T1B

KC Scott wrote:

Van wrote:Mvscal, take your engineering concept and describe how the universe came into being. When and how did it begin? What was there before it began? Are there boundaries? If so, where are its boundaries? What comprises its boundaries? What's beyond those boundaries? Where and how did matter originate?

Can I ask if you actually contemplate this?

If so - Why?

I'm always amazed at how much time and energy is spent thinking about where you came from as opposed to where your going during this life

Better to worry about the things you can control, than those you can't

KC, of course it's not something I contemplate very often. It's literally an incomprehensible subject. It is something I enjoy contemplating however when some intellectually dishonest asshole attempts to sell me on his requirement for a properly engineered universe.

Amateurs.

Sin,

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:Mvscal, take your engineering concept and describe how the universe came into being. When and how did it begin? What was there before it began? Are there boundaries? If so, where are its boundaries? What comprises its boundaries? What's beyond those boundaries? Where and how did matter originate?

Exactly. Now you're beginning to get your head around the problem...unless, of course, you find magic to be a satisfactory explanation.

I'm not "beginning" anything. These are basic questions I long asked myself and long ago I came to to the conclusion that science is no more likely to provide the answer to these questions than magic.

These are incomprehensible concepts. The concept of god is also incomprehensible. It's all incomprehensible so claiming to know to a certitude the answer to such things is simply foolhardy.

88, Hawking doesn't have the answers to all those questions I asked so who's being silly? At best he has some theories but he certainly hasn't unraveled all the mysteries of time, space and the beginning of existence.

Then again, this could be fun. Since you're setting yourself up as the expert on physics (having read Hawking and all, apparently) go ahead and answer each of those questions I posed...

I can prove there's not a God.


If there was a God then General Peters would get laid and I'd be able to talk to my dad again.

mv, all you can say is what it's not... yet in typical negative fashion, offer no explanation of what it is.

How was the universe created, big guy? Take a stab at it.

Van, going back to your statement that God must prove that he exists before you'll believe... you realize the height of that arrogance, yes?

If not, here's a clue: If God does indeed exist, he has no need to prove anything to you. If you don't get the evidence, that's your problem.

What 'tart understands is far above your capacity to grasp. Sure, he may go about it in the wrong way at times, but I've never doubted his sincerity. The man is convicted by his convictions.

It may be too late for you now, but everyone has had that one moment of clarity when they simply knew that Jesus Christ our savior is the way, the truth, and the life. I have. I believe that because I know God is merciful and wouldn't condemn any person to eternal damnation due to ignorance. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. And me.

Christ commanded that ye go forth and spread the gospel, and that's exactly what 'tart does. God bless him, he sits at the right hand.

88 wrote:There is no reason why we have to believe in magic or mysticism.

Who said we did?

We can choose to believe what we want.

88 wrote:I believe I'm going to have me a beer, for reals.

U&L beer is the strongest arguement in favor of God's existence-BTW.

88 wrote:Believing in something doesn't make it real.

Can we at least agree that we've all got our own version of reality?

I believe I'm going to have me a beer, for reals.

I'll join you.

Dinsdale wrote:

88 wrote:I believe I'm going to have me a beer, for reals.

U&L beer is the strongest arguement in favor of God's existence-BTW.

Would you go far enough to call the U&L "God's country"?

Shoalzie wrote:
Would you go far enough to call the U&L "God's country"?

No.

The californians call it that.

But, californians and Wisconsinites are gravytraining douchebags, and seem hell bent on using a phrase the New Zealanders coined a long time ago.

Van wrote:Pop, you made the argument that the devotion of Christ's followers proves his divinity.

To be clear, I didn't say that the behavior of the 12 disciples proves the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

It is very powerful evidence of His Divinity.

And I would suggest very strongly that if such evidence was presented in, say, a court of law, the behavior of those 12 people would be ... VERY ... powerful evidence
Their behavior is not something one can gloss over.

Van wrote:God, himself. Show yourself. Remove all doubt.

He CAME.
It is done.
Jesus demonstrated himself to be the Christ.
The fulfillment of prophecy by this person, Jesus, was unique, uncanny, and COMPLETE.

