I Was Wrong ! Are You Happy Now ?

Well, Ladies and Gentleman, after the last week or so of postings in this forum I
can honestly say that we're all getting to know each other a little better. Based on this
observation, and combined with my own feelings, I think each of you has at least one
member here that nettles you the most . Whether it's their illogical responses, mind
numbing stubborness, or scathing sarcasm each of us has someone in mind that we
would love to hear say, " I was wrong, are you happy now ? "

So here's the twist.......

What would it take to make you change your current stance ?

Answers like, " nothing could, my faith is eternal " or " how could I ever believe in a
fantasy ? " are unacceptable . Tell the truth and shame the devil , right Rev . ?
Be honest. Would you renounce your faith if the Pope did ? Would you get baptised
if a priest saved the love of your life with rays of healing light from his hands as Angels looked on ? I'm expecting answers of true fantasy. Let us each unlatch ourselves
from what we believe just long enough to not turn this into a debate . Don't challenge
the unreality of each others scenarios ; enjoy the insight you may glean . Above all ,
please have fun in this thread.
As always , I go first .........

The example I gave about the healing at the hands of the priest with tangible evidence
would do it for me . Actually seeing physical icons and experiencing the true power of
the Christian God first hand would give me no room to argue , would it ?

Your turn.

I would believe anything for about $200,000.00 USD.

itm - you're a cheap whore...

what would it take for me? Pretty simple, really. A few simple questions answered, and a few miracles for my gear, and we're good to go.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kimpossible
itm - you're a cheap whore...

---

And I will beat any advertised price by at least 10%. :ohyahbaby:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kimpossible


what would it take for me? Pretty simple, really. A few simple questions answered, and a few miracles for my gear, and we're good to go.

---

Bingo.....just a few miracles, and some answers.

Miracle? Well, what greater miracle do you need than the creation of life?

:P

This thread kind of makes me want to vomit. You should already "stand" for learning. If you don't, there's something dreadfully wrong with you. And I don't mean that lightly. There's something dreadfully wrong with lots of people for exactly this reason.

But you want an answer? Okay. If Jesus has risen bodily from the dead, and is God made human and all that jazz, then for God's sake, let's have some human interaction. I'd have to play cards with Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
I'd have to play cards with Jesus.

---

Some people have... www.chrisferguson.com

I wouldn't necessarily need to meet God in person to believe in him. If I could get a totally logical response to my question, a response that hits the nail on the head and makes total sense, my mind could be changed. It is that type of logic that got me out of Christianity. Logic that tops that logic could get me back into it, in theory. That, plus Jesus would need to get his dick out of his mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine


You should already \"stand\" for learning. If you don't, there's something dreadfully wrong with you. And I don't mean that lightly. There's something dreadfully wrong with lots of people for exactly this reason.

---

I couldn't agree more. A day you don't advance yourself in one way or another is a wasted day. :goodjob2:

Hmmm.....I don't know...

I'd definitely need a whole whack of miracles. Actually, if I could be God for a day I'd probly believe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Miracle? Well, what greater miracle do you need than the creation of life?

---

"

-- Bill Hicks

Fathom this: straight answers based on logical reasons written in coherent English.

But I guess that's asking too much.

lol @ fathom this

http://www.onwardoverland.com/matrix/trin.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InTheMoment
Some people have... www.chrisferguson.com

---

Oh, damn, you're right. Well it looks like there's hope. ;)

That quote was pretty cool, Ynot.

Hmmm.. well. If jesus was to come down from heaven and I was to shoot him in the head and watch him resurrect that might be convincing. Or maybe a nice "This is god, religion X is true" written in stars.

No wait... shooting jesus in the head sounds like more fun.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ynot
lol @ fathom this

http://www.onwardoverland.com/matrix/trin.jpg

---

Ahahaha, that's good.


EDIT
Decided to make this into my sig.

I would not believe in God in front of a miracle. On the contrary, a miracle would lead me towards skepticism (some well organized trick?). In fact, for me it holds the sentence "Vere tu es Deus absconditus" (Truly, you are a hidden God). A God who would reveal himself would not be a God. It would be like asking our partner a final love proof.
I guess that faith is a free choice "powered" by grace. Thus I would believe stronger if, after a free quest, an ilumination would reveal to me the truth as a reward.

