Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
From	Message
oldguard 05-Dec-06, 18:04	Try this web site This website may settle a few questions for you! www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com" target="_blank">-> www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com
saintinsanity 05-Dec-06, 18:28	Heh That website is ridiculable. We are a schizophrenic life form. Half of us took a left, the other half took a right. When we met up on the other side we no longer recognized ourselves and got to fighting. It is happening on a large scale in the world now, and on a smaller scale right here in our beloved forum. JD is doing an admirable job, all alone, of defending his position despite 'attacks' from all sides. I really do sympathize with christians and christianity. I just think it is a little bit off target concerning some particulars. I really like theoretical Islam as well. But the same goes, a bit off. Judaism is admirable, but a little too archaic for me. Bahai is nice, but it's a little too fashionable and fruity for me. I have reconciled myself with the fact that mankind is not going to produce a specific religion for my beliefs. I am not going to find a place where everyone agrees about every idea. It's nice to have a brotherhood who can discuss ideas though. That's why I like you people, my brothers. This forum is where I go to church, heh. Nevertheless, the main problem I still see is people who are so uncomfortable with others who disagree, not only among vastly different ideologies like christians vs. atheists, but even within religions like with the sunnis and shi'ites. But, as long as the discussion doesn't turn to anger, hatred, abuse, violence, or things of that nature, then it is always good to have a discussion between differing ideas.
proginoskes 05-Dec-06, 18:43	oldguard make your arguments here - post link that support your position or points, but we do not allow others to argue for us here. so that leads me to ask: is that the best you got?
oldguard 05-Dec-06, 18:46	pawntificator Thankyou for a fine, intelligent response to my rather mischievious contribution. I am a strong believer in the need for a spiritual dimension in humans, whether that be God, music, nature and the like, but some of the extravagant, incredible claims of some religions I think of as worrying. No one possessed the whole truth. The way to true wisdom, I believe is to know that you do not know. So many do not know that they do not know. ( I hope that doesn't sound too much like Donald Rumsfeld).
proginoskes 05-Dec-06, 18:47	pawn I love this place! My only ally, yourself, seems to be a guy who thinks I'm full of crap   Seriously though, I can appreciate your position. In many ways I see it as the most honest of any others put forth here. I would personally recommend praying about it. You do believe in a God, Higher Power, you're not about to buy into some crazy stuff, well let God help you see what is true. This is what the God of the Bible does for those who call upon his name - you my not believe in that guy, but perhaps the Bible got that point right? Anyway, always glad to hear your thoughts.
proginoskes 05-Dec-06, 18:48	jeff/soul It's been a day full of heated exchange - we still friends?
saintinsanity 05-Dec-06, 19:12	Heh anytime, oldguard. I've known I didn't know for quite some time. jd, I certainly don't think you are full of crap. I tried to be christian, I just couldn't do it. I just had to admit to myself that I don't believe it's the only way. And that disqualifies me. Although secretly I still call myself a christian. But when I talk to other christians they say I'm not. What do they know?
soulcrates 05-Dec-06, 19:54	Jdh, I'll do my best to try. oldguard, that's some nice information. Thanks for sharing it with us. We do use this club as a medium in which to share research with each other, so don't be afraid to bring out something to discuss. I do know for sure that there is something special about life, and that it's a crime to waste that, but not a crime to waste those that do.
zorroloco 05-Dec-06, 20:36	jd of course we are still friends!!! but your metaphor is extremely faulty - <it has to do with the nature of truth. not everything can be true. by the very definition of truth there can be only one. 1+1 can only equal 2> ah yes...but, if you want math analogies, what is the square root of 16? 4 and -4...so, suddenly we have two equally valid answers. you are correct in saying that not everything can be true...but that does not at all imply that only one thing can be true. could everyone be right? we create our own reality and if we believe it enough it is true...for us. jesus is your lord and saviour. god does not exist for me. so...maybe we are both correct? anyway...who cares really...as long as you are happy, and i am happy, and we are not killing each other...
proginoskes 05-Dec-06, 21:32	jeff the problem is . . . we cannot both be correct who really cares? I do. I'd like to have conversations with you everyday for eternity. It is good we do not have to kill each other - for sure
qiwi 05-Dec-06, 21:44	Bobbynox..... You ask: "which verse in the NT is anti-semitic?? I must say I am somewhat surprised that you have never noticed that aspect of the NT... Of course you are familiar with the classic scene where Pontius Pilate declares 'I am innocent of the blood of this just man'..... yeah right... And then the classic line from the 'Jews'... 'His blood is upon us, and on our children.' In John Ch8:44: Christ himself condemns the 'Jews' : "...You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desire..." And boy did the early Church authorities dine out on that sort of trash.... e.g. Origen : "The blood of Jesus falls not only on the Jews of that time, but on all the generations of Jews up until the end of the world." St. Jerome: "...this is the story of Judas; in general it is that of the Jews... Judas is cursed, that in Judas the Jews may be accursed." St. Augustine: "...Judas is the image of ther Jewish people; their understanding of the scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Saviour...." St Gregory of Nyassa: "The Jews are the murderers of the Lord...." Eusebius of Caesarea in 'Church History': ".... from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other...and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the seige of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ." Pope Innocent III: "Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in perpetual subjection." St John Chrysostom: "The Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jews." And so it goes on..... Bobby... I will concede the NT is not as vicious as the old testament or is it just a bit more subtle.... lets face it the whole work is a catalogue of death, pestilence and damnation.....
