Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Jesus gave St. Peter keys to kingdom of heaven, Vatican loses them   (reuters.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

14882 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2003 at 10:26 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



261 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-03-14 01:50:04 AM  
Chonny69: If it is a box big enough to hold everything, how can something fall out of it? If anything at all, it would just be falling into itself.

Gee, I guess it can't REALLY hold everything, then. It must only seem to hold everything, while in reality, anything placed inside of it falls through the bottom. And if you never checked the box carefully, you would never see it get full, and might therefore think that it can hold everything.

Yes, I could have just said "re-read the post again, I wasn't the one who said it held everything", but it was so much more fun to drag out the point that he's debunking another religious poster, while he's also proving the point of my post.
 
2003-03-14 01:50:57 AM  
Fr: Then why bother arguing?
Knight: hmm, there aren't any shades of gray in your options. It's either one or the other. Pain, suffering, anger and hatred exist only within the minds of men. It is a condition of human existence. We aren't perfect, and are therefore subject to such things. Let's see, "why?" is the question you're asking. You know, I think those feelings are created only by us, but that doesn't make us equally powerful to God. It just says that we create our feelings.
 
2003-03-14 01:51:35 AM  
I think it makes sense to say that "something" went bang. Where do you stand on this?

We can observe nature and use these observations to predict future behavior. Also we can use it to guess what past unobserved behavior was (I would like to add that by looking at stars that are X light years away, we are observing X years ago). Mostly these observations have brought about a theory in science called the big bang. According to the models used in this theory, light does not travel down the time axis, i.e. no time exists for light (or pure energy). Was the universe all energy at the big bang? Hell if I know.
 
2003-03-14 01:51:37 AM  
I agree with you, Brest.

Kick in your TV
Throw away your papers
Move to the country
Build you a home

Plant a little garden
Raise a lot of peaches
Try to find Jesus
On your own
 
2003-03-14 01:51:42 AM  
Nanookanano:
Hang on there! Just a few minutes ago we were all grinding our own keys for our own locks to unlock our own doors etc. And now you are telling poor Anagrammer he has to pick up the box in exactly some special way that you pick up the box? What are you doing? Starting your own religion?
 
2003-03-14 01:54:50 AM  
Anagrammer: I can't blame you if you don't get it.
Brest: Hey, let me roast some marshmallows. I'll agree wholeheartedly with you. Organized religion is like big business. They take a great idea and use it to suit their purpose, whether the purpose are profits or power. Usually it's power.
 
2003-03-14 01:55:24 AM  
I understand, Anagram, that the concept of a super-infinite set is a little tough to wrap your head around. But, you don't have to make fun of my metaphor. I'm just trying to help.
 
2003-03-14 01:55:41 AM  
Chonny69:
I'm waiting for you to refute the Cat in the Hat proof.
 
2003-03-14 01:56:52 AM  
Chonny69-

We feel pain because that is how our bodies have been made. Since your creator is perfect, why would he even allow us to feel such things. Are you saying it is beyond his ability to do so?
 
2003-03-14 01:57:16 AM  
BTW i don't like using the term "pure energy"
 
2003-03-14 01:57:27 AM  
No Peter. I have no use for any religion.

You don't sound like you used to be a priest.
 
2003-03-14 01:58:00 AM  
Nan: I'm saving that one.
Fr: You should've gone forward through your door. What's holding you back?
 
2003-03-14 01:59:19 AM  
Nanookanano:
The converts are always the most entusiastic.
 
2003-03-14 02:01:36 AM  
So, you were Catholic? You finished Seminary?
 
2003-03-14 02:02:27 AM  
Fr: All you did was restate what I said, using different words. I don't disagree with the Cat in the Hat proof.

Knight: What is your question Knight? Trying to argue against omnipotence isn't going to get you anywhere. Are you asking why we feel pain? I don't know. I agree that pain sucks, but I'll be honest, I just know that it's here, and while it sucks, there are better things to be feeling. Really good question, though. I'll keep that one in mind.
 
2003-03-14 02:03:47 AM  
Fr._Peter_Fitznuggly, KnightShyfte, and Anagrammer
I'm afraid you have fallen for the Chonny69 AI project from MIT. Chonny69 is a phrase generator. It is designed to pull random concepts into meaningless sentences, but it doesn't actually think. They really should work out that circular logic bug.
 
2003-03-14 02:05:58 AM  
Cool, so I'm an AI project from MIT?