Based on the fulfillment, no other person, past, present OR future could be the Christ.

The evidence is quite frankly, overwhelming.

That is my "take" on it.

I can't "prove" anything to you.

Believe as you will.

Sudden Sam wrote:I prefer to be ignore the fables and rantings and hallucinations of very ill-educated, ignorant peoples of the past.

You've convinced me. Must be the impeccable grammar and sentence structure. The pen is truly mightier than the sword.

KC Scott wrote:Religion is based on fear of the unknown; Specfically Death
It evolved with different stories and different charachters throughout recorded history.

All of them share one basic concept - Mine is right and yours is Wrong.
Quite a few were more than willing to kill or Die to inflict this point of view on others

The Thumpers in this thread don't "get" why there is such a backlash?

It's really simple - beacuse they set in judgement of anyone not sharing their belief,
They want to control that individual freedoms of all.

Poptart and I had this argument before - he'll say he doesn't "judge" any of us.
Yet he'll readily say those who don't believe as he does are going to Hell (in his mind)
So how can you opine that someone is going to Hell but not set in judgement of them?

You can't.

So the religous want to control what your kids are taught (or not taught) in schools.
They want to control the methods of contraception, or termination of prgenancy.
They want to inhibit the advancements of biotechnology in stem cell research.
They want to limit your ability to gamble, drink or select a partner of your choosing.

Even when it doesn't directly involve them.

And yet they wonder why there's a backlash?

hellllooooo, Democratic party!!!!

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:Pop, you made the argument that the devotion of Christ's followers proves his divinity.

To be clear, I didn't say that the behavior of the 12 disciples proves the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

It is very powerful evidence of His Divinity.

It's not powerful evidence at all. It's twelve kooks following another kook in a book of fables, is one way to look at it.

And I would suggest very strongly that if such evidence was presented in, say, a court of law, the behavior of those 12 people would be ... VERY ... powerful evidence

It wouldn't even be worth presenting as evidence. In the first place those 12 aren't arbiters of divinity. They aren't experts on divinity and they also wouldn't have been considered expert witnesses before a court. In the second place their 12 opinions would be greatly outweighed by the THOUSANDS of opinions from other eye witnesses who would say that Christ isn't divine.

Face it, Pop. The guy only managed to convert a small percentage of the people who actually met him. That doesn't speak too well to his pulling power. If the majority of the people who met the guy didn't think he was god then why would I, minus any other compelling evidence...such as a personal visit from the guy!

Pop, you need to address that point. You can't just gloss over it. Your point is that Christ's followers are evidence of Christ's divinity. I addressed that point. Now it's time for you to address the point that for every one person who saw Christ and bought his divinity there were a thousand others who saw him who didn't believe he was divine. Using your "devotion as evidence" logic this fact completely shoots down the evidence of his divinity.

If you want to bring his followers into court as evidence in his defense my list of witnesses testifying against him will be a line of people stretching from the courthouse to the cathouse.

Their behavior is not something one can gloss over.

Their behaviour would be the single easiest thing to gloss over in your entire case. They don't matter. Their divinity isn't on trial. They're just a small number of disreputable kooks whose collective opinion is more than outweighed by the collective opinion of the rest of the townsfolk.

In a court of law Christ would need to prove his divinity. Bringing up twelve bums to say, "Yep, he's god!" wouldn't cut it. He'd need to perform miracles, right there in court, right before our eyes.

Van wrote:God, himself. Show yourself. Remove all doubt.

He CAME.

Right, right, and a virgin got pregnant because of it, which had to piss off her husband to no end.

Look, Pop, pointing to a two thousand year old book of crazy stories as proof god visited earth only works for people who already believe the two thousand year old book of crazy stories.

Two thousand years later? The world hasn't seen him. We don't know that he exists and we deserve a visit too.

It is done.

How convenient. Like the spoon benders who refuse to do their shtick in a controlled experiment environment or the farmer alone in a field who spotted a UFO the only time god showed himself was to a rag tag group of desert loners, two thousand years ago.

