Forums: Community: Campground:
Climbers for Christ?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Campground

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13 Next page Last page  View All


refugee


Jan 26, 2005, 10:13 AM
Post #151 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 23, 2004
Posts: 91

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
you ought to remember that the bible was written by man: if man is foolish, then how are you to take anything in the bible seriously

So was this site, so were all the scientific documents ever written and so was your birth certificate. If you're going to claim that anything written by man is automatically invalid and useless then you're going to have nothing left.


exactly my point--the bible is flawed as is everything else. But, the difference is scientific theories are baseed in a collection of logical dat; people make observations on the world they see, record them, and put together an understanding of the world. They are founded in evidence. The bble is founded in the self-serving beliefs of a few guys 2000 years ago who were trying to gain political power in their society. Not evidence, nor logic, nor anything except selfish beliefs that are holding back modern society.


Partner tradman


Jan 26, 2005, 10:18 AM
Post #152 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
No matter how miniscule the chance of the development of humans, it did happen. The fact that we are here debating this means that this miniscule chance did, in fact, occur.

Wrong again. You're proving the wrong thing: you've got to prove that the miniscule chance exists, not that we exist.


dynosore


Jan 26, 2005, 10:18 AM
Post #153 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Think what you want but for me jesus, mohamed, budda and all the rest are one in the same. A knowing god would present his persona to people in a way that works for their culture.

??? Regardless of your beliefs, or lack of, these three historical figures had vastly different philosophies. They are anything but "one and the same".
No one is going to convince anyone of anything on this thread except maybe reinforce negative stereotypes. If you, like me, believe Jesus is the Son of God, and he lives in you, you will bear fruit. If you don't it's time for some self examination perhaps (I'm as guilty as anyone). :deadhorse:


Partner tradman


Jan 26, 2005, 10:21 AM
Post #154 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
scientific theories are baseed in a collection of logical dat; people make observations on the world they see, record them, and put together an understanding of the world. They are founded in evidence.

So's belief in the bible in that case. There's loads of evidence, first-hand accounts, historical records and documents, to document the existence of Jesus, the fulfillment of prophecies, and lots of other aspects of christianity.

It's based in logic too. In fact it's illogical not to believe in God.


calvinclimber


Jan 26, 2005, 11:03 AM
Post #155 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 31

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Greetings,

The intensity of this forum is awesome. It shows the need we all have for answering: "Where did I come from?" and "Why am I here?"

Solid Rock - Climbers for Christ exists to offer the Good News of Jesus Christ (http://www.srcfc.org/resources/your.asp) to climbers. Accept it; Reject it; Ignore it; Be Offended by it....The choice is yours.

Calvin Landrus
SRCFC National Director

I'm always open to personal dialogues about issues of faith. Contact me at calvinclimber@Yahoo.com if you ever want to get together in Bend, OR.


funk29


Jan 26, 2005, 11:10 AM
Post #156 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 5, 2000
Posts: 65

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Christ is the Messiah.

In the science of modernity, the child is always eating its mother.

Refrom

Jehovah Jireh,

mBarley


healyje


Jan 26, 2005, 11:24 AM
Post #157 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

The difference between science-derived data and the mish-mash of hearsay, third party accounts, and outright fiction in the bible is that legitimate science-derived data are the result of peer-reviewed, reproducable experiments, not simply someone's imagination.

On what basis does anyone believe anything said bible is true, let alone happened verbatim? What makes it any different than any other work of fiction passed off as the truth? Where is there any evidence that proves the bible is any more reliable or believable than the koran or any other religious text of the ages? There simply isn't any...

In general the goofiest aspect of religion and gods is the fact that even their adherants can't agree on a particular vision of god - again, the Hood River phone book has about 70 or so listings for churches of various fractured denominations. Strange that all those endlessly splintered christian denominations all profess legitimacy from the bible and that their interpretation of the bible is the only "correct" one.

