Conquer Club

jay_a2j wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

vtmarik wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:If you look at it in THAT manner you will clearly be able to see the difference.

Don't be so sure, I don't have much faith in his ability to see the whole picture.

Jay, I encourage you to attempt to see the whole picture of his side of the argument. You can never hope to gain much ground if you fight blindfolded.

lol wow. I am well aware that he does not believe God exists. So why does he continue to come into these kind of threads and do nothing but poke fun at Christian beliefs adding nothing to the debate what-so-ever. No logic, no substantial evidence, just "Santa doesn't exist". He needs to hang out in the callout section or General discussion or simply avoid threads he can't contribute to.


And if you want to side with the athiests by all means, but do not insinuate that I am "blind". I will not let someone attack my beliefs and sit by and say nothing. You do what suits you, but you're not me.

Psh. I'm hardly siding with the atheists. I took it for granted that my commentary directed at them earlier in this thread would establish that.

I was establishing that the way you justified the "santa <=> God" metahphor's irrelevancy wasn't exactly proper. He's not going to change his mind about God just because you say so, and all you really did to justify his metaphor's irrelevancy was... well, "say so". (quoted below)

jay_a2j wrote:The difference? God exists and Santa doesn't. I will never stand in front of Santa and hear him say, "Depart from me! I never knew you!" . But I will someday stand in front of God, and if I'm not right with Him I will hear Him say thoses words.

As of right now I've sort of stayed away from this thread in terms of posting valid arguments because it's basically boiled down to "God exists." "No he doesn't." "Yes he does."

I hardly think that means I've sided with the atheists. If I didn't want you to win, I wouldn't have made the suggestion to you.

I'm not tring to "win" anything.


He exists/ no he doesn't

Ok, it won't make any difference but here goes:

The Earth

Is spinning on its axis at such a specific degree that if it were to move a few degrees in any direction it would not be able to sustain life. The "chance" that this happened by mere chance in a "Big Bang" is so minute its not funny. To study science is to draw the conclusion that God exists. The unexplained remains unexplained as long as you keep God out of the equasion.


Now backglass, respond to this without a "Santa doesn't exist" argument.

jay_a2j wrote:The Earth

Is spinning on its axis at such a specific degree that if it were to move a few degrees in any direction it would not be able to sustain life. The "chance" that this happened by mere chance in a "Big Bang" is so minute its not funny. To study science is to draw the conclusion that God exists. The unexplained remains unexplained as long as you keep God out of the equasion.


Now backglass, respond to this without a "Santa doesn't exist" argument.

Why address it to Backglass? Anyone can answer THAT - there are 10 billion galaxies with 10 billion stars in them - that's (ermmm) 100 billion billion stars, presumably a lot with planets around them. We're here to observe the Earth moving in its improbably life-supporting axis (assuming that it is improbable in raising life - we have only scientists to trust on that, and they are famously undogmatic), because we happened to evolve on a planet that could evolve life!

There are better places in science you could have gone, but trust me, using science or logic is a bad way of trying to convince people there's a God, not least because it's based on faith which you either HAVE, or you DON'T...full stop

jay_a2j wrote:I'm not tring to "win" anything.


He exists/ no he doesn't

Ok, it won't make any difference but here goes:

The Earth

Is spinning on its axis at such a specific degree that if it were to move a few degrees in any direction it would not be able to sustain life. The "chance" that this happened by mere chance in a "Big Bang" is so minute its not funny. To study science is to draw the conclusion that God exists. The unexplained remains unexplained as long as you keep God out of the equasion.



Now backglass, respond to this without a "Santa doesn't exist" argument.

How many star systems are there? What chance is there that none spin within a few degrees of a certain angle. Even for you (and that's a really big even), that's a pitiful argument.

I'm read you going on about 'no logic, no substantial evidence' relating to someone elses post! You surely must see the hypocrisy there. Then again after reading the bit of your quote I coloured, I doubt you can see as far as your blinkers. See professional help, seriously - you're nearly institutionalisible(sp?).

Backglass wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:The difference? God exists and Santa doesn't. I will never stand in front of Santa and hear him say, "Depart from me! I never knew you!" . But I will someday stand in front of God, and if I'm not right with Him I will hear Him say thoses words.

