poker and god?!

[suitedinc 0]

So killer and suited, how is it that you decide that scientists should be believed, but historians should not? Do you believe that George Washington existed? Do you beilive he crossed the Delaware river? It was night when he did it...who knows....all history could be a hoax.... the information I have given is historically accurate. I will be willing to quote sources if you need. Although, you could say, I want to belive that, but not that. Look, in the fields of archeaology and history, the brightest and best look at the bible as a great text for historical accuracy, whether they belive in God or not. The story, as you call it, is accurate. Killer, we know it was there because the Pilate would have it no other way. Remember, His head was on the block. Their were other people at the burial. Again, Josephus even acknowledges it. The body was buried.Suited, I do not to prove anything here. Historically, we know that Jesus was buried. Historically, we know the circumstances of the time. Unless all Historians are idiots, these things happened. It is up to you to show what could have happened to the body.

[Loismustdie 0]

hey Scanner,Actually God did provide proof of His existence inthe form of a man, Jesus Christ. I understand that your response is probably, that Jesus is not proof of anything, Jesus was just another man.  I offer this: Jesus called himself God several times. This is the reason that the Saducy wanted him executed. It was heresy, punishable by death. Unforntuanately, Rome had taken the right to determine life and death cases away from the Jewish leadership and this is why Pilate had to make the final call. The fact that Jesus called himself God, not a God but the God, is evidenced by Josephus. This is an extrabiblical source by the way, written by a Jew who did not believe that Christ was the Messiah, God incarnate. The real proof is in the pudding though, the ressurection. What happened to Christ's body?? The believers could not have taken it, as it was guarded by at least 64 Roman soldiers, ordered to kill. It wouldn't have been taken by Pilate, as evidenced by the fact that he did not produce the body in order to shut down the uprising of believers, and consequently the public upheaval of Jersaelum. It was Pilate's best interest to stop this mob like behavior after the death and ressurection because he was not in good favor with the czar of the Roman empire, and his own life was at stake because of it.  Therefore, what happened to the body??? If you can prove that the body was not ressurected, and that the whole thing was a hoax, I might denounce my belief in God.  I know that you cannot do that however. Some great minds have tried and failed and became belivers instead....

*********************************************Wow...I practically believe you were there!! :roll: For starters...how do we know for sure that the body was there to begin with??

Actually, Jesus did the opposite, he never reffered to himself as God. The proof of god is alot easier than that.

[oceansize 0]

God's a gambler man. Two proofs to that: man's free will. The second being the Platypus. He really shook the dice on that one...Damn.

[killer 0]

So killer, how is it that you decide that scientists should be believed, but historians should not?Killer, we know it was there because the Pilate would have it no other way. Remember, His head was on the block. Their were other people at the burial. Again, Josephus even acknowledges it. The body was buried.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++First of all...I never said scientists were worth squat!!...but to me religion isn't either...why does it have to be an either/or??Secondly...thats still hearsay from Josephus, and how do you know what Pilate was thinking??

[suitedinc 0]

I am not talking about religion either. I am talking about accepted history.Josephus was not committing herasy. He was paid to write history by the lording Roman rulers at the time. He was dictating what the people were saying and beiliving, not what he himself thought. Besides, you can tell from his writing that he did not believe in Christ as the Messiah. He was a devout Jew. We can make pretty good judgements about what Pilate was thinking based on the times and his relationship witht he czar.How do you know when to make a good lay down?? It is really quite similiar.

[InertGrudge 0]

So killer and suited, how is it that you decide that scientists should be believed, but historians should not? Do you believe that George Washington existed? Do you beilive he crossed the Delaware river? It was night when he did it...who knows....all history could be a hoax.... the information I have given is historically accurate. I will be willing to quote sources if you need. Although, you could say, I want to belive that, but not that.  Look, in the fields of archeaology and history, the brightest and best look at the bible as a great text for historical accuracy, whether they belive in God or not. The story, as you call it, is accurate.  Killer, we know it was there because the Pilate would have it no other way. Remember, His head was on the block. Their were other people at the burial. Again, Josephus even acknowledges it. The body was buried.Suited, I do not to prove anything here. Historically, we know that Jesus was buried. Historically, we know the circumstances of the time. Unless all Historians are idiots, these things happened. It is up to you to show what could have happened to the body.