*blushes
 
2003-03-14 02:07:27 AM  
I don't know which is more annoying. Religious debates or that motherfarker from the helpdesk in the next cubicle snoring.
 
2003-03-14 02:07:56 AM  
That's all I can ask I guess.

I have a very hard time believing in a perfect being when there are so many things wrong with this world. We cannot blame ourselves for things like 'sin' because these things would still be taking place under this omnipotent being's dominion.

Or, to simply, either your god exists, or evil exists. They cannot exist at the same time.
 
2003-03-14 02:11:03 AM  
Knight: Things aren't always black and white. God exists, evil exists. Maybe, so you can grasp this one: Evil is just absence from God. The eviler you are, the more removed from God you are. The better you are, the more closer to God you are. It's like a spectrum.
 
2003-03-14 02:11:51 AM  
Evil, so it is said, is a misperception of reality caused by our human limitations.

(Ever read the book Flatland?)
 
2003-03-14 02:13:20 AM  
This is god's universe right? He could have simply created it without things such as pain, suffering, anger and hatred. Why not?
 
2003-03-14 02:15:49 AM  
Nanookanano:
Way Catholic: countless priests and two bishops in the family. One year at the seminary was enough. Had I chosen the Jesuits I might have stayed, but it was too late-- I was lost to the Church. The Jesuits don't mind if you lose your faith at the seminary; they expect you'll recover in time. The diocesean seminary was staffed with dolts.

I've never looked back.
 
2003-03-14 02:16:24 AM  
Via con Dios, amigos.
 
2003-03-14 02:18:31 AM  
adios muchacho
 
2003-03-14 02:18:48 AM  
Ah, Peter, contemplate this for me:

I do not believe nor disbelive the existence of a God.

I do think that organized religion has many problems and has been much misused.

I function under the personal theory that many elements of theology have specific, psychological purposes.

(Works for me.)
 
2003-03-14 02:19:10 AM  
Paddy go frisk 'em, Nanookanano.
 
2003-03-14 02:19:31 AM  
Evil is just absence from God
That makes as much sense as "Religion is just absence from thought"

evil is an adjective, not an entity.
 
2003-03-14 02:22:29 AM  
I looked it up, and it turns out that evil is just the absence of agreeing with me.

If you don't agree with me, you are obviously under the spell of satan and can safely be ignored.
 
2003-03-14 02:26:49 AM  
Impaler:
You do realize your debate opponent agreed with the proof of The Cat In The Hat's existence, don't you?
 
2003-03-14 02:28:20 AM  
LOL. Thanks Fr._Peter_Fitnuggly. I might have been here into the weeeeee hours of the morning had you not said that.
 
2003-03-14 02:32:08 AM  
i think they should've called a locksmith, i believe they open 24hr.
 
2003-03-14 02:34:18 AM  
Sorry to shatter some assumptions:

if X = X
and X = Y
then why the hell would I disagree with my own argument?

me:
"if there is a case for a God, who is perfect in every way, then he has to exist. Non-existence is not an option for such a perfect being. Here's the interesting part. Regardless of what atheists believe, God exists. If the atheists don't like the existence of God, it's their problem altogether. "

fr:
"If there is a case for The Cat In The Hat, who is perfect in every way, then he has to exist. Non-existence is not an option for such a perfect Cat. Here's the interesting part. Regardless of what Chonny69 believes, The Cat In The Hat exists. If Chonny69 doesn't like the existence of The Cat In The Hat, it's his problem altogether."
 
2003-03-14 02:36:36 AM  
I've studied science for a long time now, have a masters in chemistry and am about to recieve my PhD in chemistry/toxicology. I am also catholic, albeit, not a good one. Although I must say that i find some human add ons to spirtuality silly, many are important to people as a matter of faith. They can't really be rationally explained, or else it wouldn't be faith. It's funny because both sides of the argument use this same point as their contention for being right.
For those of you who think science is so great, I think I speak with at least some authority when I say it contains a huge amount of bulshiat as well, and is not the unbiased intellectual endeavor that most nonscientists percieve it to be. This is due to a little thing called ego and human fallability, which is the same thing that creates bs in religion. tip your waitress
 
2003-03-14 02:38:46 AM  
Um, because The Cat In The Hat is a made-up character, a bit of fiction, ahhhh... not real. The Cat In The Hat doesn't exist, see? So what we have here is your argument used as proof of an obviously false claim. That demonstrates that your argument really won't suffice.
 
