poker and god?!

[Crack User 0]

MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY OF THE COMMING OF THE LORDjust believe in him you idiots and youll suddenly know everything I SING BECAUSE IM HAPPY I SING BECAUSE IM FREE

[clowneyas 0]

PLEASE REMIND US AGAIN ABOUT THE TOURNAMENT!!

Thanks Suited-Up. Well, since Suited-Up asked me to post the tournament again, here it is!Please come out and take part in this 50 person, $10 tournament. THE TOURNAMENT PITTING "GOOD" vs. "EVIL""GOD" vs. "SATAN" (or "atheists")GO TO FCP, AND UNDER "PRIVATE" TOURNAMENTS YOU'LL FIND IT. Cost: $10 Max. Participants: 50Tournament Name: " Gods Balls" Time: 7 PM tonight ( 10 PM on FCP eastern time)Tournament Password: niabocc

[clowneyas 0]

... ABOUT THE  TOURNAMENT!!

Thanks Suited-Up. Well, since Suited-Up asked me to post the tournament again, here it is!Please come out and take part in this 50 person, $10 tournament. THE TOURNAMENT PITTING "GOOD" vs. "EVIL""GOD" vs. "SATAN" (or "atheists")GO TO FCP, AND UNDER "PRIVATE" TOURNAMENTS YOU'LL FIND IT. Cost: $10 Max. Participants: 50Tournament Name: " Gods Balls" Time: 7 PM tonight ( 10 PM on FCP eastern time)Tournament Password: niabocc

[brvheart 1,752]

... ABOUT THE  TOURNAMENT!!

Thanks Suited-Up. Well, since Suited-Up asked me to post the tournament again, here it is!Please come out and take part in this 50 person, $10 tournament. THE TOURNAMENT PITTING "GOOD" vs. "EVIL""GOD" vs. "SATAN" (or "atheists")GO TO FCP, AND UNDER "PRIVATE" TOURNAMENTS YOU'LL FIND IT. Cost: $10 Max. Participants: 50Tournament Name: " Gods Balls" Time: 7 PM tonight ( 10 PM on FCP eastern time)Tournament Password: niabocc

I signed up for the God team, but then the Satan...er... atheist team CANCELED THE TOURNEY!!! Which means they have the fear of the Lord in their hearts. And due to their fear to face the 'God' team Heads up, God wins by default.

[clowneyas 0]

I signed up for the God team, but then the Satan...er... atheist team CANCELED THE TOURNEY!!!  Which means they have the fear of the Lord in their hearts.  And due to their fear to face the 'God' team Heads up, God wins by default.

I just thanked you on the "official" "God" vs. "Atheists" post for signing up. HOwever, the deal was that at least 10 people had to sign up, or it automatically cancels. My opinion was that the "God" team chickened out, so I won by default. We'll have to take it to the judges (not the bible book).

[Mattnxtc 0]

This a very bad analogy, and by that I mean you should be ashamed of it. To suggest that the faith required to believe in Biblical 'truth' is somehow related to believing in scientific theory is absolutely ludicrous.

You completely missed the point of the analogy. It was not meant to in anyway to compare biblical truth to scientific theories. Instead it was to prove the point that we all rely on faith in order to exist. Even you. My point was that when somebody hands us a periodic table we put our faith in them that they are in fact telling us the correct thing. We do not go and make them show us each element on the table in order to make us believe. But we can use this analogy for many things as i also showed in that post. You have faith ur car is going to start. You have faith that what somebody tells you is correct. Hope that clears it up for u. on the rest of ur post i honestly dont have a clue what u were talkin about and what it had to do with what i said.

[Dratj 0]

Questions like "Why bad stuff happens to good people", etc. have always hounded people of several belief systems, and certainly we cannot explain it and often struggle to reconcile it with a benevolent God. However, science alone does not answer this for us, and no afterlife, no God, gives us NO HOPE.