Not really much different than taxes, really. The government could define the tax code in a sentence like "All legal entities shall pay 10% of all income in taxes". Then everyone would interpret the tax code the same way. Likewise god could have eliminated confusion over his laws and belief system - could have not left it up to a slew of [goofy] interpretations of "the way" (all million of them). Is deciding who god is part of the "choice" we are given? Why would god deliberately create, encourage, and sustain such confusion in man? Why are there literally thousands of formal interpretations of the literal meaning of the bible word for word - each professing to be the only valid interpretation?

And for you who posted here who attempt to disassociate from and disclaim historical (and present) actions of churches and organized christian religions, all I can say is "how very convenient for you..." From the outside looking in such distinctions border on meaningless. Ultimately the supporters and promoters of this "story", illusion of god, and of christ in all forms bear collective responsibility for an endless litany of genocide, torture, and war perpetrated upon the world in the service of man and in the name and deed of god.

The only thing I see that separates us from other species is that no other species asks questions. That, though, has generated what I consider the principal intolerance and weakness in us as a species - the inability to suffer questions without answers. We as a species will do almost anything, say anything, invent anything, or imagine anything to provide an answer to a lingering unanswered question. Since human beings have had language we have used it to conjure one more unbelievable fantasy after another to fill the void of unanswerable questions. Nothing whatsoever makes your christian fantasy/answer anymore legitimate than the Roman, Hun, Egyptian, or Mayan fantasy/answer - those cultures would have claimed the legitimacy of their beliefs as fact as readily as you do today - none of you are anymore believable than the other. All are a result of our inability to simply acknowledge that, on some things, 'we simply don't now know and might never know..." Simply put, nothing provides more incentive for fantasy than the inability of one who desires power to provide simple, verifiable answers for lifes inevitable questions...


esallen


Jan 26, 2005, 11:38 AM
Post #158 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Posts: 304

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Oh, by the way, in the case you did not notice, my argument was taken almost literally from the text of a conference given by the late Sir Popper. I did a summary, but i trust myself in doing that even if i don't have a clue on epistemology... 8^) So... do you want to go to heaven (where he surely lives now) to tell him that he doesn't have a clue on epistemology too? I wouldn't dare that, but you surely could... 8^) 8^) 8^)

“At no point in your incoherent rambling did you ever some close to anything that might be considered a rational thought. I award you no points; you do not advance to the next round, and may God have mercy on your soul!”

Oh, and by the way, nobody takes Karl Popper’s ideas seriously anymore . . . well, besides you. He was a psychotic Austrian lunatic who never advanced a single internally consistent position.

PS:
“Science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses” – Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 1934


studiggity


Jan 26, 2005, 12:11 PM
Post #159 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2004
Posts: 85

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

And now it is time to announce the winner of the studiggity post of the thread award...

And the winner is....

HEALYJE!!!!

Congrats! I enjoyed reading your thoughts.

I'd also like to give a very special shout out to maxclimber1w for a brilliantly crafted troll that made me laugh harder than any troll has before. You rock.

Now if only I could figure out why it is that I will spend multiple days checking to see the responses to a religion thread on a rock climbing board. What can I say - I guess I am just a sucker for meaning of life debates regardless of however pointless they may be. Next time though lets do this with bong hits and a campfire....

And to all of the well-meaning Christians who are trying to warn me of the slopey top out, I'd just like to remind you that in spite of appearances I am not working the same problem you are - this will be a FA. Plus, your beta never seems to do me any good so please be courteous and refrain from spewing. I may fall at the end but in the meanwhile I am just going to enjoy every moment of this awesome climb and I'll face the mantle when I get there. Thanks for the concern though - I truly do appreciate it.

Stuart


hopper


Jan 26, 2005, 12:27 PM
Post #160 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 18, 2003
Posts: 53

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I believe it is possible to be moral without any religion.

Wrong. In order to do that you'd have to have a culture which had no religion. I'll give you a clue: there aren't any, and there never ever have been.

That doesn't make any sense to me. What is your definition of moral? Are you saying that without religion it is impossible for someone to know right from wrong?