2003-03-14 02:41:01 AM  
I should add, Chonny69, that your surprising acceptance of the proof of THe Cat In The Hat also demonstrates that you will believe anything, and so you judgement is suspect.

I hope I haven't been too subtle in my attempt to be polite.
 
2003-03-14 02:43:44 AM  
Wait a second. Bevets?
 
2003-03-14 02:44:23 AM  
Ha!
 
2003-03-14 02:45:51 AM  
faith and reason don't necesarily contradict.

i think descartes said, "if there is a God, and you do believe, you go to heaven. if there is a God, and you don't believe, you go to hell. if there isn't a God and you do believe, then nothing happens. if there is a God and you don't believe, then nothing happens."
here we can outweigh believing vs. non-believing:

Believing (Existence): Heaven.
Non-Believing (Existence): Hell.
Believing (Non-Existence): nothing happens.
Non-Believing (Non-Existence): nothing happens.

Using Descartes' "I think therefore I am" to prove that a perfect being is indeed conscious and therefore exists, then the nothing happening part of the equation is nixed, leaving the following:

Believing (Existence): Heaven.
Non-Believing (Existence): Hell.

Which leads to a rational conclusion that it is more convenient to believe.
 
2003-03-14 02:46:08 AM  
Impaler:
Thanks. I almost choked at that.

I think Martini-Luther was on to something. This must be a wind-up.

Goodnight.
 
2003-03-14 02:47:53 AM  
best.argument.ever.
 
2003-03-14 02:48:43 AM  
nice work boys. fark on.
 
2003-03-14 02:48:45 AM  
I think Impaler said, "If there is a God and you do believe and you are good, you go to heaven, If there is a God and you don't believe and you are good, you go to heaven. If there is a God, and you do believe, and you are bad, you go to hell. If there is a God, and you don't believe, and you are bad, you go to hell. If there is no god nothing happens.
 
2003-03-14 02:49:13 AM  
Fr: If that's the case, then your argument doesn't work. Already you are assuming a fictional character with properties described by Dr. Seuss. I'm sure that The Cat in the Hat Dr. Seuss described isn't perfect in every way. However, I'd be willing to reconsider your argument if you replaced The Cat in the Hat with something neutral, like Joe Bob, or X, or whatever.
 
2003-03-14 02:50:49 AM  
Chonny69: Cut your losses.
 
2003-03-14 02:55:53 AM  
*sigh

For argument's sake. God is Good. God = Good. Good = God.

Another thing:
being good is different from doing good.
when you are good, you naturally do good.
if you do good, that doesn't mean that you are good.

So... if you are good, you know good.
if you know good, you know God.
if you know God, then you believe in God, and you get to go to heaven.
 
2003-03-14 02:59:22 AM  
Yeah I see your point Chonny69.

Now for argument's sake. God is evil. God = evil.

I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.
 
2003-03-14 02:59:24 AM  
Jpk: Ok. I'm tired. Just to clear up the Cat in the Hat argument, I understood it the way I stated it, with X = Y. If Fr. decided to invoke the Cat's fictional existence and apply it to his God argument, he needed to strip the Cat of its fictional existence, because then he stops being the Cat in the Hat and becomes simply a replacement for whatever I was trying to say, unless Fr. can prove otherwise.
 
2003-03-14 03:01:46 AM  
It's been a pleasure arguing (and agreeing) with all of you. Forums kick ass. It's the gymnasium for the mind.
 
2003-03-14 03:05:59 AM  
Chonny69: faith and reason don't necesarily contradict.

i think descartes said, "if there is a God, and you do believe, you go to heaven. if there is a God, and you don't believe, you go to hell. if there isn't a God and you do believe, then nothing happens. if there is a God and you don't believe, then nothing happens."
here we can outweigh believing vs. non-believing:

Believing (Existence): Heaven.
Non-Believing (Existence): Hell.
Believing (Non-Existence): nothing happens.
Non-Believing (Non-Existence): nothing happens.

Using Descartes' "I think therefore I am" to prove that a perfect being is indeed conscious and therefore exists, then the nothing happening part of the equation is nixed, leaving the following:

Believing (Existence): Heaven.
Non-Believing (Existence): Hell.

Which leads to a rational conclusion that it is more convenient to believe.


Continuing the rational discourse here, we must, of course, note that this argument works equally well for any of the 10,000+ gods that have been and/or being worshipped.

Which leads to the rational conclusion that, if there is a true god or group of gods, that it's 10,000 to 1 that yours is the correct one.
 
Displayed 50 of 261 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report