soulcrates 05-Dec-06, 23:02	You're right jdh, how does it feel to know that your chances of being correct is 1:however many religions there are claiming to be right. Just think, to over 5 billion people on Earth, you're going to burn in hell.
proginoskes 06-Dec-06, 06:23	soul it's not a matter of odds - Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior - I've got a 100% of being right.
zorroloco 06-Dec-06, 06:47	jd that kind of certainty about something, which even you will have to admit is based on faith, is kinda scary...people who are 100% certain tend to be the kid of people who 'will kill you to save your soul.' it is that kind of certainty that allowed the inquisition, etc. please remind yourself that if it is based on faith, there is a chance you could be wrong.
proginoskes 06-Dec-06, 07:14	jeff I'm not wrong, zero chance of it.
zorroloco 06-Dec-06, 07:15	jd thats what the grand inquisitor said while he was torturing people to death for not being christian.
proginoskes 06-Dec-06, 07:34	jeff I have as much an idea about what the grand inquisitor said as you do, but even if he did say such a thing, so what? His mistake does not make me wrong. My confidence bothers you and I find that curious.
jaymar 06-Dec-06, 07:47	jdh.. In the "santa" thread you stated in reply to jeff: "This is where you are wrong. the existence and order of the natural world, our moral code, and the necessity of a beginning all point to the existence of a God". Quantum physics has already shown that there is no necessity for a beginning to the universe. In a "Brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking pointed out: "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator"? In other words if God created the Universe then he would have had to have done it according to the laws of nature. Your argument is contradictory. You cite the existence and order of nature as proof of God and yet propose a God that exists outside of these very laws. How can that be? Jeffs claim that the existence of Santa is as plausible as God looks sound.
jaymar 06-Dec-06, 08:12	jdh.. ..Your confidence is worrying and there is nothing curious about that. 100% confidence in a belief system founded on faith is how cults operate. I don't believe that there is anything in existence that can claim to be 100% i.e. perfect, yet you do. Its worrying because that kind of certainty, as Jeff has pointed out, can lead down unpleasant paths. Although I am an atheist I am not 100% certain in my beliefs. I may be wrong and I listen to other arguments (particularly after our little disagreement) and I believe most others do the same. What you are saying however is that you don't need to. You are certain that you are correct. You have closed your mind to any other possibility. Do you really believe that?
proginoskes 06-Dec-06, 08:19	jaymar ***if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be.*** Stephen Hawking, in spite of his obvious genius, knows if this is true as much as you or I. Does that put us into good company? Furthermore, even if Hawking is right about the universe in that is it boundless, without physical begining or end, it does not immediately follow that this allows the Universe to simply "be" without a creator. He makes the statement like a self-evident fact, but does not thing to establish this idea. In light of everything we know about space and time - that is that there is not one thing we can see that did not have a begining, moving through time in one direction. All that is sprang up from the universe, therefore how can you assume that the physical universe is a of a different essence than that which it produces? It is not, but Hakwing that is engaging in fanciful, magical, and wishful thinking here. If you want to hold onto a piece of "something" that allows your nonbelief to exist unpreterbed - this is not it.
zorroloco 06-Dec-06, 09:03	jd then how can you assume that there is a creator? who created god?
jaymar 06-Dec-06, 09:06	I think.. ..the point is Hawking is investigating, thinking rationally without preconceived ideas and proposing a theory. There's not much anyone else can do. Observe the evidence and then propose solutions that can be tested. His theories are based on his observations and genius that he is, invite interesting concepts. The idea that time moves in only one direction is also incorrect. Again latest quantum theory proposes that is not the case. Its just theory but its viable and logically arrived at theory. Which can be measured. For example CERN are carrying out particle experiments where particles actually arrive at a point in space/time before they are released. I believed its explained and described in the September issue of Nature There is nothing magical about any of this. Its based on the observable universe which may be the thing that we live in that does not have an observable beginning. I can't see how these rationally based ideas,theories and experiments are any more "magical" than a being that created everything. And I still can't see how anyone can be 100% certain that there ideas are right.