OK jay. If thats what you need to survive, enjoy yourself. I dont.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I think his point, jay, is that he doesn't agree with you on the part that I bolded. :Razz:

If you look at it in THAT manner you will clearly be able to see the difference.

Thanks Ambrose. They are equally as silly to me. Imagine you were transported back to ancient egypt, and everyone worshipped the sun, told you to worship the sun, live your life for the sun and quoted scriptures from ancient texts about the sun god and how it would judge you if you didnt please it. You'd look around and say "surely these wacko's cant be serious!". Of course we know that a sun god doesnt exist and was just a manifestation of an ancient people to help explain the seasons, rain, crops & life's injustices. It made them feel better having something larger than themselves to look up to.

In ancient egypt as today they were worshiping false gods.. but that's why they got the plagues now wasn't it.

And as far as acepting all the ideals of society today, democracy and what makes us civilized. One can not deny that the influence of religion (not just christianity) has had on society. So by accepting society as it is today, you in a way follow the ideals of all those before you who accepted God as their master. Does that not a least raise a question in your mind as to are you missing something??

Paulicus wrote: In ancient egypt as today they were worshiping false gods.. but that's why they got the plagues now wasn't it.

Weren't the plagues dropped onto Egypt because they wouldn't release God's Chosen People(tm)(r) from slavery?

And as far as acepting all the ideals of society today, democracy and what makes us civilized. One can not deny that the influence of religion (not just christianity) has had on society. So by accepting society as it is today, you in a way follow the ideals of all those before you who accepted God as their master. Do that not a least raise a question in your mind as to are you missing something??

Not really, considering that Christianity is not democratic ("He who is not for Me is against Me").

If everyone joined the same club because of the history of said club, where would creativity go?

Oh, and I don't accept society as it is. If I did, then I wouldn't be here having this spirited discussion.

Paulicus wrote: And as far as acepting all the ideals of society today, democracy and what makes us civilized. One can not deny that the influence of religion (not just christianity) has had on society. So by accepting society as it is today, you in a way follow the ideals of all those before you who accepted God as their master. Does that not a least raise a question in your mind as to are you missing something??

Oh, please! Everyone (as far as I've seen) on this thread has been more (or less) upfront about what points they were trying to make...Do you have something specific in mind? Or are you not clear what religious values you may have unconsciously imbibed yourself??

Stopper wrote:Why address it to Backglass? Anyone can answer THAT - there are 10 billion galaxies with 10 billion stars in them - that's (ermmm) 100 billion billion stars, presumably a lot with planets around them. We're here to observe the Earth moving in its improbably life-supporting axis (assuming that it is improbable in raising life - we have only scientists to trust on that, and they are famously undogmatic), because we happened to evolve on a planet that could evolve life!

There are better places in science you could have gone, but trust me, using science or logic is a bad way of trying to convince people there's a God, not least because it's based on faith which you either HAVE, or you DON'T...full stop

What he said.

While we are at it...how do you (or anyone) know that life would cease (or wouldnt have flourished as it has) had the earth been on a different axis?

Backglass wrote:

Stopper wrote:Why address it to Backglass? Anyone can answer THAT - there are 10 billion galaxies with 10 billion stars in them - that's (ermmm) 100 billion billion stars, presumably a lot with planets around them. We're here to observe the Earth moving in its improbably life-supporting axis (assuming that it is improbable in raising life - we have only scientists to trust on that, and they are famously undogmatic), because we happened to evolve on a planet that could evolve life!

There are better places in science you could have gone, but trust me, using science or logic is a bad way of trying to convince people there's a God, not least because it's based on faith which you either HAVE, or you DON'T...full stop

What he said.

While we are at it...how do you (or anyone) know that life would cease (or wouldnt have flourished as it has) had the earth been on a different axis?

I don't know what source jay was citing, but I'm assuming it would have something to do with the conditions it is expected the 20-something amino acids were creating not being able to be met by whatever climate the earth would take on given the axis being different. Could be wrong.

Either way I understand your theory of "chance"- the universe presumably being older than we can fathom and more vast than the human mind can comprehend, the chances of SOME anomaly happening (such as the miracle of life) skyrocket.