Jesus demonstrated himself to be the Christ.

So has David Blaine, if one is so inclined.

The fulfillment of prophecy by this person, Jesus, was unique, uncanny, and COMPLETE.

Prophecy?? Now were going to the whack job prophecy card??

Based on the fulfillment, no other person, past, present OR future could be the Christ.

So what? Besides the fact that basing anything on the fulfillment of prophecy is flat out comical the Christ could still show himself again, if he wanted to. There is NO reason Christ or god couldn't say, "Yes, people, we fulfilled our mission two thousand years ago. Now we've decided on a new mission. We've decided a new generation of sheep should get to see the shepherd. So, instead of merely doling out tiny tidbits of revelation to a bunch of desert misfits, here ya' go: Welcome to our HBO special, which will be broadcast in HD all over the fucking planet.

Wondering why you're seeing this broadcast, despite not having HD, or even cable? For one night, I rigged it such that every tv on the planet will get this broadcast. I'm god. I can do shit like that.

Anyway, let's start my special...

I'm god. This is my son Jesus. Here are some miracles.

~god calls his shots and performs some undeniable miracles right then and there, for every person on the plenet~

Okay, now that we've established who we are, here's our plan.

~god spells it out for us~

Any questions?"

NO reason at all. If Kat Williams can get his own special then god should book one too. Or, if he prefers, he could go the Santa Claus rout and simply visit each one of us, one by one. That'd be fine too.

Just get off your ass, god, and show yourself.

The evidence is quite frankly, overwhelming.

The evidence is, quite frankly, specious as hell, as it's undermined not only by its original writers but also by its subsequent churches. These aren't exactly the most reputable people spinning this yarn.

That is my "take" on it.

I can't "prove" anything to you.

No, you can't, but god sure could. He could have me posting a new thread here two hours from now, with a decidedly different message. God could have me wearing pimp clothes. God could have me sucking Charlie Weis' dick. God could have me penning my first rap CD.

That's just it. If god wasn't such a mean spirited and downright lazy fuck he could instantly make every last one of us blissfully happy and fully knowledgeable. Instead he's like m2. He trolls us with a bunch of silly stories nobody can verify. He lives for riddles and tales of past glories while in the present all anybody can tell for certain is he's a carney who's afraid to show himself.

Believe as you will.

Show me proof. Proof is what I believe. Don't show me a book. Show me god. Ain't no reason god should be unwilling to show himself to me, here in 2009, and to anyone else who needs him. Ain't no reason it should come down to people like you saying, "God shows himself in all ways, every day. You're just not looking, and listening."

Nonsense. God should take a couple minutes out of his day and make his existence and his plan for us as plain as day to every last person on earth. Why on earth were only a group of rag tag desert dwellers from two thousand years ago favored with a visit from the guy? That's utterly ridiculous.

just to clarify something

jesus was merely one of hundreds of so called "saviors" around at that time....weird thing-the "story" of his life paralleled the "story" of another man-god that showed up some 3,000 years before jesus allegedly showed up....his name was Horus

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

truly stunning how closely their stories mimic each other

I've asked thumpers numerous times how they would explain this, and have yet to receive any credible answer

Felix, so, what you're saying is Cuda wrote the bible. Gotcha.

Btw, while reading your link I pretty much came to a permanent halt, right here...



I'm tellin' ya, is there anything sluttier than a "Christian" woman who's a gorgeous fake blonde, trolling for internet cock?

Faith Hill, indeed. God that woman needs to be ass fucked.

Sudden Sam wrote: I prefer to ignore the fables and rantings and hallucinations of very ill-educated, ignorant peoples of the past.

That is a lot better, but unfortunately now that I know what you're saying I'm not so convinced. Rantings and hallucinations I understand, and concur. Food preparation at the time and the lack of preservatives have historically been known to cause hallucinatory experiences, most religions have this as well, fasting, some aspect of sensory deprivation, and the like.