On the other side, I would have harder time in believing more strongly than now in the purely rationalistic stance, since no scientific experiment can provide the final proof that science is the truth or a method to get the truth.

eXistenZ

Yes, I suppose my beliefs could be changed. It'd have to be more than just an angel popping up and saying, "Hey you, God is real!" though. It'd have to be more like what Ex and Brady said--actually meet God and get to know him (None of that groveling and worship, actually get to know him) and prefferably get to experience what it would be like to be a God.

But that doesn't mean that my ways could be changed--I could be brought to believe in God, or to believe in some generic higher power, but I couldn't be convinced to change my ways. Mostly because, given a choice between Heaven and Hell, I'd choose Hell. Yeah, so there's torture and fire and brimstone and all that. But the company would be infinitely better. Not the murderers and rapists, mind you, but the intellectuals. All the people who said, "Hey, why the hell should I believe in a God? You've given me no convincing reason." They're the people I want to spend eternity with. Not the folk who say, "Hey, I was born Christian and nothin' you say is going to change that." Those people are the very seeds of ignorance--without religion, society could have progressed MUCH further by now. It's always been religion that's persecuted the true great minds of the time. It's because of this that I'll always be the way I am. Knowing that a god exists wouldn't persuade me to worship said god.

Scientific Evidence. I don't even need to first-hand experience it. If you give me legitimate evidence of god (i.e., not "how can these amazing things create by themselves!, etc.), I will totally believe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric Estrada
Scientific Evidence. I don't even need to first-hand experience it. If you give me legitimate evidence of god (i.e., not \"how can these amazing things create by themselves!, etc.), I will totally believe.

---

But if one would provide a rational and logical evidence of God's existence, God would be just a mathematical theorem, nothing more.

eXistenZ

Right. And gravity is just a mathematical theorem as well.

Totally, Tsen.

eXistenZ, how about empirical evidence then?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine

eXistenZ, how about empirical evidence then?

---

[b]

Empirical evidence is for empirical facts.
If one tries to understand a poem by using syntax rules, he doesn't get much sense. Some other set of rules, like aesthetics, would better fit the object of analysis.

If a researcher doesn't get an answer about the existence of something, usually this is not because of existence/unexistence of the object, but because he doesn't ask the right question. If we don't have a fine scientific experiment to finally prove the existence of God, this doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist. The experiment might be flawed and I would work more on the instrument than on the studied object. The same applies for logical reasoning.

eXistenZ

I'm not sure I understand, eXistenZ. Wouldn't God, if he exists, be an empirical fact?

I can think of a hundred empirical experiments that falsify the existence of God. It's easy because we are talking about something that can exist everywhere and therefore should be able to be observed everywhere. It doesn't matter where or at what time the observation is made. It's not like disproving the existence of fairies, which may be very small and only exist in some far corner of the universe in another dimension, etc.

Most importatntly, it's even easier given God's benevolent and powerful nature. He should be eager to help with the observation, not run away from it.

But God's believers cleverly redefine God into a slippery concept and a mysterious one at that. And they are not to be taken seriously, for they exist in a state of trouble. Nothing can be so dangerous for a person - to rely on something through means of subterfuge against your own self.

But God does help with the experiment. Since our tests do not show God's existence, that means God purposefully escaped our detection and therefore does not exist. This keeps in line with his omnipotence (only God could make himself not exist) and his omnibenevolence (life is generally a whole lot more fun without God, especially with the help of science and lucid dreaming).

I am for one thankful to God that there is no God. This is not contradictory because "thankful to God," is a colloquialism and means not being thankful, because God does not exist. And I truly am not thankful that God does not exist.

Thanks is better spent on things that exist.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine

I am for one thankful to God that there is no God. This is not contradictory because \"thankful to God,\" is a colloquialism and means not being thankful, because God does not exist. And I truly am not thankful that God does not exist.

Because it's a waste of thanks to put it on nonexistent things. It's better to put it on existent things. And every religious person is trying find the strength to be thankful for their existence and things existing. And that's why they're all going to be atheists.