But you must also acknowledge that even still, despite the vastness of the universe and all the time it has been around, it is still an infantecimal chance. The chance of human life being created is probably equally as small as... well use your imagination of things that have never happened. Any anomaly. Anything beyond even our imaginations could happen at any moment... but it would seem that they don't. Therefore, the probability of such unimaginable anomalies must be near infinitely small, since they have not happened despite the vastness of the galaxy and the monumentous amount of time the universe has existed. The probability of the human race's creation can thus be said to be equally small, considering what an anomaly the creation of sentient though among an enormous universe of unthinking matter. And yet the human race happened- those unimaginable anomalies did not.

Now, I'm trying to argue this logically, which, as I think I've said before, isn't going to help much in the end, because I think the best thing I can do for nonbelievers is to pray... so please understand that this thread is my playground for the moment

vtmarik wrote:

Paulicus wrote: In ancient egypt as today they were worshiping false gods.. but that's why they got the plagues now wasn't it.

Weren't the plagues dropped onto Egypt because they wouldn't release God's Chosen People(tm)(r) from slavery?

And as far as acepting all the ideals of society today, democracy and what makes us civilized. One can not deny that the influence of religion (not just christianity) has had on society. So by accepting society as it is today, you in a way follow the ideals of all those before you who accepted God as their master. Do that not a least raise a question in your mind as to are you missing something??

Not really, considering that Christianity is not democratic ("He who is not for Me is against Me").

If everyone joined the same club because of the history of said club, where would creativity go?

Oh, and I don't accept society as it is. If I did, then I wouldn't be here having this spirited discussion.

Good catch on the false gods part, you seem like you know alot of bible even if you do not believe alot of it. And as far as christianity being democratic, what I meant was that christians form the majority in most democratic countries.

OK I'll bite how would you change society??

Stopper wrote:

Paulicus wrote: And as far as acepting all the ideals of society today, democracy and what makes us civilized. One can not deny that the influence of religion (not just christianity) has had on society. So by accepting society as it is today, you in a way follow the ideals of all those before you who accepted God as their master. Does that not a least raise a question in your mind as to are you missing something??

Oh, please! Everyone (as far as I've seen) on this thread has been more (or less) upfront about what points they were trying to make...Do you have something specific in mind? Or are you not clear what religious values you may have unconsciously imbibed yourself??

Ok lets start with not killing fellow humans.

Paulicus wrote: OK I'll bite how would you change society??

How would I change it? I'd tear it down. If I was granted the power (or if I obtained it through other means) i'd tear it all down and rebuild a new world from scratch. Unfortunately it would require heavy memetic reprogramming and the restructuring of the world and will probably never happen in my lifetime.

Restructured to what? Serve you?

Paulicus wrote:Restructured to what? Serve you?

Hell no. The use of the power to destroy and create to create a society that worships you and obeys your every command is both egotistical and critically inefficient.

I would restructure it into a world where the basic sense to check things before you believe them lies in everyone. A world where the citizens care more about the world than their lawn.

I'd try to build a society based on ethics and a sense of proportion where some college kid who smokes weed on campus is left alone while murderers aren't released from prison because of overcrowding.

This is about the limit of my altruism. I don't want to create utopia because mankind won't develop in a world without difficulty. I just want all of mankind to have the tools and resources at their disposal to actually make some sense out of who they are and what they want out of life.

Isn't that what the internet was supposed to be?

Paulicus wrote:Isn't that what the internet was supposed to be?

The Internet was originally a resource for scientists and researchers to collate their data and share information with more efficacy and speed. The modern Internet grew out of ARPAnet, a project to create a worldwide network of computers started by DARPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Ad ... cts_Agency

And when I say tools and resources i'm talking about the financial and mental resources and tools to accomplish tasks without the limitation of self-doubt and societal pressures to do as has already been done.

So in other words to push toward ultimate perfection, and always question the previous model because it may not be perfect? or something else?

Paulicus wrote:So in other words to push toward ultimate perfection, and always question the previous model because it may not be perfect? or something else?

Not quite, more like the ability to be content and have a world without people who turn 30 and realize that they haven't done shit with their lives.

A world without mid-life crises.