But "ill-educated" as compared to us today or within the context of their contemporaries. I mean, being able to write at the time when a vast majority of the people probably could not at least implies some education. And they were apparently not ignorant, especially if things such as Felix pointed out were inspirations for the stories. You can prove the assertions "ill-educated" and "ignorant" so please, it would be nice if you did that.

The more educated I get, the more I believe in God and the more I believe Jesus was precisely who He said He was.

...ah the age old debate. Nobody wins this one of course... so-called scholars wax elegant, all sides bring out the tried and tired arguments, the thread goes about 10 pages, and then is put to bed for a year or two.


oh btw, I would be in the "Thumper" camp.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:I've asked thumpers numerous times how they would explain this, and have yet to receive any credible answer

Probably because they are too ignorant to recognize the comparison as complete and utter rubbish.

I'm pretty sure the parallels are indicative that the whole story of Jesus was lifted by the christians from previous writings by civilizations that preceded them by some 3,000 years.....

this isn't the equivalent of a Kennedy/Lincoln coincidentals

ChargerMike wrote:...ah the age old debate. Nobody wins this one of course... so-called scholars wax elegant, all sides bring out the tried and tired arguments, the thread goes about 10 pages, and then is put to bed for a year or two.

there really isn't much to debate....christians are convinced that if they could somehow "prove" that evolution was wrong, then by default that would somehow "prove" their fables are actually the way it all happened....of course that's ridiculous, but they can't seem to grasp that simple concept

oh btw, I would be in the "Thumper" camp.

no shit?????? :D

I'm still enjoying the idea that the King James version of the bible is in fact the King Cut & Paste Cuda edition. The little black and gold buffalo in the manger should've been our first clue.

SS wrote:I have some quite brilliant friends...who believe in the Christian God.

I'm guessing Dins will have a choice comment or two about that...

Van wrote:Pop, I have no problem with the concept of Christ and people who worship in their own way. I don't believe what those people believe and I don't know whether Christ was truly who he was made out to be but I don't have a major problem with him and the people I mentioned.

My point is organized religion. If we're to believe what is written about Christ in the bible then Christ wouldn't have brooked all that shit that's been done in his name. He wouldn't have accepted the Vatican. He wouldn't have accepted all the wars and all the persecution in his name. He wouldn't have accepted so many people sitting in spiritual judgement of every person unlike themselves.

Organized religion has very little to do with Christ. True Christians don't need organized religion. Same deal with true believers in Islam. They don't need to fall in step with the charlatans running their religion.

Mvscal, don't be an idiot. You're going to try and make the same argument with me that AP made?? You mean to tell me that you can't see a difference between agnosticism and atheism, vis a vis Big Picture Questions vs obviously man made fables? You don't see where an agnostic could be uncertain as to basic questions of divinity while still being certain Jonah never lived inside a big fish and the story of Noah and his arc is pure rubbish?

I thought we raised you better than that.

And no, atheism isn't fact based. It's a belief system which is based on something lacking facts. The concept of god cannot satisfy 88's necessity for something measurable. The concept of god is that he's beyond our reckoning. He's not a Buick and he's not a force of nature.

Claiming to a certainty that you know something doesn't exist when it's something you couldn't begin to comprehend, much less measure, that's faith, not fact. I understand why a goodly percentage of scientists are in fact atheists, since their lives are based on the need for finding answers which they can suppport with facts. They can't do this with questions of divinity so, lacking any hard evidence, they conclude no such thing exists.

I understand it, but I know they only believe this, they don't know this. That means they merely have faith in atheism. They have no facts to prove it.

I'd also admit that I lean more towards atheism than divinity, if I were forced to choose. How could I not? There's far too much evidence of religion being nothing more than a man made political system.

Christ or God needs to come down and show themselves to me, in no uncertain terms, before I'll truly believe.

So, you don't know if Susan loves you. That's truly sad. How long have you been married?

anyone see that special where they have crude evidence that all these 'miracles' in teh bible were actual occurencees in nature. like the raining down of fire against the Pharoh's could possibly have been teh result of a volcano that erupted back then spewing hot ash into the sky and so forth. so for all these miracles written about in the bible there was a possible explanation. it wasn't rock solid proof but it was interesting to see taht as a historical document the bible possibly was more accurate than we think......sayin

Ruff, no one ever knows if another person loves them. All anyone can do is believe it, assuming anyone could ever know what "love" really is anyway.