In reply to:
In reply to:
No matter how miniscule the chance of the development of humans, it did happen. The fact that we are here debating this means that this miniscule chance did, in fact, occur.

Wrong again. You're proving the wrong thing: you've got to prove that the miniscule chance exists, not that we exist.

Neither of us is wrong, we're just working off of different assumptions. You want me to prove God doesn't exist, while I want you to prove God does exist.


Partner phaedrus


Jan 26, 2005, 1:04 PM
Post #161 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046

phaedrus moved this thread [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

phaedrus moved this thread from Bouldering to Community.


jpdreamer


Jan 26, 2005, 1:11 PM
Post #162 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 232

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Last post I'll put here, but this is to respond to hopper.

hopper wrote:
In reply to:
Nothing in science is ever "verified". Support simply builds up until there is a concensus that the theory is most likely true.

...

Good analogy. However, there is never one "test" to "verify" a theory. Predictions which later turn out true are considered some of the strongest support for a theory, but as I said, there is no such thing as verification. For anything.

I agree there is never one test which unequivicoly proves a theory. Furthermore, my use of the word "verify" is correct. From dictionary.com:

verify ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vr-f)
tr.v. verified, verifying, verifies
1) To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
2) To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference: experiments that verified the hypothesis. See Synonyms at confirm.
3)Law.
To affirm formally or under oath.
To append a verification to (a pleading); conclude with a verification.

In the context I was using it (a scientific testing) the second definition is clearly what is being referenced, so I stand by my usage of the word verify.

You later say:
In reply to:
It is not unreasonable, but it is needlessly complicated. No matter how miniscule the chance of the development of humans, it did happen. The fact that we are here debating this means that this miniscule chance did, in fact, occur. Besides that, given the size and time scale of the whole universe, and so the number of times this same process would have been going on, life even as we define it was bound to come forth.

Here we are each applying Occam's Razor. I agree the "Well if it conditions didn't occour for the existance of humans than we simply wouldn't be here to comment on it." hypothesis is the simplest one, but it is my opinion that this doesn't sufficiently explain the observation, so the next simplest hypothesis is an intelligent design of some kind. I do respect your conclusion though and note that it is a matter of preference. After all, this is a philosophical (sp?) point, not a scientific one. I'd actually considered mentioning this earlier, but was trying to keep an already long post breif. Back to work then...


arrettinator


Jan 26, 2005, 1:14 PM
Post #163 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 8522

Re: phaedrus moved this thread [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Where's jono13 when you need him.
Oh, that's right... :lol:

I can't believe this lasted 10 days before getting moved.


happyfra


Jan 26, 2005, 2:39 PM
Post #164 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 91

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Oh, by the way, in the case you did not notice, my argument was taken almost literally from the text of a conference given by the late Sir Popper. I did a summary, but i trust myself in doing that even if i don't have a clue on epistemology... 8^) So... do you want to go to heaven (where he surely lives now) to tell him that he doesn't have a clue on epistemology too? I wouldn't dare that, but you surely could... 8^) 8^) 8^)

At no point in your incoherent rambling did you ever some close to anything that might be considered a rational thought. I award you no points; you do not advance to the next round, and may God have mercy on your soul!

Oh, and by the way, nobody takes Karl Poppers ideas seriously anymore . . . well, besides you. He was a psychotic Austrian lunatic who never advanced a single internally consistent position.

PS:
Science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 1934

Oh... okay, now I do understand. I don't mind so much of being disapproved by you if this puts me in the same league of Popper. I don't know with whom you discuss your very original judgments. Here, and pretty much everywhere I read about epistemology, Popper is still considered one of the most brilliant and influential philosophers of the previous century. Sorry for that, but your autistic, unfounded and EXTREMELY PRESUMPTUOUS statements won't bring you any further in "rational thought". I don't know if god will have mercy on your soul, but logic won't.


happyfra


Jan 26, 2005, 2:47 PM
Post #165 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 11, 2004
Posts: 91

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
O.k. I'll bite, T hell with deep meaningful what if's. I would honestly like an answer to the following question:

If God is all powerful, all knowing (i.e. knows everything about the past present and future as we understand it) then isn't free will an illusion, God already knows every single person who believes/will believe and those who don't/won't. So isn't the whole act of faith predetermined by god and so a pointless exercise. Sorry I'll get to the point An omnipotent being can not give us free will because it already knows the result. Is my logic screwed up? probably.