Most people get stuff done in their lives because they have too to provide for themselves, not by any other choice don't they? I know I would rather be retired and on vacation, but someday.

vtmarik wrote:

Paulicus wrote:Restructured to what? Serve you?

Hell no. The use of the power to destroy and create to create a society that worships you and obeys your every command is both egotistical and critically inefficient.

I would restructure it into a world where the basic sense to check things before you believe them lies in everyone. A world where the citizens care more about the world than their lawn.

I'd try to build a society based on ethics and a sense of proportion where some college kid who smokes weed on campus is left alone while murderers aren't released from prison because of overcrowding.

This is about the limit of my altruism. I don't want to create utopia because mankind won't develop in a world without difficulty. I just want all of mankind to have the tools and resources at their disposal to actually make some sense out of who they are and what they want out of life.

I must say, I wouldn't mind living in that world. Where justice reigns. Where people care. And think. Not perfect, because we would ruin that, but with more sense than this world has now.

Unfortuantely, we can't exactly destroy and recreat society, as you said.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I don't know what source jay was citing, but I'm assuming it would have something to do with the conditions it is expected the 20-something amino acids were creating not being able to be met by whatever climate the earth would take on given the axis being different. Could be wrong.

Either way I understand your theory of "chance"- the universe presumably being older than we can fathom and more vast than the human mind can comprehend, the chances of SOME anomaly happening (such as the miracle of life) skyrocket.

But you must also acknowledge that even still, despite the vastness of the universe and all the time it has been around, it is still an infantecimal chance. The chance of human life being created is probably equally as small as... well use your imagination of things that have never happened. Any anomaly. Anything beyond even our imaginations could happen at any moment... but it would seem that they don't. Therefore, the probability of such unimaginable anomalies must be near infinitely small, since they have not happened despite the vastness of the galaxy and the monumentous amount of time the universe has existed. The probability of the human race's creation can thus be said to be equally small, considering what an anomaly the creation of sentient though among an enormous universe of unthinking matter. And yet the human race happened- those unimaginable anomalies did not.

Now, I'm trying to argue this logically, which, as I think I've said before, isn't going to help much in the end, because I think the best thing I can do for nonbelievers is to pray... so please understand that this thread is my playground for the moment

You're stuck on the improbability of this particular planet, going around this particular star, evolving this particular intelligent species. What makes you (or anyone) think that the evolution of life, in general, is particularly anomalous? The galaxy (and the universe) may be teeming with life, it may be perfectly commonplace for all sorts of different forms of life to appear in all sorts of different conditions, so why obsess with the unlikelihood of humans?

We have not (yet) the slightest piece of evidence that shows that humans are an unlikely anomaly, or whether we're just one of many, many, many intelligent species out there.

you have the right idea, stopper, if the universe is completely infinite, it is 100% certain that somewhere out there intelligent life, aliens, jedi, even vampires and werewolves exist, hey, i toy with that idea a lot

p.s: Vtmarik-
lovin the new avatar!

Stopper wrote:You're stuck on the improbability of this particular planet, going around this particular star, evolving this particular intelligent species. What makes you (or anyone) think that the evolution of life, in general, is particularly anomalous? The galaxy (and the universe) may be teeming with life, it may be perfectly commonplace for all sorts of different forms of life to appear in all sorts of different conditions, so why obsess with the unlikelihood of humans?

We have not (yet) the slightest piece of evidence that shows that humans are an unlikely anomaly, or whether we're just one of many, many, many intelligent species out there.

The only evidence we have is the fact that we exist and that probability says that in a universe as massively big as our own there must exist the conditions for life to start on another world. We're Carbon-based life, but there could exist somewhere a race of Nitrogen-based or Copper-based life. Aliens wouldn't necessarily have two arms, two legs, and a head shaped like a melon.

Yep. You know, on the face of it, if extraterrestrial intelligence were ever to be discovered, Christianity (and of course, other religions) would come under severe pressure. You see, the chances are, ET probably wouldn't resemble humans, so there'd be a bit of a problem with that "humans being created in the image of God" thing.

Plus, presumably, Jesus would have to get himself crucified on every planet that had intelligent beings. I don't know, I'm not an omnipotent being, but I reckon after the first time, I just couldn't face it a second time.

why isint this thread dead yet, it is causing nothing but trouble!!