---

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...lscansmall.gif
But in a good way. ;)~

Hah! ITM, I edited out that last part because I thought I was going over the top.

But it's great that you quoted it in time. Good show. ;)

quote=Ex Nine

Quote:

---

I'm not sure I understand, eXistenZ. Wouldn't God, if he exists, be an empirical fact?[/b]

---

Nice observation Ex Nine. I was arguing that even though you could falsify the existence of God, you cannot discard his essence. I'm not running away with a new definition of God, I'm restating what I claimed before. God might be something beyond our current methods of proving/disproving things. We cannot talk about truth and untruth, but method to verify or falsify truth and untruth. Science is the current light torch used by us human beings to rationally discover things. The span of this light is limited, as everything that is human.

I believe in science, but I would not ask science to prove something that is beyond the aim for which it was born.
And we should remember that the current state of science is likely not the final one. Quantum physics, for instance, seems to falsify many previous common scientific \"beliefs\". If science is \"eating\" its own fundamentals, I wouldn't put such a weight on its shoulders like an \"experimentum crucis\" about God.

We should certainly do research about God also through science, but this will not give us the final answer, at least not today.

Quote:

---

I can think of a hundred empirical experiments that falsify the existence of God. It's easy because we are talking about something that can exist everywhere and therefore should be able to be observed everywhere. It doesn't matter where or at what time the observation is made. It's not like disproving the existence of fairies, which may be very small and only exist in some far corner of the universe in another dimension, etc.[/b]

---

I wouldn't be so sure. One should first establish what is the \"substance\" whose omnipresence he's trying to test. Then he can test the omnipresence feature of this substance. I would have hard time in the first stage, that is the fundamental one.

Quote:

---

Most importatntly, it's even easier given God's benevolent and powerful nature. He should be eager to help with the observation, not run away from it. [/b]

---

This is a judgement about what God should do or not do. We couldn't conduct valid experiments based on wishful thinking.
The argument that God should be eager to show himself can be used as a reinforcer of a hypothesis, not as a hypothesis by itself. You correctly wrote \"it's even easier\", that is a qualifier statement, so I'm not saying that you meant that claim as a hypothesis.

Quote:

---

But God's believers cleverly redefine God into a slippery concept and a mysterious one at that. And they are not to be taken seriously, for they exist in a state of trouble. Nothing can be so dangerous for a person - to rely on something through means of subterfuge against your own self.

---

[b] I agree with you here (although conditionally): sometimes those who try to keep "their" God away from science just keep redefining him. You prove something and they say "Ok, but God is something else". Not a real scientific debate... But one can notice that, on the contrary, religions and believers who do not fear verification are eager to leave science free to do its research. They wish that science could give a final sentence on that. So I wouldn't put all the believers and religions in the same category of adversaries of science.
I observe that the equation religion=no-science or even religion=anti-science is growing, notably in the US. I think that they can go together.

eXistenZ

back to the original question, I'd probably have to give in my existentialist, free will styled views if I lived a hundred years ago. There would be no room for arguing with scientific determinism - I'd have to grudgingly accept that I was a bunch of random events hapening that I 'perceived' as my life.

This is all positivist stuff - what does it matter if it's right or wrong, so long as it correctly models what it set out to?

So, if the whole Heisenberg uncertainty principle is claimed bogus, then I'm a just a product of random events with some genes thrown around a skeleton.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by R.Carter
Well, Ladies and Gentleman, after the last week or so of postings in this forum I
can honestly say that we're all getting to know each other a little better. Based on this
observation, and combined with my own feelings, I think each of you has at least one
member here that nettles you the most . Whether it's their illogical responses, mind
numbing stubborness, or scathing sarcasm each of us has someone in mind that we
would love to hear say, \" I was wrong, are you happy now ? \"

So here's the twist.......

What would it take to make you change your current stance ?

Answers like, \" nothing could, my faith is eternal \" or \" how could I ever believe in a
fantasy ? \" are unacceptable . Tell the truth and shame the devil , right Rev . ?
Be honest. Would you renounce your faith if the Pope did ? Would you get baptised
if a priest saved the love of your life with rays of healing light from his hands as Angels looked on ? I'm expecting answers of true fantasy. Let us each unlatch ourselves
from what we believe just long enough to not turn this into a debate . Don't challenge
the unreality of each others scenarios ; enjoy the insight you may glean . Above all ,
please have fun in this thread.
As always , I go first .........

