying to say is that the chances of DISPROVING God's existence is equally small, that someone truly adhering to science would be purely agnostic.

QFT!

It's those strange things we can never explain that must be left open to a deity. The reason I have a problem with christian science is not because of the existence of the god, but the fact that everybody involved seems to think they know god inside and out.

Neutrino wrote:

Jehan wrote:wait your an atheist because you stand by science? that doesn't make any sense, if you want to be what science leads you to be the your probably an agnostic.

Considering the fact that the chance of science proving god's existence is comfortably small, I think it's possible to be an athiest that follows science.

Science doesn't lead you to Atheism however

Jehan wrote:wait your an atheist because you stand by science? that doesn't make any sense, if you want to be what science leads you to be the your probably an agnostic.

I am an atheist, simply because I don't believe that supernatural gods exist.

No more, no less.

unriggable wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:I think what Jehan is trying to say is that the chances of DISPROVING God's existence is equally small, that someone truly adhering to science would be purely agnostic.

QFT!

It's those strange things we can never explain that must be left open to a deity. The reason I have a problem with christian science is not because of the existence of the god, but the fact that everybody involved seems to think they know god inside and out.

I don't think anyone can claim to know God that well . . . it seems reasonable, however, to take what He's said at face value.

Backglass wrote:I am an atheist, simply because I don't believe that supernatural gods exist.

No more, no less.

REALLY?!?!?!? I had NO idea you were an atheist!

Seriously though, I'm glad you don't have any pretensions that you are a superior human being because you have a different belief structure.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Neutrino wrote:

Jehan wrote:wait your an atheist because you stand by science? that doesn't make any sense, if you want to be what science leads you to be the your probably an agnostic.

Considering the fact that the chance of science proving god's existence is comfortably small, I think it's possible to be an athiest that follows science.

Science doesn't lead you to Atheism however

What does it lead you to, then.

More science.

unriggable wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Neutrino wrote:

Jehan wrote:wait your an atheist because you stand by science? that doesn't make any sense, if you want to be what science leads you to be the your probably an agnostic.

Considering the fact that the chance of science proving god's existence is comfortably small, I think it's possible to be an athiest that follows science.

Science doesn't lead you to Atheism however

What does it lead you to, then.

Well; many Scientists find God in Science. then Others dont. In fact a poll found that 40% of those sturdying or working in Science had a belief in a deity, 20% were agnostic and the rest atheist.

Personally I point to the words of the Great Aquinas:

"God has made a Regular World"

What he means is that you can look at the regularity and complexity of the world in awe, but it isnt in itself an argument for God

MR. Nate wrote:Seriously though, I'm glad you don't have any pretensions that you are a superior human being because you have a different belief structure.

It's just that people try to hang so many bags on the word "Atheist".

It's not a belief structure, but a non-belief structure. Actually even that is a stretch as there is NO structure! Calling yourself an Athiest doesn't mean you believe in, or are in favor of the big-bang, evolution, abortion, etc or anything else for that matter. It's just a definition for non-belief in gods...thats the only thing we have in common.

It always cracks me up when someone says "The problem with Atheists is <blank>" or "Atheists are trying to <blank>". It's such a broad definition it would be like saying "All left handed people believe that...<blank>".

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Neutrino wrote:

Jehan wrote:wait your an atheist because you stand by science? that doesn't make any sense, if you want to be what science leads you to be the your probably an agnostic.

Considering the fact that the chance of science proving god's existence is comfortably small, I think it's possible to be an athiest that follows science.

Science doesn't lead you to Atheism however

What does it lead you to, then.

Well; many Scientists find God in Science. then Others dont. In fact a poll found that 40% of those sturdying or working in Science had a belief in a deity, 20% were agnostic and the rest atheist.

Personally I point to the words of the Great Aquinas:

"God has made a Regular World"

What he means is that you can look at the regularity and complexity of the world in awe, but it isnt in itself an argument for God

Bullshit. Your statistics are from 1914.

unriggable wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Neutrino wrote:

Jehan wrote:wait your an atheist because you stand by science? that doesn't make any sense, if you want to be what science leads you to be the your probably an agnostic.

Considering the fact that the chance of science proving god's existence is comfortably small, I think it's possible to be an athiest that follows science.

Science doesn't lead you to Atheism however

What does it lead you to, then.

to a non answer, i was reading in a pop-sci book by Stephen Hawking, and it got to point where one was left with a choice, either the universe is as perfect as it is because it was designed that way, or there have been an infinite amount of universes and this one just happened to be right for observers to exist, weak anthropic principle, science doesn't lead to to any conclusion because it always reaches a point where it cant go any further.

My statistics were taken in the 90s.

A more up to date one claims the figure for theist scientists is closer to 60%
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... s_god.html

To me that seems a little high.

You still haven't answered my fundemental point anyway though.