I've never contended -- nor do I think anyone else has -- that Jesus did not exist. I believe there is enough historical evidence to prove that much. However, what I disagree with is that he was the son of God, since I don't believe in God. At the time of Jesus, there was a pretty popular trend in saying you were the Messiah...people just so happened to believe Jesus. Thus, I'm putting Jesus on the same historical step as George Washington. They both existed. It is literally impossible, however, to support the claim that Jesus was the son of God. You either believe it or don't. I do not.As far as your claim about Jesus' body goes, I'm going to have to throw out a couple of logical arguments. I don't know the entire story about the Resurrection, so please don't get too angry if I get some information incorrect. First, the only people who claim Jesus was resurrected are either his Disciples or those closest to him (such as Mary Magdalene). There is little to no outside verification of this. Secondly (and you know what, lastly), I'm going to throw something out there. The Prophecy of the Son of God spoke of three steps: immaculate conception, death, and resurrection. Now, it would be impossible for Jesus' followers to claim he was the Messiah if there was no resurrection. Therefore, one or more of his followers could have taken the body from his tomb, or could have simply lied about not seeing his body. Or, other logical arguments could be made for why the body wasn't there.I'm just saying...

[speedz99 145]

No, I don't trust historians from that time period.

[Tritz 0]

I never want to play poker against God because I feel like he'd know my hole cards.

Tritz apparently knows your hole cards too. Don't ask me how.

[speedz99 145]

I never want to play poker against God because I feel like he'd know my hole cards.

Tritz apparently knows your hole cards too. Don't ask me how.

TRITZ!Long time no see. How goes the airplane business?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

For the sake of balance, let's be clear about Josephus:1) He was born in 37 CE, which is after the death of Christ and all the events surrounding it (the resurrection, etc). All that he could have ever written on the subject, therefore, would have to come from word of mouth. He is at best a secondary source.2) The validity of his passages discussing Christ is highly controversial to say the least. I don't know enough on the subject to properly argue one way or another, but it is true that his statements on Christ have been determined by some to be forgeries.We have already had some nice discussion on the validity or not of historical sources of Christ:http://fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forums/v...r=asc&start=320Discuss

[checkymcfold 0]

i wasn't going to get into this, but, well, i'm getting into it.first, i have BAs in physics and philosophy, and an MA in religious studies. i may have written your college differential equations textbook, and i teach a class on science and religion. i am a nietzschean in my personal philosophy, but that makes me more of an agnostic than an atheist.second, what a lot of people seem to have messed up:1. 2+2=4 is NOT an analytic (to be contrasted with synthetic, used in the kantian sense below) statement. if you know anything about math, 2+2=4 is a synthetic statement, in math and in "real life" (that is, it adds something to the idea of 2, as a number in general or a number of apples in front of me, to say 2+2=4). math starts with a few axioms (principles of symmetry, identity theorems, etc.) that COMBINE and SYNTHESIZE to conclude that 2+2=4, etc. math starts with statements like 1=1 and 1+0=1, not those like 2+2=4. if you don't get this, go back and reread your introduction to math theory that was probably in your algebra II textbook. math is logical--it's not self-evident.2. math doesn't make any claims about reality. math makes models that science uses to tell stories about reality that are slowly replaced by more applicable ones, like, say, the replacement of newton's understanding of gravity by general relativity, etc. and science doesn't say "this is the way things are," but rather "this model works with the way we experience the universe," etc. and as such, is not concerned with truth claims in a primary sense. indeed, using popper's characterization of scientific knowledge as falsifiable in nature (this is generally accepted in the contemporary scientific community), science would necessarily be precluded from making such absolute claims, non?3. similarly, it is unnecessary to equate religion with a claim to absolute (objective, whatever) truth. we did that crap in the 1600s. we're smarter now, as scientists and religious believers alike. fundamentalisms of the atheist, scientific, or religious varieties are all equally garbage. we'd do well to give out healthy doses of agnosticism with the normal round of vaccinations we give to kids these days.4. science has given the world great gifts. it has also given the world atomic bombs. religion has given many people solace and leads to wonderful charitable contributions. it has also given us the thirty years war. there is nothing inherent to either science or religion that makes them either unhealthy or undesirable.5. science and religion need not be thought antithetical, as the rhetoric of many in this thread seems to imply. this shouldn't require further explanation.6 (not so much a correction, but more of a plea). it's my firm belief that the world would be better off today if we taught introductory comparative religion to children from a very young age. educated pluralism is a good thing, kids.