The example I gave about the healing at the hands of the priest with tangible evidence
would do it for me . Actually seeing physical icons and experiencing the true power of
the Christian God first hand would give me no room to argue , would it ?

Your turn.

---

I must stand to my feet and applaud you, and say this is one of the most sincere post I have seen in DV. :bravo:

And with that said I must say that my action, or reactions has very little to do with anyone else’s action be they good, and right or evil, and wrong. I have found for myself that if my actions are not based on my own convictions then I am as a slave to another’s desires, and not His.

The Rev..

Well, that's fine, but I don't want to be slave to ANYBODY'S desires, whether those desires are from a mortal or a God.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsen
Well, that's fine, but I don't want to be slave to ANYBODY'S desires, whether those desires are from a mortal or a God.

---

Rom 9:20 nay, but, O man, who art thou that art answering again to God? shall the thing formed say to Him who did form it , Why me didst thou make thus?

Hey Awaken, are you gonna respond to the topic, or just spew obscure bible passages?

Here's a question to you, Rev: Why the hell would God give man free agency unless he intended for us to USE it? Why would he just say, "Well, I gave you the ability to choose, but if you ever use that ability, you're gunna be DAMNED TO HELL!!!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsen
Here's a question to you, Rev: Why the hell would God give man free agency unless he intended for us to USE it? Why would he just say, \"Well, I gave you the ability to choose, but if you ever use that ability, you're gunna be DAMNED TO HELL!!!\"

---

Can you 'please' show me where it is written that man is a free agent?

It's probably in the Bible somewhere, but I don't bother studying it, so I wouldn't know. Either way, I don't need it to show you why it must be so (according to Christianity, anyway):

1: According to Christianity, of which you are an advocate, there is a Heaven and also a Hell.
2: Depending on our actions here on earth, we are sent to one or the other for the rest of eternity.
3: Also according to Christianity, God is all-loving. Not all-forgiving, but that's another argument entirely. Either way, he wouldn't condemn a man without reason.
4: IF we didn't have free agency, we'd have a preset destiny. That includes Heaven and Hell.

Therefore; either we have free agency and God is rightfully judging us on what we do with it, or God is sitting up on a high horse like a gigantic asshole, condemning some people to live through destinies that will inevitably lead them to Hell for all eternity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsen
It's probably in the Bible somewhere, but I don't bother studying it, so I wouldn't know. Either way, I don't need it to show you why it must be so (according to Christianity, anyway):

1: According to Christianity, of which you are an advocate, there is a Heaven and also a Hell.
2: Depending on our actions here on earth, we are sent to one or the other for the rest of eternity.
3: Also according to Christianity, God is all-loving. Not all-forgiving, but that's another argument entirely. Either way, he wouldn't condemn a man without reason.
4: IF we didn't have free agency, we'd have a preset destiny. That includes Heaven and Hell.

Therefore; either we have free agency and God is rightfully judging us on what we do with it, or God is sitting up on a high horse like a gigantic asshole, condemning some people to live through destinies that will inevitably lead them to Hell for all eternity.

---

This is only an assumption, not proof. God plainly tells us that He will have mercy on whom He will, and whom He wills He hardens. Pharaoh rings a bell? See what God said as to why He rose Pharaoh up, and who hardened his heart, and why?

Also, God tells us that man is judged by his own words, or he is freed by his words.

So, what you say is what you get!

The Rev.

Look, according to EVERYTHING Christianity says, we MUST have free agency.

Like I said, maybe God is sitting up on a high horse.
If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then is not God himself responsible for the Pharaoh's actions and not the Pharaoh himself? And further, if the Pharaoh was sent to hell for it all, isn't he suffering for GOD'S action and not his own?