Actually it is not, at all. This is another of the problems that haunted christian philosophers for centuries. They didn't get to any good answer. The most used, to my knowledge is: "we don't know how it works, but since god said that he's omnipotent AND we're free, this must be true".
Not very satisfactory to me.

Nope, wrong, sorry.

God (and we're assuming that He exists in order to discuss whether He invalidates free will), is assumed to be Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.

These three states as I understand them, are in part at least products of one another and mutually supporting:

Omniscient.
He knows everything that has and will happen. This is because He is

Omnipresent.
This means that He is present not simply at all locations, but at all times as well. God exists outwith the constraints of time because He is

Omnipotent.
He can do anything and everything, and is able to make decisions on what to do because He is... omniscient.

So the issue is one of relativity: God, unlike us, is not constrained by time. He knows what we are going to do, because he is omniscient and omnipresent. He enables us to breathe, act and decide for ourselves, but He knows what we'll do before we do it, without having to "work it out" - he's not in the now, looking ahead, he's already ahead, and behind. So as far as we're concerned, we do have free will to do as we see fit, because we don't know what will happen. But as far as God is concerned, although we're making decisions, since He knows what will happen, the outcome is determined. Predestination then, is a matter of relativity.

Now, whether that makes you feel like a train car fixed to the rails or not is up to you, as is whether you turn right or left at the next junction. I can guarantee that if you decide to turn left, then God will not interfere with you turning left. But I can equally say that He'll already know that you're turning left, and in that sense you're doing what he knows you will anyway. Confused? I usually am!

If God possesses the above three qualities, then His existence is radically different to ours; the mistake is to assume that He exists within our reality and is simply more "powerful" than us.

I already knew the full version of the argument ... and I still believe that my pretty trivial short version is fairly accurate. Basically, we are facing something that in human terms is a clear antinomy, and to survive it we postulate that god can actually be free of it "by definition". I understand that you are confused, and I stand with my position that it is a very unsatisfactory explanation of an otherwise unescapable contradition.


kachoong


Jan 26, 2005, 3:05 PM
Post #166 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
I understand that you are confused, and I stand with my position that it is a very unsatisfactory explanation of an otherwise unescapable contradition.
....ok, now I'm confused.... :? ....you'd think if "He" was at all helpful he'd have an explanation of himself implanted into our fetus brain.... then we wouldn't need to be confused and argue about "Him"....


esallen


Jan 26, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post #167 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Posts: 304

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I understand that you are confused, and I stand with my position that it is a very unsatisfactory explanation of an otherwise unescapable contradition.
....ok, now I'm confused.... :? ....you'd think if "He" was at all helpful he'd have an explanation of himself implanted into our fetus brain.... then we wouldn't need to be confused and argue about "Him"....

Amen kachoong, :)

There are 4 great theistic responses to the incompatibility-argument (free-will vs omniscience) still generally accepted today by a very significant portion of the philosophical community:

1. Understanding “free will” soft deterministically instead of as full-blown libertarian freedom.
2. Redefining “omniscience” as incredible insight, or an absolute knowledge of all future-free-contingencies.
3. Understand God as “timeless.” and
4. Asserting BOTH complete libertarian freedom and exhaustive specific foreknowledge on the basis that God, by definition, has an enigmatic character.