Again,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequence

Logical fallacy = Wikipedia quoting. Try citing it in a paper you've written at the high-school level and beyond.Besides, my argument was not there we must have hope; it was, you cannot have hope with a definite end. If 5 + 6 = 11, and you want to get to 11, then 5 + 6 is a meaningful value.If 5 + 6 =0, and you want 11 (or wish to avoid 0), 5 + 6 is meaningless.

You must be an arts major.

[GodOfEntropy 0]

This a very bad analogy, and by that I mean you should be ashamed of it. To suggest that the faith required to believe in Biblical 'truth' is somehow related to believing in scientific theory is absolutely ludicrous.

You completely missed the point of the analogy. It was not meant to in anyway to compare biblical truth to scientific theories. Instead it was to prove the point that we all rely on faith in order to exist. Even you. My point was that when somebody hands us a periodic table we put our faith in them that they are in fact telling us the correct thing. We do not go and make them show us each element on the table in order to make us believe. But we can use this analogy for many things as i also showed in that post. You have faith ur car is going to start. You have faith that what somebody tells you is correct. Hope that clears it up for u. on the rest of ur post i honestly dont have a clue what u were talkin about and what it had to do with what i said.

I understand you are saying that there are varying degrees of faith, and that the 'burden-of-proof' threshold for crossing into each changes depending upon the claim one is considering. However, it is important to make the distinction that religious faith and faith in a scientific idea are essentially two very different acts. One has no system for evaluating the claim's validity while the other has a very efficient and successful means of doing so as I attempted to describe in my above post. This is not simply a matter of different degrees of faith, but rather in the case of 'scientific faith', faith is merely a state of gestation from which actual knowledge and experimentation can be born if one chooses. Concerning religious faith, there is no such next step as faith is all there is.

[Mattnxtc 0]

This a very bad analogy, and by that I mean you should be ashamed of it. To suggest that the faith required to believe in Biblical 'truth' is somehow related to believing in scientific theory is absolutely ludicrous.

You completely missed the point of the analogy. It was not meant to in anyway to compare biblical truth to scientific theories. Instead it was to prove the point that we all rely on faith in order to exist. Even you. My point was that when somebody hands us a periodic table we put our faith in them that they are in fact telling us the correct thing. We do not go and make them show us each element on the table in order to make us believe. But we can use this analogy for many things as i also showed in that post. You have faith ur car is going to start. You have faith that what somebody tells you is correct. Hope that clears it up for u. on the rest of ur post i honestly dont have a clue what u were talkin about and what it had to do with what i said.

I understand you are saying that there are varying degrees of faith, and that the 'burden-of-proof' threshold for crossing into each changes depending upon the claim one is considering. However, it is important to make the distinction that religious faith and faith in a scientific idea are essentially two very different acts. One has no system for evaluating the claim's validity while the other has a very efficient and successful means of doing so as I attempted to describe in my above post. This is not simply a matter of different degrees of faith, but rather in the case of 'scientific faith', faith is merely a state of gestation from which actual knowledge and experimentation can be born if one chooses. Concerning religious faith, there is no such next step as faith is all there is.

If i understand you, you claim that b/c there exists a scientific method for science that it makes it easier to believe? Yes scientific experiments can be repeated that of course in true. But it appears you are dismissing the bible as being something nobody has tested and that no method was used in the formation of the bible and that is not true. You probably could even use the scientific method to test the validity of the Bible, the main difference being you would not run an experiment but instead test the bible against the ancient writings as the experiment. Other than that it woudl be the sameI think a problem exists in that you think to have faith in God is to blindly follow something. And you are correct that there are many "Sunday Morning Christians" who do blindly follow. But what you forget is that the bible has always been controversial. It has been forced to stand up for itself on multiple multiple occasions. While you would not be likely to use the scientific method you would still use a basic method to study the bible. Biblical scholars do not just rely on faith but instead rely on results just as a scientist would

[Suited_Up 2]

This a very bad analogy, and by that I mean you should be ashamed of it. To suggest that the faith required to believe in Biblical 'truth' is somehow related to believing in scientific theory is absolutely ludicrous.

on the rest of ur post i honestly dont have a clue what u were talkin about and what it had to do with what i said.