Like I said, if this is true, God is one BIG asshole. "Hey all you down on earth! I got news for you! Not only am I going to make you do whatever I want you to, like some giant puppet show, I'm going to sentence you to an eternity of pain afterwards!" Furthermore, this would absolutely KILL the idea of God being loving. "Yeah, I love you, but that won't stop me from making you do whatever I feel like, then lighting you up like some roman candle for the next few billion years."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsen
Look, according to EVERYTHING Christianity says, we MUST have free agency.

Like I said, maybe God is sitting up on a high horse.
If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then is not God himself responsible for the Pharaoh's actions and not the Pharaoh himself? And further, if the Pharaoh was sent to hell for it all, isn't he suffering for GOD'S action and not his own?

Like I said, if this is true, God is one BIG asshole. \"Hey all you down on earth! I got news for you! Not only am I going to make you do whatever I want you to, like some giant puppet show, I'm going to sentence you to an eternity of pain afterwards!\" Furthermore, this would absolutely KILL the idea of God being loving. \"Yeah, I love you, but that won't stop me from making you do whatever I feel like, then lighting you up like some roman candle for the next few billion years.\"

---

All of this is an assumption on what you think 'Christian's believe, but it is not based on scripture. You must remember that Pharaoh gained from his experience with God, 'That God is the one true God. And if you where to actually read the word you would see that Hell is already empty. Jesus has the keys. For He led captivity captive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rev
Pharaoh rings a bell? See what God said as to why He rose Pharaoh up, and who hardened his heart, and why?

---

That's a good question. All through Exodus it is stated numerous times that god hardened Pharaoh's heart, however 1 Samuel 6:6 seems to say othewise...

6:6 Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?

*emphasis mine

This appears to be one of many contradictions in the Bible.

Nah ignore that part ITM, if you take Awaken's interpretation of his god hardening Pharaoh's heart it's a lot funnier. What was the result of this heart hardening? Yahweh assassinated an entire generation of male children. Because he made Pharaoh not obey his order. Classy.

Of course there's no historical evidence for something of that magnitude ever happening, but its in the bible so it must have!

-spoon

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spoon
Nah ignore that part ITM, if you take Awaken's interpretation of his god hardening Pharaoh's heart it's a lot funnier. What was the result of this heart hardening? Yahweh assassinated an entire generation of male children. Because he made Pharaoh not obey his order. Classy.

Of course there's no historical evidence for something of that magnitude ever happening, but its in the bible so it must have!

---

Pharaoh continued within his own mind as god, until he knew that he was not god. He acted under the belief that he truly was god, (which was common in his time) until God made Himself known through the one who regarded himself as god. Pharaoh here is a type of the anti-Christ.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Awaken4e1+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Awaken4e1)</div>

Quote:

---

Pharaoh continued within his own mind as god, until he knew that he was not god. He acted under the belief that he truly was god, (which was common in his time) until God made Himself known through the one who regarded himself as god. Pharaoh here is a type of the anti-Christ.[/b]

---

That still doesn't address my stated discrepancy.

<!--QuoteBegin-Roller
Yahweh assassinated an entire generation of male children. Because he made Pharaoh not obey his order. Classy.

---

Don't forget about all the poor and innocent cattle. :dancingcow: :sniper: <--God aka the Bovinator

Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

It only takes one person to screw up a thread, but tons more jump on the bandwagon. As soon as one person writes, "I'm unwilling to be wrong," then he is immediately attacked.

But I'm wrong about what I just wrote! This is academic discourse, it's a joyous place where we can freely exchange our ideas. Are you happy now?

I thought you were making a good point, but then you made a 180 degree turn, and I suddenly realized that I was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by s00p
It only takes one person to screw up a thread, but tons more jump on the bandwagon.

---

But it only takes one more to bring it back.




Thread..... RESURRECTED!!!!!!!

Well, I've always felt if I weren't christian I would be Buhdist...
except that both christians and buhdist say "love one another" "do unto others..."

that's not me. i hate stupidty, and as thats most everyone, i don't like peolpe.

I think death would change my mind. screw all your miracles and crap.

If I die and see pearly gates, then i'll know, not believe, know the christians were right.

if i die and come back as a gnu, then i'll know the buhdist are right.

if i die and don't see any thing, don't think, and i'm not self aware... then the atheist would be right, but i wouldn't know it.