Each option offers a philosophical escape for the theist, each providing adequate explanation of an interesting, but solvable paradox. The incompatibility-argument is not as strong as the skeptic would like it to be; it seems to have been refuted anew in almost every succeeding generation.


esallen


Jan 26, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #168 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Posts: 304

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
The difference between science-derived data and the mish-mash of hearsay, third party accounts, and outright fiction in the bible is that legitimate science-derived data are the result of peer-reviewed, reproducable experiments, not simply someone's imagination.
On what basis does anyone believe anything said bible is true, let alone happened verbatim? What makes it any different than any other work of fiction passed off as the truth? Where is there any evidence that proves the bible is any more reliable or believable than the koran or any other religious text of the ages? There simply isn't any...In general the goofiest aspect of religion and gods is the fact that even their adherants can't agree on a particular vision of god - again, the Hood River phone book has about 70 or so listings for churches of various fractured denominations. Strange that all those endlessly splintered christian denominations all profess legitimacy from the bible and that their interpretation of the bible is the only "correct" one.Not really much different than taxes, really. The government could define the tax code in a sentence like "All legal entities shall pay 10% of all income in taxes". Then everyone would interpret the tax code the same way. Likewise god could have eliminated confusion over his laws and belief system - could have not left it up to a slew of [goofy] interpretations of "the way" (all million of them). Is deciding who god is part of the "choice" we are given? Why would god deliberately create, encourage, and sustain such confusion in man? Why are there literally thousands of formal interpretations of the literal meaning of the bible word for word - each professing to be the only valid interpretation?And for you who posted here who attempt to disassociate from and disclaim historical (and present) actions of churches and organized christian religions, all I can say is "how very convenient for you..." From the outside looking in such distinctions border on meaningless. Ultimately the supporters and promoters of this "story", illusion of god, and of christ in all forms bear collective responsibility for an endless litany of genocide, torture, and war perpetrated upon the world in the service of man and in the name and deed of god.The only thing I see that separates us from other species is that no other species asks questions. That, though, has generated what I consider the principal intolerance and weakness in us as a species - the inability to suffer questions without answers. We as a species will do almost anything, say anything, invent anything, or imagine anything to provide an answer to a lingering unanswered question. Since human beings have had language we have used it to conjure one more unbelievable fantasy after another to fill the void of unanswerable questions. Nothing whatsoever makes your christian fantasy/answer anymore legitimate than the Roman, Hun, Egyptian, or Mayan fantasy/answer - those cultures would have claimed the legitimacy of their beliefs as fact as readily as you do today - none of you are anymore believable than the other. All are a result of our inability to simply acknowledge that, on some things, 'we simply don't now know and might never know..." Simply put, nothing provides more incentive for fantasy than the inability of one who desires power to provide simple, verifiable answers for lifes inevitable questions...

Wait a minute; let’s not let healyje get off so easy . . .

His point is well taken: religious experiences are numerous and diverse, and members of all creeds have misused their religious ideals for selfish and bloody purposes, but neither fact disproves the existence of God. The fact that considerable disagreement exists among theists has never been accepted as a strong argument by intelligent societies. On the contrary healyje, the fact that the significant majority of human beings on the planet all bear witness of some form of religious experience, is strong and compelling evidence that a divine reality does exists, at least in some form or another.

Just because God has not manifested himself in a manner pleasing to you healyje, and just because you cannot reconcile his reality with your inadequate human presumptions, this is no reason to reject the possibility of his existence.


kachoong


Jan 26, 2005, 6:08 PM
Post #169 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

....I think all religions like to manifest a 'god' in their own way to soften the blow of the belief that after death is NOTHING.... it's good to hope.... just live life to its fullest though.... be happy doing whatever.... even if it's trying to justify in your own mind what 'god' really is.... fine.... I'd rather go climbing....


godskid5


Jan 26, 2005, 6:09 PM
Post #170 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 27, 2004
Posts: 197

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

i think that if they can teach evolution, which is a THEORY, not proven fact, then yes, they should teach creationism. not neccesarily as fact, but at least as another theory.


I can't believe there are still people like you who believe this garbage.

Evolution is a theory. Gravity is also a theory. Thermodynamics is a theory.

The difference between these theories and creationism is that evolution, gravity and thermodynamics are theories that are supported with logic, facts and evidence.