So I'm going through John 11 now. It seems as though Caiphas knew that Jesus was going to die for Israel and it looks like all Jews everywhere. Right after he raised Lazarus from the dead:

That was a turnaround for many of the Jews who were with Mary. They saw what Jesus did, and believed in him. But some went back to the Pharisees and told on Jesus. The high priests and Pharisees called a meeting of the Jewish ruling body. "What do we do now?" they asked. "This man keeps on doing things, creating God-signs. If we let him go on, pretty soon everyone will be believing in him and the Romans will come and remove what little power and privilege we still have."

Then one of them—it was Caiaphas, the designated Chief Priest that year—spoke up, "Don't you know anything? Can't you see that it's to our advantage that one man dies for the people rather than the whole nation be destroyed?" He didn't say this of his own accord, but as Chief Priest that year he unwittingly prophesied that Jesus was about to die sacrificially for the nation, and not only for the nation but so that all God's exile-scattered children might be gathered together into one people.

From that day on, they plotted to kill him. So Jesus no longer went out in public among the Jews. He withdrew into the country bordering the desert to a town called Ephraim and secluded himself there with his disciples.

Why didn't Jesus just have it out with them right there and then. He does this great miracle and then when they plot to kill him he goes into seclusion. Why not use all that power to prove to them once and for all?

CoffeeCream wrote:So I'm going through John 11 now. It seems as though Caiphas knew that Jesus was going to die for Israel and it looks like all Jews everywhere. Right after he raised Lazarus from the dead:

That was a turnaround for many of the Jews who were with Mary. They saw what Jesus did, and believed in him. But some went back to the Pharisees and told on Jesus. The high priests and Pharisees called a meeting of the Jewish ruling body. "What do we do now?" they asked. "This man keeps on doing things, creating God-signs. If we let him go on, pretty soon everyone will be believing in him and the Romans will come and remove what little power and privilege we still have."

Then one of them—it was Caiaphas, the designated Chief Priest that year—spoke up, "Don't you know anything? Can't you see that it's to our advantage that one man dies for the people rather than the whole nation be destroyed?" He didn't say this of his own accord, but as Chief Priest that year he unwittingly prophesied that Jesus was about to die sacrificially for the nation, and not only for the nation but so that all God's exile-scattered children might be gathered together into one people.

From that day on, they plotted to kill him. So Jesus no longer went out in public among the Jews. He withdrew into the country bordering the desert to a town called Ephraim and secluded himself there with his disciples.

Why didn't Jesus just have it out with them right there and then. He does this great miracle and then when they plot to kill him he goes into seclusion. Why not use all that power to prove to them once and for all?

Bible ses, alrite?

CoffeeCream wrote:Why didn't Jesus just have it out with them right there and then. He does this great miracle and then when they plot to kill him he goes into seclusion. Why not use all that power to prove to them once and for all?

Because it wouldn't have made as good of a story.

Just saw this thing on the National Geographic Channel about the flood...here's the best hypothesis.

There is an almost identical story in the same book / tale as gilgamesh. Peeps concluded a regional disaster led to the creation of these stories.
During the last ice age the Black sea (see maps) was cut from the mediteranean and was, as a result, freshwater. But as the last ice age ended the two seas connected and the entire surrounding area, which was very low sea level, was flooded. The idea is that the people saw this flood and thought that they were doomed, and thought the whole world was experiencing this. The story traveled for thousands of years before written language was invented, and by that time it had been spun into several different ways.

CoffeeCream wrote: Why didn't Jesus just have it out with them right there and then. He does this great miracle and then when they plot to kill him he goes into seclusion. Why not use all that power to prove to them once and for all?

Hi CoffeeCream,

I don't think I can truly speak for Jesus' motives at this point. What does strike me in this account though is how the Sanhedrin is contrasted with Jesus and his disciples.

Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin are in a tight spot as I understand it. Rome, while generally tolerant of religions, does not tolerate discord within its territories. The priests seem to be worried that Jesus is giving Rome an excuse to obliterate Israel (A valid fear because they did exactly that some years later). The Sanhedrin are concerned about losing their earthly power. Being the highest ranking servants of Rome is apparently better than having Rome disburse them altogether. This is understandable to a certain extent. Caiaphas sees an opportunity to show everyone that they are stable and in control of things. It's simple kill Jesus and hold Rome off a little while longer. Jesus has other plans though.

Jesus seems to be biding his time. Why just go across the river? Why not back to Egypt to let things cool down for a while? If I were planning an insurrection that's what I'd do. Christ seems to accept on some level that his life on earth is coming to a close. There is no evidence that he is worried about Rome or any earthly power. He isn't seeking power, station, or wealth. He does everything as it is foretold. Sure, he knows the prophecies and could make certain to stage some of them just so, but what would it gain him? The prophecies foretold a grim death, not an earthly kingdom. Why would he do this if he were not the Son of God?

This is one of the reasons I believe that Christ and his disciples were sincere. I believe that people are basically motivated by gain. I do not see that in this account. Christ walks straight to his death as a carpenter's son. No adulation, praise, or even Heavenly kingdom are promised to him. I believe that he knew his part though and that the rest would come. Therefore it makes sense to me that there was no uprising or immediate confrontation. This would have meant an attempt to gain earthly power. Nothing in the account indicates that Christ intended to set up an earthly kingdom.