Who are you, btw? I've never seen a "Ruff" here before.

titlover wrote:anyone see that special where they have crude evidence that all these 'miracles' in teh bible were actual occurencees in nature. like the raining down of fire against the Pharoh's could possibly have been teh result of a volcano that erupted back then spewing hot ash into the sky and so forth. so for all these miracles written about in the bible there was a possible explanation. it wasn't rock solid proof but it was interesting to see taht as a historical document the bible possibly was more accurate than we think......sayin

Care to take a stab at Noah's arc? Two of every animal on earth, in one non climate controlled boat?

Polar bears and rattle snakes and every type of insect and every other creature that isn't indigenous to the middle east managed to make its way in breeding pairs to Noah's arc, and they all fit, and they all survived for forty days and forty nights? Does nature provide similar occurrences?

DHL can barely ship a cat without killing it.

Van wrote:Ruff, no one ever knows if another person loves them. All anyone can do is believe it, assuming anyone could ever know what "love" really is anyway.

Who are you, btw? I've never seen a "Ruff" here before.

Yeah, you're right. And can you believe there are dipshits who will act on such things?

I mean, who would actually change their behavior, live differently, based on something that couldn't be proven.

88 wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:But anyone who claims "bullshit" or "true" concerning UFO's needs to at least do some research, preferably with an open mind. Good luck :wink:

It doesn't surprise me that you believe in UFO's. It fits with your predisposition to believe in nutjob conspiracies.

SETI has been looking for any sign of intelligent life for many years. So far, they've identified absolutely nothing. Complete FAIL.

Hawking sets forth several rational explanations:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/ ... l-frontier

The biggest reason is that the distance is simply too great.

If you can find a chapter of this religion still around, please join:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_G ... ous_group)

I didn't say I necessarily believe all of the reports of UFOs, abductions, probes, etc. I'm simply pointing out that it's a hell of a lot more interesting a subject than wading through the childish dribble of P-tart and Van. I mean really, how can you waste a fucking minute on the subject of Jesus (and his being modeled on the Roman cult of Attis, etc)?. It's cruelly boring, and plainly pointless. Now with UFOs we have a fascinating subject, period. And you've got air force pilots from many nations as serious sober witnesses. Are you prepared to similarly dismiss them with a cheap insult? Is this really a reflection of your game? As for Hawking, he's cool and I respect his skepticism, but notice how he restrains his hypotheses to the limits of human technology--especially when considering the distance factor. Carl Sagan, another great American, also took upon himself a long critical review of all the accumulated accounts of UFO encounters, and declared them all bogus. Fine, but it still doesn't explain all of the accounts of those air force pilots, ship captains, police officers, astrophysics students, and many more intelligent and unbiased witnesses. What do you have to offer? Check out some of those videos on the link I provided. Offer your explanation.

As for my believing in "nutjob" conspiracies, I notice you don't actually mention any--or any such matter you would attempt to refute.

Ruff, though admittedly it's an inexact science with only marginal success rates it's fairly understandable why people make life changing decisions based on a girl's pretty blue doe eyes looking up at them while she sucks their dick. Making those same sorts of life changing decsions based on a book which expects one to believe in talking snakes and virgin births?

Society refers to those people as Trekkies.

Van wrote:Ruff, though admittedly it's an inexact science with only marginal success rates it's fairly understandable why people make life changing decisions based on a girl's pretty blue doe eyes looking up at them while she sucks their dick. Making those same sorts of life changing decsions based on a book which expects one to believe in talking snakes and virgin births?

Society refers to those people as Trekkies.

Though it was nice and all, I never said I love you. Don't confuse things Van.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: I'm simply pointing out that it's a hell of a lot more interesting a subject than wading through the childish dribble of P-tart and Van.

You're quite the wordsmith, aren't you? You're a much more enjoyable read when you copy/paste from whatever the fuck source you use.