That pretty much sums up every post you've made.

[Mattnxtc 0]

This a very bad analogy, and by that I mean you should be ashamed of it. To suggest that the faith required to believe in Biblical 'truth' is somehow related to believing in scientific theory is absolutely ludicrous.

on the rest of ur post i honestly dont have a clue what u were talkin about and what it had to do with what i said.

That pretty much sums up every post you've made.

haha...no..but thanks for the laugh...the maturity of ur posts is amazing though.

[Suited_Up 2]

This a very bad analogy, and by that I mean you should be ashamed of it. To suggest that the faith required to believe in Biblical 'truth' is somehow related to believing in scientific theory is absolutely ludicrous.

on the rest of ur post i honestly dont have a clue what u were talkin about and what it had to do with what i said.

That pretty much sums up every post you've made.

haha...no..but thanks for the laugh...the maturity of ur posts is amazing though.

There is nothing immature about it. I'm also not the only one who has made this type of comment about what you're saying. Even people on the God side of the discussion say that you're misrepresenting everything.You are picking and choosing to argue about things that you think you can prove, whether or not they even apply to the argument. How can you say that we need faith to believe that scientific theories are correct? On top of that, how can you claim that science could prove whether the bible is real or not. Don't you think someone would have done that by now?Further, the bible does not stand on it's own. It has people all over the world making up excuses for it's inconsistencies. Where exactly is it standing on it's own against critisism? There are lots of critics who make a lot of good points, but there are also a lot of people on the other side making up excuses every time something comes along. Why should we trust the excuses any more than we do the original document? I have no idea. But it's far from standing on it's own.

[Spademan 94]

Science, mathematics, reason, logic, testability, empirical evidence, introspection, doubt... all jokes.There is a God, and I am He.

[Suited_Up 2]

Science, mathematics, reason, logic, testability, empirical evidence, introspection, doubt... all jokes.There is a God, and I am He.

Finally a voice of reason.

[crowTrobot 2]

hi lois & mattnxtc. don't you guys ever get tired of always being right?

[Mattnxtc 0]

There is nothing immature about it. I'm also not the only one who has made this type of comment about what you're saying. Even people on the God side of the discussion say that you're misrepresenting everything.

Hi um no. I have not misrepresented anything and I have attempted to answer every question I have seen. The only person I have seen that has had a problem with anyting I have said is Lois. The facts on Lois are well known. He is not a christian, He admits he isnt a christian, and a lot of what he says does not have biblical backing. He makes assertions without using context. So if he is the one u are using to say i misrepresent then you need to rethink it.

You are picking and choosing to argue about things that you think you can prove, whether or not they even apply to the argument. How can you say that we need faith to believe that scientific theories are correct? On top of that, how can you claim that science could prove whether the bible is real or not. Don't you think someone would have done that by now?

again. i have yet to pick and choose anything I have simply givin an answer to questions that have been posed. If i have missed one or not answered one it is b/c someone else answered it or i missed it. I have not avoided any question. Again I was attempting only to show that we believe things about science not b/c we have any true knowledge of it but b/c others say that they are true. That is all I was tryin to say about faith. Everyday you rely on faith whether you want to admit it or not. We could not function if we didnt rely on faith. U are still missing the point on the science though. What i said was that you could use the scientific method in ur "bible experiment" and using those guidelines u could go about testing the bible.