[speedz99 145]

wow, great post.But if you really did write my diff eq book...go to hell (if there is one). :wink:

[checkymcfold 0]

wow, great post.But if you really did write my diff eq book...go to hell (if there is one). :wink:

ha, to be more precise, i wrote all of the solutions manuals, and only some of the textbook itself. so really, i was helping you out, right? :-)

[speedz99 145]

wow, great post.But if you really did write my diff eq book...go to hell (if there is one). :wink:

ha, to be more precise, i wrote all of the solutions manuals, and only some of the textbook itself. so really, i was helping you out, right? :-)

In that case, thank you.

6 (not so much a correction, but more of a plea). it's my firm belief that the world would be better off today if we taught introductory comparative religion to children from a very young age. educated pluralism is a good thing, kids.

Do you have an opinion on raising children in a household with dual religions?

[Actuary 3]

I'm a Christian.just saying.

[turd ferguson 1]

Nice hand, checkymcfold. You're one of my new favorite posters. I'm also curious about Matt's question on raising a child in a home of two religions. I'm an atheist, but my girlfriend is Christian. Would we completely fuck up a child?

[speedz99 145]

Nice hand, checkymcfold. You're one of my new favorite posters. I'm also curious about Matt's question on raising a child in a home of two religions. I'm an atheist, but my girlfriend is Christian. Would we completely fuck up a child?

Yes, but not necessarily for that reason.Checky? Still here? Oh, and try this one out for size. My girlfriend is Catholic and I'm Jewish...but I'm really an atheist...but my family doesn't know that.Caleb's situation is similar...and his father is a pastor, no less. You can't make shit like that up. Well, you could, but I don't know why you would.

[checkymcfold 0]

ha, as if i'm an authority now!as for whether you'd "fuck up" a child in a household of two religions, jeez(us), i don't know. probably not. kids are amazingly flexible with respect to the way they think. i wouldn't imagine it would put any more strain on a kid to be born in a household with two religions than it would for a kid to be brought up bilingual.as for my "opinion," sure, by all means, do it! kids are better than grownups, so it's a good choice on that account. and it _probably_ won't kill the kid, and if that whole "that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger" thing holds, then sweet. if it doesn't, well...

[checkymcfold 0]

also, for everyone:there's an excellent book out there by diana eck (founder of the pluralism project in the states--i've heard her speak numerous times, and she's awesome) called a new religious america that gives a great account of how theo-philosophical pluralism actually works in practice. it sounds a bit hippie-ish, but i promise, eck's a smart lady, despite her shortcomings in writing skill.

[turd ferguson 1]

Thanks a lot. You might not be an expert on the subject, but any information I can glean from those that are older and wiser I'll take. I appreciate it.

[Steppin Razor 0]

math makes models that science uses to tell stories about reality that are slowly replaced by more applicable ones, like, say, the replacement of newton's understanding of gravity by general relativity, etc. and science doesn't say "this is the way things are," but rather "this model works with the way we experience the universe," etc.

That's what I've been trying to write, only much more poorly. Thanks

Do you have an opinion on raising children in a household with dual religions?

I'm not the one you asked, but I am/was a child of a dual religion household (Hindu and Christian).I read a little about Native American religion, and came across an idea I thought was pretty profound. When settlers taught the Native Americans about Christianity, they accepted it as truth. At the same time, they taught their beliefs to the settlers as truth. For the Native American, there was no reason both couldn't be 'true'. It's pretty amazing how much further advanced their thinking was than even most people's today.I recommend you do a very boring thing. PBS has a several hour long 'conversation' between Bill Moyer and Joseph Campbell that they trot out every once in a while (usually when they hit you up for money). Watch that. Alternatively, if you can't stomach watching two old guys sit and talk for a long time, there is a book of excerpts and you can buy that.Joseph Campbell rocks.