Flippin' tard.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: I'm simply pointing out that it's a hell of a lot more interesting a subject than wading through the childish dribble of P-tart and Van.

You're quite the wordsmith, aren't you? You're a much more enjoyable read when you copy/paste from whatever the fuck source you use.


Flippin' tard.

C'mon, UCan, step up your fucking game!

See the DRIBBLE? It's what comes dripping out of babies' mouths. Like P-tart, etc.


And babs, Attis is in fact a very close model of the Jesus cult. Look deeper than a quick Wiki search, you fake .

Van wrote:

titlover wrote:anyone see that special where they have crude evidence that all these 'miracles' in teh bible were actual occurencees in nature. like the raining down of fire against the Pharoh's could possibly have been teh result of a volcano that erupted back then spewing hot ash into the sky and so forth. so for all these miracles written about in the bible there was a possible explanation. it wasn't rock solid proof but it was interesting to see taht as a historical document the bible possibly was more accurate than we think......sayin

Care to take a stab at Noah's arc? Two of every animal on earth, in one non climate controlled boat?

Polar bears and rattle snakes and every type of insect and every other creature that isn't indigenous to the middle east managed to make its way in breeding pairs to Noah's arc, and they all fit, and they all survived for forty days and forty nights? Does nature provide similar occurrences?

DHL can barely ship a cat without killing it.

i didn't say every single damn story.

Just fuckin' wit' ya', though if you wish to be technical you did in fact say all of them when you said...

they have crude evidence that all these 'miracles' in teh bible were actual occurencees in nature.

...and...

...so, for all these miracles written about in the bible there was a possible explanation.

Dunno 'bout you but to me "all" and "every single damn one" mean the same thing. Had you said "some" rather than "all," well...

LTS TRN 2 wrote:See the DRIBBLE?

Yeah... that's what all the idiots attempt to save themselves with when they confuse the two words. Sorry, idiot. You were caught double driveling and just turned the ball over.

No, you were right the first time. Words serve me, not the other way around. Word choice, spelling, grammar, slang, syntax, and all manner of inner rhymes, and "vibrating palm" paragraph structure all come together like a guitar in my hands. I meant dribble, not drivel, and wrote it accordingly. Why? Because it's actually closer to my intended meaning, and because the normal word in that sentence, "drivel" would just slide by, sort of automatically. I want "dribble" to stand out. I don't normally tip my hand, but this once I'll give you a peek. :wink:

Well, speaking of felching and its residual spray and spatter, how's Rusp Limpdick doin? You'd know, babs, so I just wondered--I hear he's flipping out.

Well he's certainly got a windfall of material. But, being a phony blowhard, we know that the more he crows, the more he's squirming. And really, the few minutes I can literally stand to listen to him--sort of a great sweating canary in a coal mine right-wing barometer--he sounds like he's about to have a heart attack. His blaring state of denial and fear-mongering is at an all-time high, sort of like a demented boat skipper screaming orders as he goes over a huge waterfall.

Van wrote: Care to take a stab at Noah's arc? Two of every animal on earth, in one non climate controlled boat?

of course, research has shown that based on the stated physical dimensions of the arc, that construction of such a boat would go against all of the laws of physics...but then again, going against the laws of physics has never been much of a problem for christians

oh, and you forgot to mention all of the FEED that would have been necessary to sustain two (or is it more, the bible is a little hazy on the specifics of exactly how many of each kind there were as evidenced in Genesis 6:19-21, Genesis 7:2-3) of every kind of animal......

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I want "dribble" to stand out.

Excellent. Let's make that work for you.

I wouldn't compare the bukkake smackdown you receive from all corners of this board to some slow, oozing occurrence. That is more accurately described as a blitzkrieg.

Dribbling is best compared to what happens when you're basking in the afterglow of some post-coital embrace with your significant other… as you reluctantly unclench your sphincter, and gravity begins to take effect on the huge load of manjuice swishing around inside your rectum. That, you cock-craving faggot, is dribbling.

I hope dribble "stands out" for you now.