Further, the bible does not stand on it's own. It has people all over the world making up excuses for it's inconsistencies. Where exactly is it standing on it's own against critisism? There are lots of critics who make a lot of good points, but there are also a lot of people on the other side making up excuses every time something comes along. Why should we trust the excuses any more than we do the original document? I have no idea. But it's far from standing on it's own.

making up excuses for the bible? no that is not correct. What is often the case is that somebody picks up a bible and starts reading. They come to a verse or 2 that seem to contradict and they scream that the bible is wrong. Dont believe me? A prime example is the mormon religion. It claims to be a christian organization but a close look reveals that it isnt close. Why? well for one they read the bible and took its words out of context and came up with thier own ideas!!! A quick example is if somebody came up to u today and said that they played a session today of poker and aces lost every time and a 27o boated 3 times. So they assert that poker is all luck. Well they have made a claim and they have their "evidence" of a session that would tend to agree with thier claim. Yet u and i both know that poker involves skill and mathematics and so you would therefore go and show him where he is mistaken in his thinking wouldnt u? Its the exact same thing. Somebody reads the bible. Sees a "contradiction" and goes to a pastor/ biblical scholar who has the knowledge to provide an answer with backing to prove it.

hi lois & mattnxtc. don't you guys ever get tired of always being right?

Hi crow im surprised it took u this long to come in. If you notice I didnt start this thread and in fact didnt come in until around the 3 or 4th page. But yes, if someone is going to make claims about the bible and what not then why wouldnt I attempt to clear up some misconceptions? I would rather these threads not go on but they do and I think you will agree that both sides deserve representation

[crowTrobot 2]

Hi crow im surprised it took u this long to come in.

i rarely even look in general anymore

[brvheart 1,752]

hi lois & mattnxtc. don't you guys ever get tired of always being right?

If you think that this statement only applies to these 2 people, you haven't been reading this board at all.

[GodOfEntropy 0]

But it appears you are dismissing the bible as being something nobody has tested and that no method was used in the formation of the bible and that is not true. You probably could even use the scientific method to test the validity of the Bible, the main difference being you would not run an experiment but instead test the bible against the ancient writings as the experiment. Other than that it woudl be the same

I am aware that there have been historical investigations of the bible, but these will not buttress the claims of Christ's resurrection, performing of exorcisms, or any other such miracle. These are strictly matters of faith until miracles become something other than miraculous.

I think a problem exists in that you think to have faith in God is to blindly follow something. And you are correct that there are many "Sunday Morning Christians" who do blindly follow. But what you forget is that the bible has always been controversial. It has been forced to stand up for itself on multiple multiple occasions. While you would not be likely to use the scientific method you would still use a basic method to study the bible. Biblical scholars do not just rely on faith but instead rely on results just as a scientist would

My points of contention with the bible, beyond the miracles and moral teachings of Leviticus, are questions of theological consistency such as theodicy and the consistency of the old and new testaments with each other. As far as the history of the bible is concerned, that does not interest me. Divine Justice or theodicy however is something that I have never seen to be established soundly in the framework of Christian theology.

[Loismustdie 0]

There is nothing immature about it. I'm also not the only one who has made this type of comment about what you're saying. Even people on the God side of the discussion say that you're misrepresenting everything.

Hi um no. I have not misrepresented anything and I have attempted to answer every question I have seen. The only person I have seen that has had a problem with anyting I have said is Lois. The facts on Lois are well known. He is not a christian, He admits he isnt a christian, and a lot of what he says does not have biblical backing. He makes assertions without using context. So if he is the one u are using to say i misrepresent then you need to rethink it.

You are picking and choosing to argue about things that you think you can prove, whether or not they even apply to the argument. How can you say that we need faith to believe that scientific theories are correct? On top of that, how can you claim that science could prove whether the bible is real or not. Don't you think someone would have done that by now?

again. i have yet to pick and choose anything I have simply givin an answer to questions that have been posed. If i have missed one or not answered one it is b/c someone else answered it or i missed it. I have not avoided any question. Again I was attempting only to show that we believe things about science not b/c we have any true knowledge of it but b/c others say that they are true. That is all I was tryin to say about faith. Everyday you rely on faith whether you want to admit it or not. We could not function if we didnt rely on faith. U are still missing the point on the science though. What i said was that you could use the scientific method in ur "bible experiment" and using those guidelines u could go about testing the bible.