Creationism is a theory supported by nothing by right wing beliefs, no hard evidence.

It's a shame that people like you malign truth, science and progress in society because you have a self-righteous belief that YOU are right. Jesus makes you feel good because your lives are too vapid to be filled by more worldly, and therefore, more real things... Seriously, go to hell dude--on your way there, you might want to pick up a copy of National Geographic a few issues ago.

You make me sick--holding back society. Halting progress. Stopping science, medicine, truth all because of your selfish belief structure that, if you take an honest look at it, came out of nowhere.

wow, i knew the hate would start eventually on a thread like this. i love it, i am holding back science and medicine. cool. dude, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. you dont see me telling calling you names because of your beliefs do you? or anyone else for that matter. you are entitled to your beliefs without being looked down upon, and i think i am too.

i want to thank all of you who are able to disagree without making personal attacks. thank you very much.


godskid5


Jan 26, 2005, 6:15 PM
Post #171 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 27, 2004
Posts: 197

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

Thanks refugee for proving my above post!


you ought to remember that the bible was written by man: if man is foolish, then how are you to take anything in the bible seriously, especially since it has been rewritten a thousand times in different languages, with different texts that say more about the society in which it was written than about historical facts.

My knowledge doesn't presume to be higher than god--I in no way made any statement that I was smarter than god.

All that aside, HERE'S MY POINT--which has nothing to do with whether I or you or anyone believes in god or not:

Ignoring the enormous volume of work that has been done to advance our understanding of the world just because a 2,000+ plus year old scripture claims to be right, (and if you don't believe it, you'll go to hell), is a simplistic world view that affects ME because you idiots don't allow for progress in medicine, science, and society.

I'm normally not so livid abuot it, but the fact is, our society has never been so right wing and backwards. It's never been so influential in politics either.

I really hope that Bush can ask his god for advice--like he did for stem cell research--when north korea has nuclear weapons pointed at our country. Are you comfortable with a president who doesn't know how to do anything except pray when disaster looms? Maybe instead of learning about creationism and studying the fcking bible, he should have went to school and learned about diplomacy, international relations and other cultures--the same goes for all you other god folks, unless of course EDUCATION presumes a higher knowledge than god.

Yep, it's best to unlearn yourself less you end up in hell. Praying always works anyway. Just say a little prayer and POOF, you'll have money, a comfortable living, a family that is happy, an understanding of the world...no work required! fcking lazy dumbasses ruining our country...you all suck

just curious. how are Us idiots not allowing for progress in medicine, science, and society? i cant wait till they find a cure for cancer, aids, pku etc..... science was my favorite subject in high school. this is just a pure unfounded attack, based on your very limited knowledge of a group of people you don't know.
In reply to:
I merely said that I'm smarter than that other douche who thinks creationism is as valid as evolution.
am i this douche? dude, grow up.


napoleon_in_rags


Jan 26, 2005, 6:31 PM
Post #172 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 586

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
I really hope that Bush can ask his god for advice--like he did for stem cell research--when north korea has nuclear weapons pointed at our country. Are you comfortable with a president who doesn't know how to do anything except pray when disaster looms? Maybe instead of learning about creationism and studying the fcking bible, he should have went to school and learned about diplomacy, international relations and other cultures--the same goes for all you other god folks, unless of course EDUCATION presumes a higher knowledge than god.

Actually Bush went to Yale, not Oral Roberts University. My understanding is he majored in Poli Sci, Booze, and Cocaine, and I am not sure of the Poli Sci part. He didn't become a born again christian until some time in the eighties.


napoleon_in_rags


Jan 26, 2005, 6:55 PM
Post #173 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 586

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

Thanks refugee for proving my above post!


you ought to remember that the bible was written by man: if man is foolish, then how are you to take anything in the bible seriously, especially since it has been rewritten a thousand times in different languages, with different texts that say more about the society in which it was written than about historical facts.