jaymar 06-Dec-06, 09:12	By the way.. jdh it's very cute of you to describe Hawking and quantum theory as magical whilst laying claim to a 100% belief in a supernatural being. Do you not see a contradiction there?
leo_london 06-Dec-06, 10:00	jaymar..In this case, Hawking is searching for a universe without a singularity which is obvious by his resulting conclusion. He does point out a prediction of this theory that the universe must have started off with just the minimum possible non-uniformity allowed by the uncertainly principal. This non-uniformity would go onto explain why the universe is nonuniform such as clumping of mass into galaxies and stars. Most models do start out with nonuniformity in the period of time prior ( to the big bang ) of 10^-43 seconds so this prediction does not separate out Hawking's theory as being more successful scientifically than the other proposed theories that includes a beginning and the theory actually does not avoid a singularity. A quantum universe (such as Hawking proposes) ... necessarily consist of not just one four-dimensional sphere, but rather the infinity of spheres of all possible radii. However, since it is meaningless for the radius of a sphere to be less than or equal to zero, a four dimensional sphere of zero radius forms a boundary to Hawking universe ... He has eliminated the classical singularity - the beginning of time - only to have it re-appear as the beginning to the space of all possible four-spheres. In other words, we are still left with the problem of reason or causation..creator or happenchance..take your pick.
zorroloco 06-Dec-06, 10:02	jd yeah...what jay said!
zorroloco 06-Dec-06, 10:09	creator or happenstance even if you abide by the idea of a creator, it is still a gigantic leap to expect that this creator cares a whit about us, cares if we worship him/her/it, or even knows if we exist. certainly i would expect an entity who can create a universe to have bigger concerns and preoccupations than us!
proginoskes 06-Dec-06, 10:21	jaymar/jeff ***it's very cute of you to describe Hawking and quantum theory as magical whilst laying claim to a 100% belief in a supernatural being. Do you not see a contradiction there?*** I didn't describe "Hawking and quantum theory" as "magical" - what I said was the idea that the universe exists wiithout a begining is magical. Please pay attention. Nice strawman - have fun knocking him over? There is no contradiction here. And Jeff you are just as inane with your thinking here if you consider such a post sound . . .
proginoskes 06-Dec-06, 10:25	jeff ***i would expect an entity who can create a universe to have bigger concerns and preoccupations than us! *** Why? This is interesting. I am curious in you telling me, in a logical and rational manner (of course), why a Creator God, who you do not believe in, would no interest in His creation. You assume to know the mind of a God you do not think exists? This should be good.
zorroloco 06-Dec-06, 10:38	jd i just think that if such a being exists, which i doubt, that it would be great and glorious enough to not be so concerned with petty crap like what we call it, how (or if) we worship it, and even if we believe in it. these would seem to be human concerns...and this supreme being is, by definition, not human...why would it care? and i still agree with jay (and sam harris) when they point out that the difference between religion and science is that religion says, 'and then a miracle happened' and that is the end of the argument. science says, 'we do not know what happened, and we will continue to ask hard questions and do research until we either figure it out...or not' religion takes an unprovable hypothesis and makes it the end of the line. science makes it the beginning of the line. important difference.
proginoskes 06-Dec-06, 11:19	jeff ***i doubt, that it would be great and glorious enough to not be so concerned with petty crap like what we call it, how (or if) we worship it, and even if we believe in it*** Why? Based on what? ***why would it care?*** Why wouldn't it care? The above questions do not need a response, you may, of course do what you like, but they are more rhetorical and asked to make a point. you are making assumptions about the behavior of a higher being based on your own "stuff" - the only way to know the motivations and behavior, of not just such a being as God, but any human as well actually, is to ask that person and get a response. God has said through His Word that He is interested. I suppose that you have to admit that if - and it is a big, huge, rediculous if for you - that God does exist it is just as likely He is interested as it is that He is not coming from a position of complete ignorance of God's actual position on the matter. ***and i still agree with jay (and sam harris) when they point out that the difference between religion and science is that religion says, 'and then a miracle happened' and that is the end of the argument. science says, 'we do not know what happened, and we will continue to ask hard questions and do research until we either figure it out...or not' religion takes an unprovable hypothesis and makes it the end of the line. science makes it the beginning of the line.*** This is where you and other skeptics misunderstand. For the believer, the unknown does not just stop at "and then a miricle happened". At this point research does continue, hard questions are still asked, but it takes the honest position that what is not understood *could* represent God - the possibility exists. You've created a false dichotomy with your above statement and I'm sure it gets a lot of laughs, but it's nothing but dishonest mischaracterization and fallacy. Notice the important difference?
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, Internet chess league, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.