Further, the bible does not stand on it's own. It has people all over the world making up excuses for it's inconsistencies. Where exactly is it standing on it's own against critisism? There are lots of critics who make a lot of good points, but there are also a lot of people on the other side making up excuses every time something comes along. Why should we trust the excuses any more than we do the original document? I have no idea. But it's far from standing on it's own.

making up excuses for the bible? no that is not correct. What is often the case is that somebody picks up a bible and starts reading. They come to a verse or 2 that seem to contradict and they scream that the bible is wrong. Dont believe me? A prime example is the mormon religion. It claims to be a christian organization but a close look reveals that it isnt close. Why? well for one they read the bible and took its words out of context and came up with thier own ideas!!! A quick example is if somebody came up to u today and said that they played a session today of poker and aces lost every time and a 27o boated 3 times. So they assert that poker is all luck. Well they have made a claim and they have their "evidence" of a session that would tend to agree with thier claim. Yet u and i both know that poker involves skill and mathematics and so you would therefore go and show him where he is mistaken in his thinking wouldnt u? Its the exact same thing. Somebody reads the bible. Sees a "contradiction" and goes to a pastor/ biblical scholar who has the knowledge to provide an answer with backing to prove it.

hi lois & mattnxtc. don't you guys ever get tired of always being right?

Hi crow im surprised it took u this long to come in. If you notice I didnt start this thread and in fact didnt come in until around the 3 or 4th page. But yes, if someone is going to make claims about the bible and what not then why wouldnt I attempt to clear up some misconceptions? I would rather these threads not go on but they do and I think you will agree that both sides deserve representation

Somebody as ananonymous went to my blog and posted that I wasn't well liked at FCP and I should go away. Truly, the funniest thing that I have read in awhile, and I don't know why. It just made me laugh. O.K., Matt likes to talk alot but never really backs anything up, and generally he is as wishy washy as you can get without being a spineless pile of Jello. Seriously, this guy actually said that as Christians we are supposed to on some level realize we could be wrong and that there is no God. What kind of Christian is that exactly? " Uh, God, I believe in you at this point but I will harbor this thought...I could change my mind. Sorry, my man, philosophy says it's gotts be this way. I know, whole hearted and all that and faith and yada yada, but I could be wrong, man. " What is that exactly? Matt, you stand for nothing. NOTHING. I am a christian, and have said that before- I just haven't been going to church because I do not beleive the life that I am leading is right right now, and I don't feel like bringing my sin around the people of God. If I died today, I would go to hell. Period. I don't like it, but it is true. It's not hard to argue the bible against somebody as simple as you, and as far as out of context? NEVER, not once, the opposite is true. The only way you could possibly believe the way you do is if you grossly, big drumroll please, TAKE EVERYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT. Seriously, though, why in the world would I actually give any religous man who can't even grasp the absolute exsistence of God himself the time of day? Truly, that would be an excercise in futility. I still can't comprehend that type of thinking. The dilution of the doctrine of christ in modern christianity is worse than I thought. You are the product that is being churned out these days? How? How has it gone this far, to where it's O.K. to claim to be a follower of christ and at the same time question the father, and by extension deny him? You are the ultimate proof that true christianity is few and far between, and by extension you prove Gods word!! Narrow is the way, and few there be that find it. Isn't that lovely?

[Loismustdie 0]

This a very bad analogy, and by that I mean you should be ashamed of it. To suggest that the faith required to believe in Biblical 'truth' is somehow related to believing in scientific theory is absolutely ludicrous.

on the rest of ur post i honestly dont have a clue what u were talkin about and what it had to do with what i said.

That pretty much sums up every post you've made.

haha...no..but thanks for the laugh...the maturity of ur posts is amazing though.