My knowledge doesn't presume to be higher than god--I in no way made any statement that I was smarter than god. I merely said that I'm smarter than that other douche who thinks creationism is as valid as evolution.

All that aside, HERE'S MY POINT--which has nothing to do with whether I or you or anyone believes in god or not:

Ignoring the enormous volume of work that has been done to advance our understanding of the world just because a 2,000+ plus year old scripture claims to be right, (and if you don't believe it, you'll go to hell), is a simplistic world view that affects ME because you idiots don't allow for progress in medicine, science, and society.

I'm normally not so livid abuot it, but the fact is, our society has never been so right wing and backwards. It's never been so influential in politics either.

I really hope that Bush can ask his god for advice--like he did for stem cell research--when north korea has nuclear weapons pointed at our country. Are you comfortable with a president who doesn't know how to do anything except pray when disaster looms? Maybe instead of learning about creationism and studying the fcking bible, he should have went to school and learned about diplomacy, international relations and other cultures--the same goes for all you other god folks, unless of course EDUCATION presumes a higher knowledge than god.

Yep, it's best to unlearn yourself less you end up in hell. Praying always works anyway. Just say a little prayer and POOF, you'll have money, a comfortable living, a family that is happy, an understanding of the world...no work required! fcking lazy dumbasses ruining our country...you all suck

I read this post and I realize that knowing the theory of evolution does not prevent ignorance. You have a very small limited understanding of Christianity, theology, the bible, and the world in general. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't have a strong grasp of the theory of evolution. Which particular timeline do you favor? There are three or four theorized evolutionary timelines hat have support throughout academia. Which one do you favor?

I will say this about this debate. It had been going on for over a hundred years in this country - look up William Jennings Bryant for some good arguments that favor evolution. In my opinion it is a debate of little importance.
If a teenager his/her faith because of something they learned in High School Biology, their faith was not that strong to begin with. If you are that worried about evolution destroying belief, either home school your kids or send them to a private school.
My biggest worry about our education system is that we continue to get our asses beat academically by China, Korea, Japan, and all of Europe. Economically, we may no longer be able to compete. We need a radical change to our school system and reemphasize math and the sciences.


esallen


Jan 26, 2005, 7:31 PM
Post #174 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Posts: 304

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Evolution is a theory. Gravity is also a theory. Thermodynamics is a theory.The difference between these theories and creationism is that evolution, gravity and thermodynamics are theories that are supported with logic, facts and evidence. Creationism is a theory supported by nothing by right wing beliefs, no hard evidence.

Incorrect,

Creationism (and the existence of God) are both supported by substantial arguments, arguments proven throughout history to be persuasive to both the layman and academic alike. The mere fact that many billions of individuals throughout our history have been won over, or at least significantly influenced, suggests that such arguments worthy of consideration.

I will list 7 theistic arguments that have each survived more than at least several centuries. I will also list the known author, and any more modern proponents that I’m aware of, and will try to give at least a one-sentence explanation, which will obviously seem inadequate to most:

1. The ontological argument- St. Anselm, Isaac Newton, etc. God’s existence proven to be reasonable apriori in a short 9-premise walk through truths accepted even by die hard atheists.

2. The cosmological argument- Thomas Aquinas, Samuel Clark, and Richard Taylor, etc.
An unmoved first-mover necessarily follows from the case-effect relationship of any chain of event going backwards in time.

3. The teleological argument (Argument from Design) – Richard Swinburne, Cleanthes(David Hume), etc. Everything that exhibits teleological order, who’s origin we know, is the product of an intelligent creator; the universe exhibits pervasive teleological design, etc.

4. The argument from religious experience- C.D. Broad, Pojman, William James, etc. The fact that the significant majority of human beings on the planet all bear witness of some form of religious experience, is strong and compelling evidence that a divine reality does exists, at least in some form or another.


5. The ultimate metaphysical argument- Can’t remember the author off the top of my head right now, but major proponents would definitely include many early Greek thinkers (Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and Zeno). Why is it that there is anything at all . . .