[jamthepot 0]

1) it created itself(big bang)but something cannot come from nothing and if there was nothing in the beginning' date=' there would be no volatile gases to create an explosion.2) the universe is eternalno, it would eventually die of heat loss.[/quote']What a great understanding of Big Bang theory and Cosmology. There were no volatile gases at the big bang, true, but that's because the concept of gas, or molecules really for that matter, didn't really exist until long after the big bang (long, of course being a relative term).Also, as to number two, the universe dying of heat loss is one of the possible outcomes of the universe as proposed by Friedmann. It's called the Big Chill (not to be confused with the film). It depends on the shape of space-time that exists in our universe which is related to the average density of our universe.

that response really showed how something can come from nothing or how the universe can be eternal.

[checkymcfold 0]

Thanks a lot. You might not be an expert on the subject, but any information I can glean from those that are older and wiser I'll take. I appreciate it.

ha, i'm 24! and short!

[clowneyas 0]

go to hell (if there is one).

Heh, that's my new "signature".

Just make us like manicans, with solid plastic bodies, and give us life. Anyway, the complexity of our body is so crazy that it makes sense to assume it derived from chaos. So lifeforce evolved to adapt to the surroundings and environment found here on Earth. That's what I believe.

That's truly one of the best anti-"God" explanations I've ever heard. We appear to be made of chaos, so we're likely made from chaos!

The real proof is in the pudding though, the ressurection. What happened to Christ's body?? The believers could not have taken it, as it was guarded by at least 64 Roman soldiers, ordered to kill. Therefore, what happened to the body??? If you can prove that the body was not ressurected, and that the whole thing was a hoax, I might denounce my belief in God. I know that you cannot do that however. Some great minds have tried and failed and became belivers instead....

I read a book recently, which was a "God"-loving book, and it said jesus' body was left alone for 3 days, not guarded by 1/2 an army. I"m curious where it says this in religious literature. The easiest explanation I've thought of is actually from those who killed him, sure let's have them think he was resurrected, and they'll just go about their "God"-lovin' business the rest of their days.

Suited, I do not to prove anything here. Historically, we know that Jesus was buried. Historically, we know the circumstances of the time. Unless all Historians are idiots, these things happened. It is up to you to show what could have happened to the body.

At the time of Jesus, there was a pretty popular trend in saying you were the Messiah...people just so happened to believe Jesus. Thus, I'm putting Jesus on the same historical step as George Washington. They both existed. It is literally impossible, however, to support the claim that Jesus was the son of God. You either believe it or don't. I do not..

Exactly my point as well. How in the "HELL" can you say "unless you can prove otherwise, then these things all happened". Please prove to me that Moses encountered a "burning bush", please prove to me that "God" opened up the heavens to talk to Jesus Christ, and one or two of "His" disciples.What's that? You can't prove it? Oh, well then, I guess you're wrong, aren't you! I only say you're wrong because that's the impression I get from your "God" stance, since, naturally, the rulers of Jesus day always must've told the truth, just like the N.Y. Times of today, since, when they say we're "defending freedom" in Iraq by slaughtering over 100,000 innocent Iraqis in order to control their oil, by "God", we must be over there to "defend freedom". Yessiree, bob, it was said by our "rulers", our "Gods", so it has to be true, no matter if there's thousands of contrary reasons to figure out it's a lie. Anyone wanna have "God" vs. "Atheists" tourney tomorrow night, around 7 PM? Is it possible to set up a two-table, $10 tourney at FCP, I've never set up a table so I don't know.So, to forever solve this dilemma, when I win, "God" doesn't exist, and if any of you "God" folks win, due to "Divine" intervention, then "God" does exist!I'm joking, but at the same time it'd be fun to do a little tourney! Any takers?

[turd ferguson 1]

Thanks a lot. You might not be an expert on the subject, but any information I can glean from those that are older and wiser I'll take. I appreciate it.

ha, i'm 24! and short!

I'm 21, and tall. How long have you been teaching, and at what level?