There is nothing immature about it. I'm also not the only one who has made this type of comment about what you're saying. Even people on the God side of the discussion say that you're misrepresenting everything.You are picking and choosing to argue about things that you think you can prove, whether or not they even apply to the argument. How can you say that we need faith to believe that scientific theories are correct? On top of that, how can you claim that science could prove whether the bible is real or not. Don't you think someone would have done that by now?Further, the bible does not stand on it's own. It has people all over the world making up excuses for it's inconsistencies. Where exactly is it standing on it's own against critisism? There are lots of critics who make a lot of good points, but there are also a lot of people on the other side making up excuses every time something comes along. Why should we trust the excuses any more than we do the original document? I have no idea. But it's far from standing on it's own.

Suited up, there are scientfic facts throughout the Old Testament that few people know about. There are scriptures that say all nations are of one blood , which wasn't known as fact until I beleive the first world war- there are scriptures that talk of the morning stars singing, NASA has recordings of the stars making a melody of sorts, there are scriptures taht talk about the fertile properties in snow, there are scriptures that talk about evaporation and precipitation and the fact that the earth is round, alot of things that were not known at all but somehow people then knew it- it is one of the ways that I can prove that the bible is/was inspired by God, in that there is no way these people could have proven these things, yet they wrote them. The bible does stand on it's own, and if you don't think so tell me what is wrong with it. That really is the best starting point- tell me what you have read in it that didn't make sense or didn't seem to jibe with something else you read. I guarantee you this- no one on this forum has cross referenced and searched the scriptures like I have, if there is a question I will have an answer.

[copernicus 0]

www.creationevidence.org

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/balance and all that...

Thanks for that link. Ive been looking for some concise arguments for my anti-evolution (ex) girlfriend's ex husband.I find the debating style of most religious zealots and those of extreme liberals quite similar:Repeat something enough times and it becomes the truth.Attack those who haven't seen the (their) light ad hominem.When presented with facts attempt to explain them away with incomplete/inaccurate science (history) so that those who already believe aren't led astray.These similarities are too strong to ignore, and ample evidence of common descent for me.Seriously though, the non-existence of (a) God is a pointless debate, since it can never be proven. No matter h0w complete a theory of the universe is ever developed, one can always fall back on the "and its that way because God wanted it that way" argument. Let those who need it to satisfy some portion of their lives have it, at least until the point where they attempt to take over your life, e.g. Muslim Fundamentalists.

[copernicus 0]

To put it all in another light, it is +EV to believe in God according to Pascal. Never really thought about it in that way.

This EV equation (and the Pascal's Wager line of play that led to it) is incomplete, since the investment in the "pot" isnt taken into account, nor is the utility of that investment.For some the investment is an hour or two a week on Sunday morning and before bed, and the utility of that time is so low that if they lose the pot in the end (if there is no God), then indeed it was a +EV line of play even though there is no God.If, on the other hand, their life was spent wracked with guilt over "sins" that were nothing more than artificial methods of controlling their behavior and it turns out there is no God, then that line was -EV for them.

[copernicus 0]

theories for the origin of the universe:1) it created itself(big bang)but something cannot come from nothing and if there was nothing in the beginning, there would be no volatile gases to create an explosion. Incorrect. Particles and anti-particles are created from and return to nothing in the laboratory every day.2) the universe is eternalno, it would eventually die of heat loss. I know of no theory of the origin of the universe that claims it is eternal, however the "heat loss" argument makes no sense. Just as a refrigerator with an open door cant cool a totally confined space, there is no place for a universe to "lose heat" to.3) it was created by something/someone beyond our comprehensionseems to be the most logical choice.

And there is the great leap. Because something is currently unknown or incompletely understood, inserting an "explanation" that has no support in the facts becomes "logical". No, it is not logical, it is devoid of logic. Thats why its faith.

[MrJones 0]

FEAR IS YOUR ONLY GOD!!!RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE MASSESboth these are so ****en true, god is for people who are afraid of life, and religion is brainwashing in the finest of examples.Ask yourself this question? How many wars have been over religion and how many people have killed in their gods name or been persecuted because of their beliefs. its fooken ridiculous.