6. Pascal’s Wager- Blaise Pascal, C. S. Lewis, etc. The believer is in a win-win situation, having an infinite reward if God does exist, and at least a finite reward if he turns out to be wrong. The Atheist is in a lose-lose situation, having only the potential for a finite earthly gain if God does not exist, and an eternal infinite loss if he turns out to be wrong.

7. A multitude of faith-reason-necessity arguments (Postponement, Passion, Inspiration, etc.)- Kierkegaard, Possibly Kant to some extent, etc. Even the ultimate skeptical atheist must have faith that his eyes give him an accurate picture of the reality surrounding him- removes the ability to question anyone’s belief system, yes, even the atheist’s.

Believers have a great many other more practical arguments which can’t be considered here. PM me for a further explanation of any of the above arguments and I’ll do my best to expound.

I'm greatful to be a believer in God, not for any of the above arguments, but because I have found his promises to ring true in my own personal life.

Eric


kriso9tails


Jan 26, 2005, 8:46 PM
Post #175 of 322 (8370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 7766

Re: Climbers for Christ? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I used to climb with God, but we had a falling out. See, God is omniscient but he would never give me any beta when I asked. He was jealous of my superior climbing abilities, so as punishment he made me weak and made it so that no one would ever remember or believe that I used to be flashing harder than the hardest of you mere mortal hardmen have ever even dreamed.

Why am I reading a God thread, and what happnd to the whiskey I had in this bottle?.. besides the point (that is, should I actually make one)


In reply to:
There are 4 great theistic responses to the incompatibility-argument (free-will vs omniscience) still generally accepted today by a very significant portion of the philosophical community:

1. Understanding free will soft deterministically instead of as full-blown libertarian freedom.
2. Redefining omniscience as incredible insight, or an absolute knowledge of all future-free-contingencies.
3. Understand God as timeless. and
4. Asserting BOTH complete libertarian freedom and exhaustive specific foreknowledge on the basis that God, by definition, has an enigmatic character.

Each option offers a philosophical escape for the theist, each providing adequate explanation of an interesting, but solvable paradox. The incompatibility-argument is not as strong as the skeptic would like it to be; it seems to have been refuted anew in almost every succeeding generation.


1. Compatibalism is still determinalsm in the end (that's sort of stupid of me to say), meaning that though the choice itself is free, under the exact same circumstances it would be made the same way, or rather it could not be made any other way. Under this I am morally responsible to say, my fellow man because my actions are a product of me, of what I am, even if I could not have done otherwise.

The problem with introducing God into this is that God set this all into motion from the start, set into motion the circumstances that define my actions and even my conception. Can I be morally responsible to God in this circumstance? That's kind of like me throwing a baseball through a window and then holding it morally responsible for the end result. Hmm... I didn't say that very well. I guess what I mean to say is that in this case 'free will' is only a practical term as is 'moral responsibility' so though it is as reasonable as it is unreasonable for God to place moral responsibility on me it is likewise for me to reject said responsibility. Right and wrong lose value and we're reduced to 'who's the bigger kid on the playground?'.

2. i) incredible insight is incredible insight and omniscience is omniscience just as really dark grey is really dark grey and black is black. ii) But yeah, it would work if a contingency could exist. I'm not saying that it can't, but I can't rationalize it. Still, even under determinalism omniscience wouldn't absolutely mean knowledge of the future. If omniscience is to know all things that there are to be know that could be taken to limit that knowledge to the present and past. Given that future things and events have not yet happened they do not exist yet, nor does any knowledge of them by any means other than prediction made by applying existing knowledge of past and presewnt. If the omniscient entity lacked the ability or will to make that application it would not know the future.

3) I'm too drunk or stupid (prolly the latter) to make the connexion as to how that bears on what ever it is things are s'posed to be bearing on.

4) Though possible (yet another stupid thing to say), this negates reality, which makes assertions... well, I guess if it negates reality then that thought can't really be completed with any merrit.




What the hell am I talking about? I need another drink.

First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : Campground

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook