# Bill Maher on God.  Sad.  Just Sad.



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 24, 2014)

Excerpt:


You're probably going to be hearing a lot about Bill Maher's latest "New Rule" in the coming days. Mostly because in it, he not only takes aim at almost every religion (Bahá'í, you got lucky) but also because he calls God a "psychotic mass murderer."

The rant kicks off with Maher explaining that he's sick of seeing ads for Darren Aronofsky's "floating piece of giraffe crap" "Noah." While he allows that the film "must be doing something right," since it's already angering both Christians and Muslims, the fact that 60% of adult Americans believe that the story of Noah is literally true is proof enough for Maher that "this is a stupid country."

But more important than the implausibility of the tale, Maher says it's immoral. "It's about a psychotic mass murderer who gets away with it, and his name is God."

And the sure-to-offend-Christians zingers keep coming from there:

"What kind of tyrant punishes everyone just to get back at the few he's mad at? I mean, besides Chris Christie."
"Hey, God, you know you're kind of a dick when you're in a movie with Russell Crowe and you're the one with anger issues."

"You know conservatives are always going on about how Americans are losing their values and their morality, well maybe it's because you worship a guy who drowns babies."
"If we were a dog and God owned us, the cops would come and take us away."
Lamenting that anyone would take their moral marching orders from the Bible, Maher wraps things up by hammering almost every religion as irrational, especially in light of conservative political ideology:

"I'm reminded as we've just started Lent, that conservatives are always complaining about too much restraining regulation and how they love freedom, but they're the religious ones who voluntarily invent restrictions for themselves. On a hot summer day, Orthodox Jews wear black wool, on a cold winter night Mormons can't drink a hot chocolate... isn't life hard enough without making - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - up out of thin air to - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - with yourself?"
And there's a LOT more. Watch the clip above and let us know what you think in the comments.

Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/15/bill-maher-god-psychotic-mas-murderer_n_4970831.html


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2014)

Everything he said is true except for the part where Clint Eastwood had three kids when he was 500 years old.  Clint's only 200 years old.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 24, 2014)

Except for his 'way with words', he doesn't say anything about God that I, or most atheist, haven't been saying.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2014)

660griz said:


> Except for his 'way with words', he doesn't say anything about God that I, or most atheist, haven't been saying.



Agreed.  After reading the OP, my first thought was that Maher was a member here.

Bill, is that you?




ambush80 said:


> Everything he said is true except for the part where Clint Eastwood had three kids when he was 500 years old.  Clint's only 200 years old.



Bill, is that you?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 24, 2014)

He is an entertainer who makes a living being a total jerk.  I don't watch his show, or pay much attention when he spouts his non-sense.


I detest "his kind" on both sides of the debate.  They add zero value.  He is like a dumb version of Jon Stewart, who uses a friendly audience to stroke his ego.....only Maher takes condescension to new levels.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2014)

When Maher says "What kind of tyrant punishes everyone just to get back at the few he's mad at?" I agree that he loads the question by using the word "tyrant".  A believer would say that what God did was loving discipline.  To that I would offer the following:


_tyrant
â€‚ Use Tyrant in a sentence
ty·rant
[tahy-ruhnt] Show IPA
noun
1.
a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.
2.
any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically. _


_
love
[luhv] Show IPA
noun
1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend. _

Which word describes the flood story better?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 24, 2014)

Some folks will support anybody if their views are correct.  Where, in general, anybody can see the person being defended is a total (rhymes with swoosh nag).  Maher qualifies.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> He is like a dumb version of Jon Stewart ...



Nailed it.

Wait a minute ... what if YOU are Bill Maher ... and you're just trying to throw us off ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> When Maher says "What kind of tyrant punishes everyone just to get back at the few he's mad at?" I agree that he loads the question by using the word "tyrant".  A believer would say that what God did was loving discipline.  To that I would offer the following:
> 
> 
> _tyrant
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 24, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> When Maher says "What kind of tyrant punishes everyone just to get back at the few he's mad at?" I agree that he loads the question by using the word "tyrant".  A believer would say that what God did was loving discipline.  To that I would offer the following:
> 
> 
> _tyrant
> ...


We can throw that definition out.




> _
> love
> [luhv] Show IPA
> noun
> ...



Of the two definitions you've offered, it would have to be love. What would humanity and the world look like now had the flood not happened?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 24, 2014)

waltl1 said:


>



lol


----------



## 660griz (Mar 24, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> What would humanity and the world look like now had the flood not happened?



No pollution. Plenty of game. Nobody would have to work. True global utopia. Flying cars. Free everything. Only rains at night. 

But, once you throw in another round of inbreeding...well, here we are.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> We can throw that definition out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are one confused (or deluded) cookie.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> We can throw that definition out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Humanity and the world are exactly as they are.  Nothing has changed because of a flood. There was no worldwide flood.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 24, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> You are one confused (or deluded) cookie.



Well, you gave me two options, and, as I said, we can throw out option 1. Obviously, if God is God, He is justified in everything He has done and will do, which leaves me only one option, love.

Am I at least a good flavored cookie, like chocolate chip or macadamia nut?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Humanity and the world are exactly as they are.  Nothing has changed because of a flood. There was no worldwide flood.



How do you know that?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 24, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> How do you know that?



First, define world. 
If it is the entire earth, over it's highest points, calculations indicate that all the water suspended in the atmosphere would only be enough to reach a modest 1.2 inches over the total surface of Earth.

If 'world', is the area they lived in, well, yea. It probably flooded.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> How do you know that?



String...we have conversed too long on here to not be sincere with each other.
1. It is physically impossible to fill the Earth up with enough water to the cover the highest points.
2.There is no where for that much water to recede to once the rains stopped.
3. Yeah, you can argue that your God made it happen because he is a "god" and the Bible says it happened.
4. Evidence does not support a world wide flood.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Well, you gave me two options, and, as I said, we can throw out option 1. Obviously, if God is God, He is justified in everything He has done and will do, which leaves me only one option, love.
> 
> Am I at least a good flavored cookie, like chocolate chip or macadamia nut?



Plenty nutty.

It's gross that you could possibly justify such an act.  Maher was right.  If you or I treated a dog the way the god of the Bible treats his creation we would be arrested.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> If you or I treated a dog the way the god of the Bible treats his creation we would be arrested.



What if the dog mauled your 3-year-old daughter?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> What if the dog mauled your 3-year-old daughter?



That's right.  Kill all of them in the kennel, even the puppies and the unborn puppies.  Kill all the dogs in the world.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> that's right.  Kill all of them in the kennel, even the puppies and the unborn puppies.  Kill all the dogs in the world.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> What if the dog mauled your 3-year-old daughter?



The sensible thing would be to drown every other dog on earth but eight.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 24, 2014)

At the end of the day, I feel absolutely no need to believe in this stuff.  I am well steeped in Biblical lore, and my rational mind screams when I am presented with stories like "The Flood" as fact.  I don't believe it, I don't think it makes sense, and every story like this one raises more questions than they answer.  I was born into this world with a brain.  That brain is used to think.  I have the ability to understand anything to which I apply my mind.  Why should I suspend that function when the only way to get around a question is the answer, "You have to just believe???" 

I have eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, all of which function reasonably well.  These are used to experience the world, gather information, and process through the aforementioned brain to make decisions.   Nothing I have ever experienced or learned leads me to believe in these stories.  Period.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 24, 2014)

Bill Maher is like the nerd who never encountered a good bully.  Most folks with his communication patterns get their heads shoved in toilets at some point or another, and learn we have lines in civilized discourse.  He was failed in his youth by those around him. 

In fairness, there are a few on my "team" just like him.  Like them, He has limited his influence to nobody but the choir.  Everybody else has rolled their eyes and bailed a long time ago.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 24, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> I have eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, all of which function reasonably well.  These are used to experience the world, gather information, and process through the aforementioned brain to make decisions.   Nothing I have ever experienced or learned leads me to believe in these stories.  Period.



Good.  I am glad you have come to a place of peace in your understanding of the universe.

There are many folks, on here in fact, who also have properly functioning senses who have reached an alternative conclusion than yourself.  Which is also good.

Even better when the two sides can discuss it and debate ideas, and challenge each other's premises.  It forces a deeper understanding of one's own position, and either reinforces it, evolves it, or discards it.  I am not afraid of questions, or where they will lead.  Same as you.  I just see it differently.

It just bugs the me when folks determine those who see it differently are stupid.  That's what Maher does, and, it leaves me with no other conclusion than to find him an incredibly insecure human being.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 25, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> What if the dog mauled your 3-year-old daughter?



I would kill the dog but, quickly and humanely. Just that dog, not every dog, and cat, and baby, and bird...


----------



## 660griz (Mar 25, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> ...who have reached an alternative conclusion than yourself.



I wish I could really believe that. I don't think you can look at all religions, science, etc. and come to the conclusion that the Christian God is the one. I think you believe what you are taught to believe based on where you are born and who/what your parents believed in. I think most folks continue to believe "just in case". I think folks refuse to really think about their beliefs out of fear. 

I think this thread is evidence of the convictions. When folks will defend a God that drowns everyone on earth, except for a pair of each species. When folks will believe that the entire earth was flooded above its highest peaks.
That a pair of every species could fit on any boat built then. And, it just goes on and on. Read the Bible objectively and it is obvious it is a 'children's' book that children shouldn't read. By children's book, I mean a book with stories, fables, wive's tales. 

Now, pretend you see it that way and then have someone quote verses from it to you to explain...anything and, well, it just sounds crazy. I really wish I could communicate this without being offensive. I don't want to be offensive.  

Heck, I might even agree (one day), that there is/was a creator. But, the same one the bible talks about? Or, any other organized religion. No. 
I just can't fathom a really smart, nice, loving person demanding to be worshipped or go to he!!. Makes no sense and it never will. 
"Gave his only begotten Son"? That is just crazy talk I tell ya.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 25, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> It just bugs the me when folks determine those who see it differently are stupid.



For the record, I don't think those who see it different are stupid, (unless you voted for Obama twice), just scared or going with the flow.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 25, 2014)

660griz said:


> ....just scared or going with the flow.



Instead of responding to both, I'll just lump it in here.

Take all of your conclusions about God, and what you cannot believe, and consider that a person who does not believe that way operates under a different premise.  Whether or not you or I can agree with the way a good God would operate is irrelvant to whether or not the God operates in that manner.  He either does or he doesn't, and we either like it or not.  I don't base my belief system on the way JB0704 thinks things ought be.  Instead, I base my beliefs on the way I believe they are, personal preferences are irrelvant if there is a God in the picture, 'cause I sure as heck ain't changing him.

As far as my conclusions being what I'm taught, most likely.  Most retain the religion of their youth.  Many of us recognize that.  The difference is how enlightened people feel once they believe they have discovered the truth.  I just accept what I believe as the way things are, and how I feel about that is irrelevant to what is.  For instance, I would much prefer a world without cancer.  That doesn't mean I am going to declare there is no God because his methods do not fit inside my concept of what a loving God would do. 

Maher is an example of that enlightened state of mind taking a turn for the obnoxious.  Not sure why he irks me to such an extent, but, I have run into folks like him a lot.  They are generally dorks who were not relevant enough for anybody to care that they were obnoxious losers.  Now, he has a platform and his own "amen choir."  I tend to think he has found that platform as a way to compensate for his insecurities, he found folks who would listen and love him for the obnoxious things he says.  These type people annoy me regardless of their worldview, and I am very consistent on that.  No other athesit/agnostic out there bugs me.  I enjoy reading their perspectives.   I find it to be good mental exercise.

One thing I have never been accused of is going with the flow.  There's a lot more to be said on that, perhaps not in this thread.  And I did not vote for Obama.  Didn't vote for Romney either this last go 'round.......that would be going with the flow


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Well, you gave me two options, and, as I said, we can throw out option 1. Obviously, if God is God, He is justified in everything He has done and will do, which leaves me only one option, love.
> 
> Am I at least a good flavored cookie, like chocolate chip or macadamia nut?





> Obviously, if God is God, He is justified in everything He has done and will do,


That's where I have trouble. In ANY other situation it would be murder, genocide, whatever you want to call it.
But now all of a sudden if "God" did it well then it was justified. It switches from what was done to who did it.
That's the opposite of what we live by as a society. Its the opposite of what we view as fair and just as a society.
Insert any other name but God into the story and its an act that is viewed as criminal, horrible, atrocious etc.
For me I just cant flip that switch in my mind that makes it ok.


> Am I at least a good flavored cookie, like chocolate chip or macadamia nut?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 25, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Maher is an example of that enlightened state of mind taking a turn for the obnoxious.



I just figured it was because he is a Yankee.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Instead of responding to both, I'll just lump it in here.
> 
> Take all of your conclusions about God, and what you cannot believe, and consider that a person who does not believe that way operates under a different premise.  Whether or not you or I can agree with the way a good God would operate is irrelvant to whether or not the God operates in that manner.  He either does or he doesn't, and we either like it or not.  I don't base my belief system on the way JB0704 thinks things ought be.  Instead, I base my beliefs on the way I believe they are, personal preferences are irrelvant if there is a God in the picture, 'cause I sure as heck ain't changing him.
> 
> ...


First, I agree that Maher's presentation of what he believes is less than "accommodating" of other beliefs, however -


> Maher is an example of that enlightened state of mind taking a turn for the obnoxious.


What word would be used to describe the enlightened state of mind that says you burn in he11 for not being as enlightened as me?


> That doesn't mean I am going to declare there is no God because his methods do not fit inside my concept of what a loving God would do.


On the surface I agree. However we don't need our own "concept". We are told exactly what God is and what he can do. There is just no getting around that if God is who we are told he is, that cancer exists because he allows it to exist. Innocent children who have wronged no one die slow torturous deaths.
For some that's not something to worship. A believer has to come up with some serious work arounds to turn that into -


> what a loving God would do.





> Now, he has a platform and his own "amen choir."


Interesting choice of words 


> Not sure why he irks me to such an extent,


If you can basically tune him out, there is some informative stuff from his panel and guests.


> I find it to be good mental exercise.


Agreed.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 25, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> First, I agree that Maher's presentation of what he believes is less than "accommodating" of other beliefs, however -





Something about that dude bugs the, uh, heck out me.  But, its the same for any person using his approach, regardless of what perspective they bring.



WaltL1 said:


> What word would be used to describe the enlightened state of mind that says you burn in he11 for not being as enlightened as me?



Are they personally condemning people?  If so, just as obnoxious as Maher.



WaltL1 said:


> On the surface I agree. However we don't need our own "concept". We are told exactly what God is and what he can do. There is just no getting around that if God is who we are told he is, that cancer exists because he allows it to exist. Innocent children who have wronged no one die slow torturous deaths.
> For some that's not something to worship. A believer has to come up with some serious work arounds to turn that into -



I see this more as a reason to not like God than a reason to not believe in him.   Some folks try and rationalize this from God's perspective, I can't see it, and I sruggle with it.  But, I also know that I can't change it.  Underneath it all, with all my questions, concerns, etc., I absolutely believe he is real.  The rest is something I have to come to terms with, not God.  If that makes sense.




WaltL1 said:


> Interesting choice of words



Intentional.... 



WaltL1 said:


> If you can basically tune him out, there is some informative stuff from his panel and guests.



I can't tune him out.  He grates on my nerves as much as Joel Osteen.

I disagree with Jon Stewart on about 95% of his commentary, but I absolutely enjoy his show.  My issue is never with the disagreements.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 26, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I detest "his kind" on both sides of the debate.  They add zero value.  He is like a dumb version of Jon Stewart, who uses a friendly audience to stroke his ego.....only Maher takes condescension to new levels.





JB0704 said:


> It just bugs the me when folks determine those who see it differently are stupid.  That's what Maher does, and, it leaves me with no other conclusion than to find him an incredibly insecure human being.



Why do I keep feeling like you are referring to SFD on the other side???


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 26, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> Why do I keep feeling like you are referring to SFD on the other side???



Nah.  I am thinking more along the lines of some of these hard-line folks in the world who seem to get a kick out of telling folks they are going to he11.  I don't think there is any on here.  I'm sure at some point in your life you have sat in a church service where the preacher was sending all sorts to he11, and somewhere in the congregation there was a dude with a smug look shaking his head as if to say "and not soon enough."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 26, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Nah.  I am thinking more along the lines of some of these hard-line folks in the world who seem to get a kick out of telling folks they are going to he11.  I don't think there is any on here.  I'm sure at some point in your life you have sat in a church service where the preacher was sending all sorts to he11, and somewhere in the congregation there was a dude with a smug look shaking his head as if to say "and not soon enough."




Whew!!!  Was skeerd fer a minute there.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 26, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Whew!!!  Was skeerd fer a minute there.





I really didn't have anybody specific in mind.  Maybe Pat Robertson or some of the "Hard-Line" folks I grew up around......people who forgot that grace was a gift to them too.


----------



## Paymaster (Mar 26, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Bill Maher is like the nerd who never encountered a good bully.  Most folks with his communication patterns get their heads shoved in toilets at some point or another, and learn we have lines in civilized discourse.  He was failed in his youth by those around him.



No I think they did shove, but he enjoyed it.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 26, 2014)

Paymaster said:


> No I think they did shove, but he enjoyed it.





.....and, that would explain a lot


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> String...we have conversed too long on here to not be sincere with each other.
> 1. It is physically impossible to fill the Earth up with enough water to the cover the highest points.
> 2.There is no where for that much water to recede to once the rains stopped.
> 3. Yeah, you can argue that your God made it happen because he is a "god" and the Bible says it happened.
> 4. Evidence does not support a world wide flood.



1. What? How could you possibly know that?
2. Polar ice
3. irrelevant
4. Bivalve fossils in Montana

Why am I back in this forum?
Oh yeah! I don't have cable TV!


----------



## groundhawg (Mar 28, 2014)

660griz said:


> Except for his 'way with words', he doesn't say anything about God that I, or most atheist, haven't been saying.



Not sure that I understand.  Thought an atheist did not believe in God.  Why you you say anything about Him (something/someone) you do not believe exsit?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> 1. What? How could you possibly know that?
> 2. Polar ice
> 3. irrelevant
> 4. Bivalve fossils in Montana
> ...



Ted ...

1. See #2
2. Like ice in a cup...when it melts the cup does not overflow, the ice has already taken up the amount of space it is going to take up whether it is frozen or melted. The remaining ice on land is not enough to fill the world to the highest points. If ALL the ice on the North Pole, South Pole and Greenland melted the sea would rise about 220ft. Don't take my word for it, I know you don't trust the information available on the internet so maybe try the library. I can assure you that people climbing Mt. Everest are going a little higher than 220ft.
3. Agreed. "God did it" certainly is irrelevant.
4. Plate Tectonics cause the land to shift, mountains to form, water to leave places that it once was and replaced by land. Continents were not as they are now 100 Million years ago but they are darn similar now as they were when Noah supposedly was around. I can go into more detail so let me know if you need any more help..


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2014)

groundhawg said:


> Not sure that I understand.  Thought an atheist did not believe in God.  Why you you say anything about Him (something/someone) you do not believe exsit?



What do you do when you talk about Santa, Easter Bunny, comic book characters etc?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 29, 2014)

groundhawg said:


> Not sure that I understand.  Thought an atheist did not believe in God.  Why you you say anything about Him (something/someone) you do not believe exsit?



Yeah it's telling they don't have the same animosity toward Santa, the Easter Bunny or comic book characters.  Truth can only be suppressed and distorted, never destroyed.  It is eternal and intergral to each persons very soul.  Each and every denial only serves to reaffirm and reinforce that truth exists.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah it's telling they don't have the same animosity toward Santa, the Easter Bunny or comic book characters.  Truth can only be suppressed and distorted, never destroyed.  It is eternal and intergral to each persons very soul.  Each and every denial only serves to reaffirm and reinforce that truth exists.



Atheists animosity is only geared towards the grown ups that assert make believe deities are true by constantly making statements like above with absolutely zero evidence to back them up.
Each and every claim that a deity exists only serves to water down the validity due to the sheer lack of evidence. Assertions and claims are nothing without proof.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2014)

Having animosity towards a god, cartoon character or holiday symbol is as ridiculous as worshiping them. Atheists have to use their imagination while conversing with adults that believe in these things....just like adults must use their imagination with children that believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny and Hong-Kong-Phooey.


----------



## southernhabitats (Mar 29, 2014)

Evidence of God is embodied in believers.  Not the Crusaders or hypocrites that are typically used as examples but the ones who render the vast majority of assistance to hurting people.  The ones who remain faithful to their wives, don't lash out at people but rather lift people up and encourage them, are honest, laugh at themselves, are humble, hard working, peaceful, content and thankful.  They don't provoke people.  They express deep and sincere gratefulness for their salvation.  They avoid profane and vulgar conversation.  They are not disrespectful.  I know a lot of guys like this.  All of the best people I know are faithful Christians.  God's way works.  The ranting about His decision to judge the earth with the flood or any of the other times He killed people in the Old Testament doesn't change anything or answer anything.  In the New Testament God isn't judging man, but saving him.  Jesus killed nobody, but raised people from the dead.  It's called grace.  Man has problems and we all know it.  We are prone to very destructive behavior, all of us.  We are mainly prone to pride and that is the one God can't take.  He insists that we recognize that we are under Him.  Call it selfish or egotistical but we can never get it until we see that His is the only will that matters.  Our lives suddenly begin to work when we submit to Him.  Then we see that He comes underneath us to lift us up and will not hold back anything good from us.  Do you think the guys I described above are all delusional?  No they are submitted to God and He gives them a peace that passes human understanding.  God decided that the best way to reach men was to do it through people.  His spirit lives in the guys I described above and it flows through them to others, changing them.  The changed man has always confused and infuriated the ones clinging to unbelief.  He decided that the ultimate way to reach us is not by speaking aloud or other physical signs but through the spiritual.  I think He purposefully withholds additional physical "proof" in order to make the spiritual all the louder.  He invites us to explore the physical but until one reaches a point of submission he will never get it.  Submit to Him, recognize your depravity and then and only then does the Spirit do His amazing thing in your life.  He shows us His amazing ways, gives us peace and comfort.   While the world around us involves so much pain and suffering people are still being changed because the power of His spirit through people living by His Word.  The more we hang on to the physical evidence and insist on Him meeting us on our terms the longer we linger in this unsatisfying spiritual wilderness.  There are so many mysteries that we will never unravel in this life but there is one that is unraveled for us.  That is that regardless of anything you see or hear, in spite of it in fact, if you come to Him like a little child and trust Him as detailed in the New Testament, humbly recognizing that He made a Way for us to Him (where there is total safety) then peace comes into your life.  Real peace.  You get to know the true nature of God.  Remember we are in the New Testament, not the Old.  The New Testament is concealed in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament.  It was written over hundreds of years by dozens of authors and yet is completely intertwined and is the best selling book ever by miles.  Talk about evidence!  It has the power to change people.  He chose the "foolishness of preaching" His Word to bring about this amazing work in lives.  He reveals truth to those who seek after Him.  Nobody will ever figure Him out or "work out" a deal with Him on their terms.  He owes us no explanation but will meet us exactly where we are if we surrender our will to His.  It's the great paradox of life.  Once we submit to Him we find out that He has doing all the heavy lifting all along and this elicits a heart of thankfulness.  Don't fall into the trap of pointing to the why's of the suffering of others as a reason for not seeking truth.  He invites hard questions, just read the Bible, but we have to lay down the pride and arrogance that we are so prone to before understanding comes.  The toddler throws a temper tantrum when Dad takes the sharp knife away from him and cannot comprehend why he did it, or why he popped his butt when he tried to snatch it back.  This little guy's will had to be broken, but it was for his good.  
Really sorry for rambling guys...


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 29, 2014)

southernhabitats said:


> Evidence of God is embodied in believers.  Not the Crusaders or hypocrites that are typically used as examples but the ones who render the vast majority of assistance to hurting people.  The ones who remain faithful to their wives, don't lash out at people but rather lift people up and encourage them, are honest, laugh at themselves, are humble, hard working, peaceful, content and thankful.  They don't provoke people.  They express deep and sincere gratefulness for their salvation.  They avoid profane and vulgar conversation.  They are not disrespectful.  I know a lot of guys like this.  All of the best people I know are faithful Christians.  God's way works.  The ranting about His decision to judge the earth with the flood or any of the other times He killed people in the Old Testament doesn't change anything or answer anything.  In the New Testament God isn't judging man, but saving him.  Jesus killed nobody, but raised people from the dead.  It's called grace.  Man has problems and we all know it.  We are prone to very destructive behavior, all of us.  We are mainly prone to pride and that is the one God can't take.  He insists that we recognize that we are under Him.  Call it selfish or egotistical but we can never get it until we see that His is the only will that matters.  Our lives suddenly begin to work when we submit to Him.  Then we see that He comes underneath us to lift us up and will not hold back anything good from us.  Do you think the guys I described above are all delusional?  No they are submitted to God and He gives them a peace that passes human understanding.  God decided that the best way to reach men was to do it through people.  His spirit lives in the guys I described above and it flows through them to others, changing them.  The changed man has always confused and infuriated the ones clinging to unbelief.  He decided that the ultimate way to reach us is not by speaking aloud or other physical signs but through the spiritual.  I think He purposefully withholds additional physical "proof" in order to make the spiritual all the louder.  He invites us to explore the physical but until one reaches a point of submission he will never get it.  Submit to Him, recognize your depravity and then and only then does the Spirit do His amazing thing in your life.  He shows us His amazing ways, gives us peace and comfort.   While the world around us involves so much pain and suffering people are still being changed because the power of His spirit through people living by His Word.  The more we hang on to the physical evidence and insist on Him meeting us on our terms the longer we linger in this unsatisfying spiritual wilderness.  There are so many mysteries that we will never unravel in this life but there is one that is unraveled for us.  That is that regardless of anything you see or hear, in spite of it in fact, if you come to Him like a little child and trust Him as detailed in the New Testament, humbly recognizing that He made a Way for us to Him (where there is total safety) then peace comes into your life.  Real peace.  You get to know the true nature of God.  Remember we are in the New Testament, not the Old.  The New Testament is concealed in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament.  It was written over hundreds of years by dozens of authors and yet is completely intertwined and is the best selling book ever by miles.  Talk about evidence!  It has the power to change people.  He chose the "foolishness of preaching" His Word to bring about this amazing work in lives.  He reveals truth to those who seek after Him.  Nobody will ever figure Him out or "work out" a deal with Him on their terms.  He owes us no explanation but will meet us exactly where we are if we surrender our will to His.  It's the great paradox of life.  Once we submit to Him we find out that He has doing all the heavy lifting all along and this elicits a heart of thankfulness.  Don't fall into the trap of pointing to the why's of the suffering of others as a reason for not seeking truth.  He invites hard questions, just read the Bible, but we have to lay down the pride and arrogance that we are so prone to before understanding comes.  The toddler throws a temper tantrum when Dad takes the sharp knife away from him and cannot comprehend why he did it, or why he popped his butt when he tried to snatch it back.  This little guy's will had to be broken, but it was for his good.
> Really sorry for rambling guys...



It's OK, but please use paragraphs next time.  My eyes glaze over just looking at that.


----------



## southernhabitats (Mar 29, 2014)

Mine too!  I just looked back at it and it blinded me!  Sorry again.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2014)

southernhabitats said:


> Evidence of God is embodied in believers.  Not the Crusaders or hypocrites that are typically used as examples but the ones who render the vast majority of assistance to hurting people.  The ones who remain faithful to their wives, don't lash out at people but rather lift people up and encourage them, are honest, laugh at themselves, are humble, hard working, peaceful, content and thankful.  They don't provoke people.  They express deep and sincere gratefulness for their salvation.  They avoid profane and vulgar conversation.  They are not disrespectful.  I know a lot of guys like this.  All of the best people I know are faithful Christians.  God's way works.  The ranting about His decision to judge the earth with the flood or any of the other times He killed people in the Old Testament doesn't change anything or answer anything.  In the New Testament God isn't judging man, but saving him.  Jesus killed nobody, but raised people from the dead.  It's called grace.  Man has problems and we all know it.  We are prone to very destructive behavior, all of us.  We are mainly prone to pride and that is the one God can't take.  He insists that we recognize that we are under Him.  Call it selfish or egotistical but we can never get it until we see that His is the only will that matters.  Our lives suddenly begin to work when we submit to Him.  Then we see that He comes underneath us to lift us up and will not hold back anything good from us.  Do you think the guys I described above are all delusional?  No they are submitted to God and He gives them a peace that passes human understanding.  God decided that the best way to reach men was to do it through people.  His spirit lives in the guys I described above and it flows through them to others, changing them.  The changed man has always confused and infuriated the ones clinging to unbelief.  He decided that the ultimate way to reach us is not by speaking aloud or other physical signs but through the spiritual.  I think He purposefully withholds additional physical "proof" in order to make the spiritual all the louder.  He invites us to explore the physical but until one reaches a point of submission he will never get it.  Submit to Him, recognize your depravity and then and only then does the Spirit do His amazing thing in your life.  He shows us His amazing ways, gives us peace and comfort.   While the world around us involves so much pain and suffering people are still being changed because the power of His spirit through people living by His Word.  The more we hang on to the physical evidence and insist on Him meeting us on our terms the longer we linger in this unsatisfying spiritual wilderness.  There are so many mysteries that we will never unravel in this life but there is one that is unraveled for us.  That is that regardless of anything you see or hear, in spite of it in fact, if you come to Him like a little child and trust Him as detailed in the New Testament, humbly recognizing that He made a Way for us to Him (where there is total safety) then peace comes into your life.  Real peace.  You get to know the true nature of God.  Remember we are in the New Testament, not the Old.  The New Testament is concealed in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament.  It was written over hundreds of years by dozens of authors and yet is completely intertwined and is the best selling book ever by miles.  Talk about evidence!  It has the power to change people.  He chose the "foolishness of preaching" His Word to bring about this amazing work in lives.  He reveals truth to those who seek after Him.  Nobody will ever figure Him out or "work out" a deal with Him on their terms.  He owes us no explanation but will meet us exactly where we are if we surrender our will to His.  It's the great paradox of life.  Once we submit to Him we find out that He has doing all the heavy lifting all along and this elicits a heart of thankfulness.  Don't fall into the trap of pointing to the why's of the suffering of others as a reason for not seeking truth.  He invites hard questions, just read the Bible, but we have to lay down the pride and arrogance that we are so prone to before understanding comes.  The toddler throws a temper tantrum when Dad takes the sharp knife away from him and cannot comprehend why he did it, or why he popped his butt when he tried to snatch it back.  This little guy's will had to be broken, but it was for his good.
> Really sorry for rambling guys...



Well thought. Well worded. But most of it fits with any other version of any other God. The only thing lacking is a God.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Ted ...
> 
> 1. See #2
> 2. Like ice in a cup...when it melts the cup does not overflow, the ice has already taken up the amount of space it is going to take up whether it is frozen or melted. The remaining ice on land is not enough to fill the world to the highest points. If ALL the ice on the North Pole, South Pole and Greenland melted the sea would rise about 220ft. Don't take my word for it, I know you don't trust the information available on the internet so maybe try the library. I can assure you that people climbing Mt. Everest are going a little higher than 220ft.
> ...



Bullet - if the earth were cup shaped and stationary, and there was a finite amount of water in it, then you would be correct.

Let's pretend the earth is round, or generally spheroid. I will simplify my explanation by not including an in depth discussion about how the earth is spinning, and rotating around the sun producing gravity.

Let's just think of a basketball (propped up so it doesn't roll over). Let's put a pretty big snowball on top of it. As long as the snowball remains frozen, the majority of the basketball is dry. Apply heat to the snowball, and as it begins to melt, the entire surface of the basketball becomes wet. Gravity and the cohesive nature of water contribute to the water not dripping off of the ball.

Furthermore, there is not a finite amount of water on our planet. It is made up of two common elements, hydrogen and oxygen, you know H2O! So all the water on the planet (and the ice trapped in the polar caps) at this very moment, is not the total amount of water that could possibly be manifested at any given moment throughout history (however far back you believe that to extend).

So, thanks for the "help".


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Bullet - if the earth were cup shaped and stationary, and there was a finite amount of water in it, then you would be correct.
> 
> Let's pretend the earth is round, or generally spheroid. I will simplify my explanation by not including an in depth discussion about how the earth is spinning, and rotating around the sun producing gravity.
> 
> Let's just think of a basketball (propped up so it doesn't roll over). Let's put a pretty big snowball on top of it. As long as the snowball remains frozen, the majority of the basketball is dry. Apply heat to the snowball, and as it begins to melt, the entire surface of the basketball becomes wet. Gravity and the cohesive nature of water contribute to the water not dripping off of the ball.


So far we are talking about the same thing....



ted_BSR said:


> Furthermore, there is not a finite amount of water on our planet. It is made up of two common elements, hydrogen and oxygen, you know H2O! So all the water on the planet (and the ice trapped in the polar caps) at this very moment, is not the total amount of water that could possibly be manifested at any given moment throughout history (however far back you believe that to extend).
> 
> So, thanks for the "help".



So if all the ice on the planet melted right now it would amount to a rise of approximately 220ft all over the "basketball" above.....
And a rise of tens of thousands of feet of water would be needed to cover the highest mountains on the "basketball"....

No need to ask (right now)where the water came from....Ted where did it go? Where did it recede to in such short time?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So far we are talking about the same thing....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll answer anyway.

Respiration, condensation, transpiration, evaporation, precipitation.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I'll answer anyway.
> 
> Respiration, condensation, transpiration, evaporation, precipitation.



Excellent. Whip up some amounts and rates at which each of those would have to occur so that waters would cover the earth up to the highest mountains and then would recede to worldwide levels of 6,000-10,000 years ago. Lets use the 40days/40nights of rain and One year and Ten days that the Bible uses for the flood to happen and recede.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 29, 2014)

southernhabitats said:


> Evidence of God is embodied in believers.  Not the Crusaders or hypocrites that are typically used as examples but the ones who render the vast majority of assistance to hurting people.  The ones who remain faithful to their wives, don't lash out at people but rather lift people up and encourage them, are honest, laugh at themselves, are humble, hard working, peaceful, content and thankful.  They don't provoke people.  They express deep and sincere gratefulness for their salvation.  They avoid profane and vulgar conversation.  They are not disrespectful.  I know a lot of guys like this.  All of the best people I know are faithful Christians.  God's way works.  The ranting about His decision to judge the earth with the flood or any of the other times He killed people in the Old Testament doesn't change anything or answer anything.  In the New Testament God isn't judging man, but saving him.  Jesus killed nobody, but raised people from the dead.  It's called grace.  Man has problems and we all know it.  We are prone to very destructive behavior, all of us.  We are mainly prone to pride and that is the one God can't take.  He insists that we recognize that we are under Him.  Call it selfish or egotistical but we can never get it until we see that His is the only will that matters.  Our lives suddenly begin to work when we submit to Him.  Then we see that He comes underneath us to lift us up and will not hold back anything good from us.  Do you think the guys I described above are all delusional?  No they are submitted to God and He gives them a peace that passes human understanding.  God decided that the best way to reach men was to do it through people.  His spirit lives in the guys I described above and it flows through them to others, changing them.  The changed man has always confused and infuriated the ones clinging to unbelief.  He decided that the ultimate way to reach us is not by speaking aloud or other physical signs but through the spiritual.  I think He purposefully withholds additional physical "proof" in order to make the spiritual all the louder.  He invites us to explore the physical but until one reaches a point of submission he will never get it.  Submit to Him, recognize your depravity and then and only then does the Spirit do His amazing thing in your life.  He shows us His amazing ways, gives us peace and comfort.   While the world around us involves so much pain and suffering people are still being changed because the power of His spirit through people living by His Word.  The more we hang on to the physical evidence and insist on Him meeting us on our terms the longer we linger in this unsatisfying spiritual wilderness.  There are so many mysteries that we will never unravel in this life but there is one that is unraveled for us.  That is that regardless of anything you see or hear, in spite of it in fact, if you come to Him like a little child and trust Him as detailed in the New Testament, humbly recognizing that He made a Way for us to Him (where there is total safety) then peace comes into your life.  Real peace.  You get to know the true nature of God.  Remember we are in the New Testament, not the Old.  The New Testament is concealed in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament.  It was written over hundreds of years by dozens of authors and yet is completely intertwined and is the best selling book ever by miles.  Talk about evidence!  It has the power to change people.  He chose the "foolishness of preaching" His Word to bring about this amazing work in lives.  He reveals truth to those who seek after Him.  Nobody will ever figure Him out or "work out" a deal with Him on their terms.  He owes us no explanation but will meet us exactly where we are if we surrender our will to His.  It's the great paradox of life.  Once we submit to Him we find out that He has doing all the heavy lifting all along and this elicits a heart of thankfulness.  Don't fall into the trap of pointing to the why's of the suffering of others as a reason for not seeking truth.  He invites hard questions, just read the Bible, but we have to lay down the pride and arrogance that we are so prone to before understanding comes.  The toddler throws a temper tantrum when Dad takes the sharp knife away from him and cannot comprehend why he did it, or why he popped his butt when he tried to snatch it back.  This little guy's will had to be broken, but it was for his good.
> Really sorry for rambling guys...



Great post even if I did lose my place about seventeen-eleven times.


----------



## Big7 (Mar 29, 2014)

He's a FOOL.. We should just IGNORE HIM!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Excellent. Whip up some amounts and rates at which each of those would have to occur so that waters would cover the earth up to the highest mountains and then would recede to worldwide levels of 6,000-10,000 years ago. Lets use the 40days/40nights of rain and One year and Ten days that the Bible uses for the flood to happen and recede.



I am a scientist, not an engineer BH.

The following scenario is not a scientific exercise. It could be loosely classified as a hypothesis, but an un-testable one, and therefore, is simply a fictional scenario. It is just a thought.

Imagine if you will…

a volleyball sized celestial body hurtling towards our basketball sized earth at a gazillion miles an hour. It is mostly made of ice. As it enters the Earth’s atmosphere, 80% of the meteor’s mass sublimates into hydrogen and oxygen. Upon impact, it leaves a crater about the size of the Gulf of Mexico. The remainder of its mass instantly evaporates along with massive amounts of ocean water. It throws up a giant dust cloud that encircles the Earth. The dust cloud blocks out the sun, and the impact, coupled with the additional weight from the sheer mass of the now evaporated ice meteor knocks the Earth ever so slightly into a closer orbit with the sun.

The dust cloud that blocks the sun’s radiation kills massive amounts of plant life. Transpiration is greatly reduced. Herbivores starve and suffocate, carnivores follow, and respiration is also now greatly reduced. The altered orbit of the Earth and greatly reduced solar radiation changes the barometric pressure on a global scale. The introduced mass of hydrogen and oxygen condensates and then it precipitates, heavily. There is a great flood. Maybe it covered the highest mountain peaks; maybe it triggered the shifting of tectonic plates that pushed the mountains upward. Maybe

Eventually, the dust cloud settles. The slight shift in the Earth’s orbit brings it slightly closer to the sun. The sun’s increased radiation starts to evaporate the newly introduced mass of water. As it evaporates into the upper atmosphere, and dormant seeds spring back to life welcomed by the sun again, the plants resume transpiration. With the new influx of hydrogen and oxygen, the plants thrive and flourish. The new mass is converted to biomass by the plants and the sun. The Earth corrects its orbit back to its original course, and equilibrium is achieved.

Heck, throw in some primordial soup and walking amoebas if you want to.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I am a scientist, not an engineer BH.
> 
> The following scenario is not a scientific exercise. It could be loosely classified as a hypothesis, but an un-testable one, and therefore, is simply a fictional scenario. It is just a thought.
> 
> ...



Or how about this:
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/noahsflood2.html


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Or how about this:
> http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/noahsflood2.html



I am not sure how to react to your post. I took all that time to type out a wonderfully possible story, and you replied with a link to some internet babbling.

I think I am offended.

Maybe I should start paying for cable TV again.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 30, 2014)

Is it babble because it is on the internet, or because you don't agree with it?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I am not sure how to react to your post. I took all that time to type out a wonderfully possible story, and you replied with a link to some internet babbling.
> 
> I think I am offended.
> 
> Maybe I should start paying for cable TV again.



I did not want to waste as much bandwith as you did so I gave a link that has solid numbers to back up what I was asking you about. The data is scientific...no engineer degree needed. No cosmic ice ball. No fiction.

You would have BLASTED me had I given an answer like yours that in your own words "could be loosely classified as a hypothesis, but an un-testable one, and therefore, is simply a fictional scenario. It is just a thought." I guess we each have our own definition of what we think is internet babbling.

I appreciate the thought effort but it only served as a way for you to include "Respiration, condensation, transpiration, evaporation, precipitation" into a story without ever touching on what really happened or better yet what really did not happen.

We were already dealing with one fictional scenario and adding another doesn't help.

If all you could get out of that link was to be offended then cable is surely the way to go.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I am a scientist, not an engineer BH.
> 
> The following scenario is not a scientific exercise. It could be loosely classified as a hypothesis, but an un-testable one, and therefore, is simply a fictional scenario. It is just a thought.
> 
> ...



How do 8 people and a boat full of animals survive this scenario and how does it all happen and correct itself in a year and ten days?

More imagination I guess


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Is it babble because it is on the internet, or because you don't agree with it?



Bizarre source. They seem like a weird bunch.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I did not want to waste as much bandwith as you did so I gave a link that has solid numbers to back up what I was asking you about. The data is scientific...no engineer degree needed. No cosmic ice ball. No fiction.
> 
> You would have BLASTED me had I given an answer like yours that in your own words "could be loosely classified as a hypothesis, but an un-testable one, and therefore, is simply a fictional scenario. It is just a thought." I guess we each have our own definition of what we think is internet babbling.
> 
> ...



You asked me for an explanation BH. I obliged.

Did you look into the source of the link you sent me? I have never heard of that group before. I had a hard time trying to understand what their mission was.

I'd like to think I wouldn't BLAST anyone anymore. It isn't very nice when people do that to each other.

Have you watched TV lately? It is amazingly bad nowadays, and then are 142 channels to pick from! I better start a new thread about that.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> How do 8 people and a boat full of animals survive this scenario and how does it all happen and correct itself in a year and ten days?
> 
> More imagination I guess



Now we have to talk about God!!!


----------



## Big7 (Mar 30, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Now we have to talk about God!!!



That is a major problem... This country, founded on "God"
we don't talk enough about Him!

The anti's and the rest of the nut jobs, aclu, etc...
have made sure "GOD" is not in the play book anymore.

That is a SHAME!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2014)

Big7 said:


> That is a major problem... This country, founded on "God"
> we don't talk enough about Him!
> 
> The anti's and the rest of the nut jobs, aclu, etc...
> ...



Are you talking about the people that founded this country 10,000-15,000 years ago or the Europeans that came here about 400 years ago so they could get away from religious persecution in England and made sure that the separation of church and state was a main issue?

I have a hard time thinking such a powerful God is so easily manipulated by a few nutjobs, anti's, and civil liberty groups.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> You asked me for an explanation BH. I obliged.
> 
> Did you look into the source of the link you sent me? I have never heard of that group before. I had a hard time trying to understand what their mission was.
> 
> ...



Ted I asked you for an explanation on what really happened, not another far fetched story.

History Channels, Military History Channels, Outdoor Channels, Science Channels are all on my TV watch list. Good/Bad channels like everything else are relative to the individual.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Did you look into the source of the link you sent me? I have never heard of that group before. I had a hard time trying to understand what their mission was.



I am not concerned with their "mission" as much as their math and science. I can go on and find numerous posts and or websites where someone has taken the time to run the figures and go in depth about what environmental changes would occur had a worldwide flood that covered the highest mountain under 15 cubits of water taken place.

Bottom line is had such an event occurred when the Bible says it occurred we still would not have recovered nor picked up where we left off.

The facts do not support a world wide flood. There were too many cultures that continued on living when they were supposed to have been dead.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I am not concerned with their "mission" as much as their math and science. I can go on and find numerous posts and or websites where someone has taken the time to run the figures and go in depth about what environmental changes would occur had a worldwide flood that covered the highest mountain under 15 cubits of water taken place.
> 
> Bottom line is had such an event occurred when the Bible says it occurred we still would not have recovered nor picked up where we left off.
> 
> The facts do not support a world wide flood. There were too many cultures that continued on living when they were supposed to have been dead.



I think that there mission is a very important thing to consider. Math and science are languages we use to describe our observations. They can easily be manipulated to support an agenda. Take the global warming crowd for instance. Talk about some "fuzzy" science.

The "bottom line" as you have stated above, is your opinion, which I respect.

As for facts, are all the facts exposed? Are there some facts we don't know about, or refuse to acknowledge that might paint a different picture? I think there probably are.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2014)

Big7 said:


> That is a major problem... This country, founded on "God"
> we don't talk enough about Him!
> 
> The anti's and the rest of the nut jobs, aclu, etc...
> ...



I agree.

Here we are talking about God!
Let's keep up the good work!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I think that there mission is a very important thing to consider. Math and science are languages we use to describe our observations. They can easily be manipulated to support an agenda. Take the global warming crowd for instance. Talk about some "fuzzy" science.
> 
> The "bottom line" as you have stated above, is your opinion, which I respect.
> 
> As for facts, are all the facts exposed? Are there some facts we don't know about, or refuse to acknowledge that might paint a different picture? I think there probably are.



No mission:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-286863.html


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I think that there mission is a very important thing to consider. Math and science are languages we use to describe our observations. They can easily be manipulated to support an agenda. Take the global warming crowd for instance. Talk about some "fuzzy" science.
> 
> The "bottom line" as you have stated above, is your opinion, which I respect.
> 
> As for facts, are all the facts exposed? Are there some facts we don't know about, or refuse to acknowledge that might paint a different picture? I think there probably are.



I understand what you are saying about a mission or agenda and I know that stats are whatever people want to manipulate them to be. In the case of a world wide flood happening in the amount of time as said in the Bible there are so many other factors that go into it like temperature, oxygen levels, effect on earth's axis(only to mention a small few) that it would take millions of years for the earth to recover from that. Bring in plants and animals and humans in the Biblical timeline and it is nothing but folklore.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I understand what you are saying about a mission or agenda and I know that stats are whatever people want to manipulate them to be. In the case of a world wide flood happening in the amount of time as said in the Bible there are so many other factors that go into it like temperature, oxygen levels, effect on earth's axis(only to mention a small few) that it would take millions of years for the earth to recover from that. Bring in plants and animals and humans in the Biblical timeline and it is nothing but folklore.



What if the poles flipped?

What if the sun got a little smaller?

What if a giant dinosaur ascended into space and removed millions of tons of biomass from the earth?

What if... There WAS a one true God?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 30, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> You asked me for an explanation BH. I obliged.
> 
> Did you look into the source of the link you sent me? I have never heard of that group before. I had a hard time trying to understand what their mission was.
> 
> ...



Not to derail this thread but you couldn't be more correct about TV.  Mine died months ago and I could care less.  Rarely watched it anyway.  Now the kids read books in their spare time and actually play outside.  Overall it's been a blessing.  When I was growing up we got 1 channel, maybe 2 if the weather was right and there was very little actually worth watching.  Before mine died I think I had 300 plus and still nothing worth watching.  Off the soap box now.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No mission:
> http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-286863.html



Wow! That is really not compelling at all.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 31, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> What if the poles flipped?
> 
> What if the sun got a little smaller?
> 
> ...



There it is.

If god can make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it (which he could, just don't ask "how") then he can flood the Earth.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2014)

Anything is possible in the world of illusion


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 31, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Wow! That is really not compelling at all.



Ted I don't know how much experience you have here in the AAA FORUM, but there's generally a low ceiling when it comes to having an intellectually honest discussion of any type no matter how good your data/sources are.  As a general rule the above two posts are pretty typical of what you should expect.  Just saying don't get your hopes up.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ted I don't know how much experience you have here in the AAA FORUM, but there's generally a low ceiling when it comes to having an intellectually honest discussion of any type no matter how good your data/sources are.  As a general rule the above two posts are pretty typical of what you should expect.  Just saying don't get your hopes up.



As compared too.........?
Yours?
Kettle meet the Pot.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ted I don't know how much experience you have here in the AAA FORUM, but there's generally a low ceiling when it comes to having an intellectually honest discussion of any type no matter how good your data/sources are.  As a general rule the above two posts are pretty typical of what you should expect.  Just saying don't get your hopes up.



Pull up a chair boys, The Professor of Hypocrite 101 is about to hold class.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 31, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> The sun’s increased radiation starts to evaporate the newly introduced mass of water. As it evaporates into the upper atmosphere,



Our atmosphere can not hold that much water. Science.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 31, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Anything is possible in the world of illusion



How or where the water could come from or go is irrelevant in this conversation... Pretty much anything regarding the ark relies on god poofing stuff. It's just not worth trying to argue.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 31, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> How or where the water could come from or go is irrelevant in this conversation... Pretty much anything regarding the ark relies on god poofing stuff. It's just not worth trying to argue.



But...but...but...I LOVE to listen to people trying to explain it.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 31, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> How or where the water could come from or go is irrelevant in this conversation... Pretty much anything regarding the ark relies on god poofing stuff. It's just not worth trying to argue.



That's the definition of Apologetics.  Eventually everyone realizes that a rational argument can't be made for the Supernatural.  

This sub forum was designed to fail.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 31, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> that's the definition of apologetics.  Eventually everyone realizes that a rational argument can't be made for the supernatural.
> 
> This sub forum was designed to fail.



lol


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ted I don't know how much experience you have here in the AAA FORUM, but there's generally a low ceiling when it comes to having an intellectually honest discussion of any type no matter how good your data/sources are.  As a general rule the above two posts are pretty typical of what you should expect.  Just saying don't get your hopes up.



  Get a room....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 31, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> That's the definition of Apologetics.  Eventually everyone realizes that a rational argument can't be made for the Supernatural.
> 
> This sub forum was designed to fail.



Good Grief


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ted I don't know how much experience you have here in the AAA FORUM, but there's generally a low ceiling when it comes to having an intellectually honest discussion of any type no matter how good your data/sources are.  As a general rule the above two posts are pretty typical of what you should expect.  Just saying don't get your hopes up.



Thanks SFD, I have been here a good while. I remember Diogenes! I know the drill. The As and the As complain that the As don't ever say anything new, and the As complain that the As and the As don't say anything new either. I appreciate you looking out though!


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 31, 2014)

660griz said:


> Our atmosphere can not hold that much water. Science.



That is actually NOT how science works.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 31, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> That's the definition of Apologetics.  Eventually everyone realizes that a rational argument can't be made for the Supernatural.
> 
> This sub forum was designed to fail.



I really like looking up the definitions of words. Even if it is a word I THINK I know the meaning of, there is almost always value to me, to go ahead and look it up.

RATIONAL
1a :  having reason or understanding 
1b :  relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason :  reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

REASON
1a :  a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
1b :  a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
1c :  a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially :  something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action>
1d :  the thing that makes some fact intelligible :  cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
2a  (1) :  the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways :  intelligence  (2) :  proper exercise of the mind  (3) :  sanity
2b :  the sum of the intellectual powers

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

I think it is funny how the definition of rational depends on the definition of reason, and the definition of reason depends on the definition of rational. So I think the conversations that take place here are definitely rational, and reasonable (from both sides) according to the definitions of the two words.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 31, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> That's the definition of Apologetics.  Eventually everyone realizes that a rational argument can't be made for the Supernatural.



Since we are talking about going in circles, I'll break out an old one......

If God exists, he is not supernatural.  He defines natural, and that which he does exists within the realm of possibilities.

For instance, If frogs could fly, there would be nothing weird about flying frogs, and, in fact, there would be a perfectly natural evolutionary explanation for them doing so.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 31, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Since we are talking about going in circles, I'll break out an old one......
> 
> If God exists, he is not supernatural.  He defines natural, and that which he does exists within the realm of possibilities.
> 
> For instance, If frogs could fly, there would be nothing weird about flying frogs, and, in fact, there would be a perfectly natural evolutionary explanation for them doing so.



So if a burning bush has ever talked then it's not a supernatural occurrence?

_su·per·nat·u·ral
adjective \ËŒsü-pÉ™r-Ëˆna-chÉ™-rÉ™l, -Ëˆnach-rÉ™l\

: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
Full Definition of SUPERNATURAL
1
:  of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially :  of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a :  departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b :  attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
— supernatural noun
— su·per·nat·u·ral·ly adverb
— su·per·nat·u·ral·ness noun
See supernatural defined for English-language learners »
See supernatural defined for kids »
Examples of SUPERNATURAL

    <believes in ghosts, guardian angels, and other supernatural beings>
    <he seems to read books with supernatural speed>_


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 31, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> So if a burning bush has ever talked then it's not a supernatural occurrence?
> 
> _su·per·nat·u·ral
> adjective \ËŒsü-pÉ™r-Ëˆna-chÉ™-rÉ™l, -Ëˆnach-rÉ™l\
> ...



Ambush, if burning bushes talked, the Christians would get on here and declare "SEE, SEE, only a GOD can make burning bushes talk!"  

AA's would get on here "NO!  God did not make the burning bushes talk!  It is an evolutionary defense against the talking Donkeys which ate them....a miracle of science!!"

In the scope of our harsh, dead universe, a collection of talking cells is miraculous, and supernatural.  It's all perspective.

In today's world, a dinosaur would be supernatural.  There was a time when those things were everywhere, and they were CRAZY looking critters.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 31, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> So if a burning bush has ever talked then it's not a supernatural occurrence?
> 
> _su·per·nat·u·ral
> adjective \ËŒsü-pÉ™r-Ëˆna-chÉ™-rÉ™l, -Ëˆnach-rÉ™l\
> ...



Nice! I think that is great! Hits the nail on the head!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 31, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Ambush, if burning bushes talked, the Christians would get on here and declare "SEE, SEE, only a GOD can make burning bushes talk!"
> 
> AA's would get on here "NO!  God did not make the burning bushes talk!  It is an evolutionary defense against the talking Donkeys which ate them....a miracle of science!!"
> 
> ...



Wrong.  If a burning bush talked to me and told me it was god I would listen. 

A talking collection of cells happens all the time, is easily observable and repeatable.  For some reason you don't think that life is wondrous and meaningful unless it's somehow supernatural.  That's an issue of perspective.

Yes .  A dinosaur walking down Peachtree St. would be supernatural, as much as a burning, talking bush.  If the AJC claimed there was a dinosaur on Peachtree St. I would be HIGHLY skeptical of that report as well as any other reports therein.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 1, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> That is actually NOT how science works.



Science from where? The Bible?


Vapor Canopy Hypothesis, holds no water.

Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today. 

How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible? 


Radiocarbon" does not form from cosmic rays, the carbon-14 drops in from the sky itself. 
C-14 forms in the reaction: 


N-14 + neutron --> C-14 + H 
where the free neutrons are generally produced by cosmic rays. So the canopy-promoting Jehovah's Witnesses are correct that such a canopy would foul up C-14 dating. However, it would also have many other effects, none of which are observed. I would add: 


Such a canopy would have a serious effect on solar and thermal radiation. Just exactly how this would affect the climate depends on the canopy's thickness, but it is unlikely to have no effect. No such effect is evident in the paleoclimatic record. 

As well as dendrochronology, thermoluminescence dating, fission track dating, amino-acid dating, and uranium/thorium dating confirm C-14 dates for humans at the last ice age (i.e. about 21000 years ago for the glacial maximum) within 20%. If the canopy had existed up to 4000 years ago this would not be the case since all of the above, with the possible exception of thermoluminescence dating, are unaffected by the presence or absence of cosmic rays. 

If there was very little C-14 production before 4000 B.P. and normal production since, no objects would carbon date between 4000 and about 20000 years old. This is not what is observed.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 1, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Wrong.  If a burning bush talked to me and told me it was god I would listen.



Not if all burning bushes talked.  I mean, you see life every day and find it mundane and non-miraculous.



ambush80 said:


> A talking collection of cells happens all the time, is easily observable and repeatable.  For some reason you don't think that life is wondrous and meaningful unless it's somehow supernatural.  That's an issue of perspective.



 

1. Life is not repeatable in the sense that you can't make it from dead stuff.
2. Life is amazing because of point #1.  It requires a "spark" that you and I cannot provide.



ambush80 said:


> Yes .  A dinosaur walking down Peachtree St. would be supernatural.  As much as a burning, talking bush.  If the AJC claimed there was a dinosaur on Peachtree St. I would be HIGHLY skeptical of that report as well as any other reports therein.



At some point in time, a dinosaur has walked down Peachtree street.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 1, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Let's pretend the earth is round, or generally spheroid. I will simplify my explanation by not including an in depth discussion about how the earth is spinning, and rotating around the sun producing gravity.


 I hope I just read this wrong and you don't think spinning/rotating produces gravity.



> Furthermore, there is not a finite amount of water on our planet.


 Yes there is. Earth is a closed system.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 1, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> 2. Life is amazing because of point #1.  It requires a "spark" that you and I cannot provide.



Actually... you and I have a bunch of spark... I've sparked it up once before... and I test the sparker just about every night....


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 1, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> Actually... you and I have a bunch of spark... I've sparked it up once before... and I test the sparker just about every night....



Yes, but you were already alive.  Rocks don't have "sparkers."


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 1, 2014)

No doubt


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 1, 2014)

I for 1 am enjoying these conversations.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Not if all burning bushes talked.



If any burning bush talked then we would have to rewrite all the science books.  That's why such a claim that it ever happened SHOULD BE regarded with heavy, heavy skepticism and rightfully so.  It goes against everything that we have observed. You can't even explain it in Apologetic way. 



JB0704 said:


> I mean, you see life every day and find it mundane and non-miraculous.




No I don't.   

The Universe is amazing but not because it was poofed into existence by some creature.  In fact, the whole god creature thing detracts from it because I see the fingerprint of man on the idea of god.





JB0704 said:


> 1. Life is not repeatable in the sense that you can't make it from dead stuff.
> 2. Life is amazing because of point #1.  It requires a "spark" that you and I cannot provide.



And for you this spark must come from a creator in order to be legitimate?



JB0704 said:


> At some point in time, a dinosaur has walked down Peachtree street.



If a dinosaur was reported to walk down Peachtree St. today, or for that matter if the AJC reported a resurrection I would be highly suspicious.  They better have good documentation.

Here's the thing, you believe in the resurrection on faith, clearly not a rational position, and this allows you to accept all the fantastic claims made by the Bible.  An objective person would look at Genesis and start asking questions about the validity of the rest of the book immediately.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 1, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> And for you this spark must come from a creator in order to be legitimate?



No.  But it doesn't come from nothing.  The something which created the spark, would by default be the creator.



ambush80 said:


> If a dinosaur was reported to walk down Peachtree St. today, or for that matter if the AJC reported a resurrection I would be highly suspicious.  They better have good documentation.



At what point in history did the existence of a dinosaur on Peachtree become supernatural?

The point is that the things which would be supernatural today, were possible then.  Why?  If not now, then how can conditions be manipulated within the universe to create possible from the impossible?



ambush80 said:


> Here's the thing, you believe in the resurrection on faith, clearly not a rational position, and this allows you to accept all the fantastic claims made by the Bible.  An objective person would look at Genesis and start asking questions about the validity of the rest of the book immediately.



Yes I believe in a resurection.  

Consider your position for a moment and tell me how it is any more rational.....

You believe all the dead stuff in the universe came together in a cosmic accident to create all the alive stuff in the universe.  

The only thing you do is elliminate God from your equation, and somehow that equals rational to you 

I look at dead stuff, believe it cannot become alive stuff unless acted upon something which can do that sort of thing....God.  If God can interact with rocks and minerals to create dinosarus, raising Jesus from the dead ain't that big a deal in the grand scheme of possibilities.

^^^That, is a reasonable conclusion, no matter how much you wish it weren't so.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 1, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> No.  But it doesn't come from nothing.  The something which created the spark, would by default be the creator.



You're hung up on the idea that it had to have been an act of consciousness and your reasons are sentimental at their core.





JB0704 said:


> At what point in history did the existence of a dinosaur on Peachtree become supernatural?
> 
> The point is that the things which would be supernatural today, were possible then.  Why?  If not now, then how can conditions be manipulated within the universe to create possible from the impossible?



Since they are extinct, if a dinosaur appeared today, without man's intervention (a _Jurassic Park_ scenario) I would call that a supernatural occurrence using this definition:

_
2
a :  departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature _

A talking burning  bush is ALWAYS supernatural by any definition of the word (no to mention physically impossible).




JB0704 said:


> Yes I believe in a resurection.
> 
> Consider your position for a moment and tell me how it is any more rational.....



Because a resurrection is impossible.




JB0704 said:


> You believe all the dead stuff in the universe came together in a cosmic accident to create all the alive stuff in the universe.
> 
> The only thing you do is elliminate God from your equation, and somehow that equals rational to you



Yes.  Adding a supreme being that only exists as an idea into the equation is irrational.



JB0704 said:


> I look at dead stuff, believe it cannot become alive stuff unless acted upon something which can do that sort of thing....God.  If God can interact with rocks and minerals to create dinosarus, raising Jesus from the dead ain't that big a deal in the grand scheme of possibilities.
> 
> ^^^That, is a reasonable conclusion, no matter how much you wish it weren't so.



Are brine shrimp (Sea Monkey) eggs alive?  Just add water.

I concede, and always have, that if god exists in the manner which you claim he does, he could absolutely cause all manner of supernatural phenomena.  

The worst part of it is that you use as a "proof" of resurrection a book full of weirdo claims.  Again, why wouldn't you start at Genesis and then be compelled to question the rest of it?  You take one claim in the last part of the book as true (by faith) and then assume the rest is true as well.  Surely you see how backwards that thinking is.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 1, 2014)

660griz said:


> Science from where? The Bible?
> 
> 
> Vapor Canopy Hypothesis, holds no water.
> ...



Nice opinion piece.
What is the hypothesis?
What is the experiment?
What is the control group?
What are the results of the experiment?
Do the results of the experiment, support or not support the hypothesis?


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 1, 2014)

660griz said:


> I hope I just read this wrong and you don't think spinning/rotating produces gravity.
> 
> Yes there is. Earth is a closed system.



You read it wrong. Do celestial bodies ever enter the Earth's atmosphere? Not a closed system.

Furthermore, all the hydrogen and oxygen that could be water is not always tied up in water.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 1, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> You're hung up on the idea that it had to have been an act of consciousness and your reasons are sentimental at their core.



You're hung up on the idea that rational exists within your know possibilities, and that reason is limited to what you can see, feel and touch, disregarding the fact that your concept of origins is no less supernatural than mine.



ambush80 said:


> Since they are extinct, if a dinosaur appeared today, without man's intervention (a _Jurassic Park_ scenario) I would call that a supernatural occurrence using this definition:
> 
> _
> 2
> ...



So are flying horses.  But, if horses flew, we would have a perfectly rational explanation for it backed with scientific reasoning.  Anything we see everyday is normal.  But, what is limit to "possible?"  Is it confined to earth?  HAs evolution followed our patterns elsewhere?  Does atmospheric density tinker with what critters can and cannot do?

Somewhere, on some distant planet, flying horses may thrive in a helium atmosphere.....and laugh their dang heads off at talking burning bushes.




ambush80 said:


> Because a resurrection is impossible.



What happened when the first not alive thing became alive?




ambush80 said:


> Yes.  Adding a supreme being that only exists as an idea into the equation is irrational.



No.  It is looking at a rock and sayin' "they ain't no sparker there...."





ambush80 said:


> Are brine shrimp (Sea Monkey) eggs alive?  Just add water.



I have no clue what brine shrimp are.  Are they real eggs from organic creatures?  Or are they a neat science trick?  



ambush80 said:


> I concede, and always have, that if god exists in the manner which you claim he does, he could absolutely cause all manner of supernatural phenomena.



The phenomena would be natural.  Don't get hung up on talking burning bushes when considering what might be.  We both believe anything that occurs has reason behind it, and we rationalize the things we see as the way things are based on our worldview.  



ambush80 said:


> The worst part of it is that you use as a "proof" of resurrection a book full of weirdo claims.  Again, why wouldn't you start at Genesis and then be compelled to question the rest of it?  You take one claim in the last part of the book as true (by faith) and then assume the rest is true as well.  Surely you see how backwards that thinking is.



Not going anywhere near that


----------



## 660griz (Apr 2, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Nice opinion piece.
> What is the hypothesis?
> What is the experiment?
> What is the control group?
> ...



I can't read or comprehend the article for you.

You stated the flood evaporated into the earth's atmosphere.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 2, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> You read it wrong. Do celestial bodies ever enter the Earth's atmosphere? Not a closed system.



Can a rock from space enter my house? Of course it can. That doesn't change the fact that my A/C system is closed.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Yes.  Adding a supreme being that only exists as an idea into the equation is irrational.


Maybe I should go find the Dr. Willard thread again? Seemed pretty rational to me.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Maybe I should go find the Dr. Willard thread again? Seemed pretty rational to me.



Bringing in the Willard thread which has been discussed to death, countered, and shown that you are in with only a handful of others that think Willard made a rational point would not only be fitting of your style but forever define your ways.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Bringing in the Willard thread which has been discussed to death, countered, and shown that you are in with only a handful of others that think Willard made a rational point would not only be fitting of your style but forever define your ways.



LOL, I must have missed that.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> LOL, I must have missed that.



Yes you did....you missed it during the initial thread, the second time you bumped it up thinking it was the "Do all End all" and the third time you bumped it up. Now you want to do it again...


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Yes you did....you missed it during the initial thread, the second time you bumped it up thinking it was the "Do all End all" and the third time you bumped it up. Now you want to do it again...



I bumped it a few times because the questions that it answered kept coming up again and again...... and again. Tells me tons about the intellectual honesty of the conversation that goes on in this forum.

A no, it didn't get shown to be irrational or illogical, by anybody.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I bumped it a few times because the questions that it answered kept coming up again and again...... and again. Tells me tons about the intellectual honesty of the conversation that goes on in this forum.
> 
> A no, it didn't get shown to be irrational or illogical, by anybody.



Lucky we each have our own opinions.

My opinion is that if Willard's 3 stage argument was half as good as you think it is then it would be the standard worldwide.  Ambush and Asath did a fine job in that thread and Willard's words are fitting for every god that was ever dreamed up by mankind.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2014)

660griz said:


> Can a rock from space enter my house? Of course it can. That doesn't change the fact that my A/C system is closed.



I assume you are talking about the refrigerant coils, and not the HVAC system. But, if the space rock hits your A/C system and leaks all the refrigerant out, or if your dog jumps on top of the unit, and bends a coil till it cracks (I have a big dog), then the system is OPEN. It is very difficult to have an actual "permanent" closed system. This is why we have a "control" group in scientific experimentation.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 3, 2014)

I guess my point is if someone asks if my A/C is an open or closed system, I say closed. It gets air from inside, removes the heat, and puts in back inside. I do not say, it is an open system because my dog may crack a coil. Do not manage to the exceptions.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 4, 2014)

660griz said:


> I guess my point is if someone asks if my A/C is an open or closed system, I say closed. It gets air from inside, removes the heat, and puts in back inside. I do not say, it is an open system because my dog may crack a coil. Do not manage to the exceptions.



I guess my point is proved even more concisely by your last post, because you are referring to the entire HVAC system.

I thought you were just referring to the refrigeration system, because I didn't think anyone could possible think the air in their house was a closed system.

If your house was a closed system, you couldn't enter or leave, and you would die when all the oxygen was used up.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was not attempting to manage anything.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 4, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I guess my point is proved even more concisely by your last post, because you are referring to the entire HVAC system.
> 
> I thought you were just referring to the refrigeration system, because I didn't think anyone could possible think the air in their house was a closed system.
> 
> ...



Sigh. Once again exceptions. The refigeration system could care less about leaks in your house. It will work if a container is sealed. That is the way it is designed...closed. The earth is closed. Water that is here, stays here. Finite. 

Yes. Astronauts could take some water from earth and hurl it into space. You got me. Jeesh!

The fact that I even have to try to convince someone the earth is a closed system means this converstation isn't going to go far. Google some and get back to me.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 4, 2014)

I haven't been following the last page and a half of this thread but thought of something last night..... Y'all do know that Bill is a comedian, right?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 4, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I haven't been following the last page and a half of this thread but thought of something last night..... Y'all do know that Bill is a comedian, right?



In the same way Fred Phelps was a pastor.  Bill ain't funny and Fred didn't preach the Gospel of Christ, but both of them are/were experts in inciting angst.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Apr 4, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> In the same way Fred Phelps was a pastor.  Bill ain't funny and Fred didn't preach the Gospel of Christ, but both of them are/were experts in inciting angst.



Bill Maher actually is pretty funny. I don't have HBO anymore but I really enjoyed his show, especially his discussion panels, both sides of an issue were always represented. 

RW


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> Bill Maher actually is pretty funny.



Nah.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Nah.


I'm starting to get the feeling you don't like the guy 

But just a point -
Maher's opinions on religion aren't even in the same ballpark at making religion look bad as a whole host of supposedly religious men have. Maher and people like him aren't the ones doing the damage.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> But just a point -
> Maher's opinions on religion aren't even in the same ballpark at making religion look bad as a whole host of supposedly religious men have. Maher and people like him aren't the ones doing the damage.



I absolutely agree with this.  I mentioned earlier that I think Maher is just preaching to the choir, and has little impact outside those who are already like minded.  I can't stand religious folks who do the same act from the other side either.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm starting to get the feeling you don't like the guy
> 
> But just a point -
> Maher's opinions on religion aren't even in the same ballpark at making religion look bad as a whole host of supposedly religious men have. Maher and people like him aren't the ones doing the damage.




I think he is a very funny guy... I think most people should admit that he can be at least... 

I mentioned that though, because I'm sure a bit of what he says and how he says it is for ratings... This 3 page 128 post thread with 2500 views is probably exactly what he wanted... even if it was a couple floors up...


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think he is a very funny guy... I think most people should admit that he can be at least...



Nah. 



TripleXBullies said:


> ... This 3 page 128 post thread with 2500 views is probably exactly what he wanted... even if it was a couple floors up...



Nope.  I didn't even read the background for the thread.  I've heard enough from him.  When he called the U.S. cowards, then backtracked like a little girl, I had heard enough from him.  I don't care if what he has to say is right/wrong/ or mildly humorous, it's nothing that will lead me to his show.  If he is going to say idiot things, he should at least be a man and own it when he wins his idiot prizes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think he is a very funny guy... I think most people should admit that he can be at least...
> 
> I mentioned that though, because I'm sure a bit of what he says and how he says it is for ratings... This 3 page 128 post thread with 2500 views is probably exactly what he wanted... even if it was a couple floors up...


Yeah he can get a chuckle or two out of me. But if I really want to laugh I go with -


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 4, 2014)

Maher's following is very thin and narrow.  I doubt he has an agenda in either direction.  I suspect he mostly talks just so he can hear himself.

Most of his comments are sooooooo overboard no one pays him much attention.
.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 4, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> Maher's following is very thin and narrow.  I doubt he has an agenda in either direction.  I suspect he mostly talks just so he can hear himself.
> 
> Most of his comments are sooooooo overboard no one pays him much attention.
> .


Actually no. 
You don't get an ongoing show on HBO if nobody is watching.
In 2005, Maher ranked at number 38 on Comedy Central's 100 greatest stand-up comedians of all time.
Bill Maher received a Hollywood Walk of Fame star on September 14, 2010
Real Time has earned widespread praise. It has been nominated for more than ten Primetime Emmy Awards and six Writer's Guild awards. In 2007, Maher and his co-producers were awarded the Television Producer of the Year Award in Variety Television by the Producers Guild of America.[30] Maher holds the record for the most Emmy nominations without a win, having been nominated on 22 occasions and not winning once. Eleven of the nominations were for Politically Incorrect, while nine were for Real Time. The other two were nominations for two of his HBO comedy specials: Bill Maher: I'm Swiss and Bill Maher: The Decider.[31]

Certainly no one is required to like or agree with him but more than just himself is listening to him talk.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually no.
> You don't get an ongoing show on HBO if nobody is watching.
> In 2005, Maher ranked at number 38 on Comedy Central's 100 greatest stand-up comedians of all time.They didn't do a very through search of past comedians them!
> Bill Maher received a Hollywood Walk of Fame star on September 14, 2010
> ...



Is he really a comedian?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 5, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> Is he really a comedian?


Yup he started his career doing and still does stand up comedy. Although in my opinion he's not even remotely close to being as funny as Robin Williams, Richard Pryor, 
Sam Kinison (former preacher), Lenny Bruce and a few others.
Again, like him or hate him, he has a very successful career. If you can afford to write a check for a million dollars to the Obama campaign, you are doing ok.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 13, 2014)

660griz said:


> Sigh. Once again exceptions. The refigeration system could care less about leaks in your house. It will work if a container is sealed. That is the way it is designed...closed. The earth is closed. Water that is here, stays here. Finite.
> 
> Yes. Astronauts could take some water from earth and hurl it into space. You got me. Jeesh!
> 
> The fact that I even have to try to convince someone the earth is a closed system means this converstation isn't going to go far. Google some and get back to me.



Is there elemental hydrogen on Earth? Is there elemental oxygen on Earth? (I sure hope so.)

Is all the hydrogen and oxygen on Earth tied up in water (H2O) all at the same time? No, because you are breathing some oxygen right now.

Could hydrogen or oxygen leave and or enter the Earth's atmosphere? Yes.

There is not a finite amount of water on the Earth.

No Google necessary.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 14, 2014)

You can argue with other scientist.

http://faculty.uml.edu/nelson_eby/87.201/Instructor pdfs/The Earth System.pdf



> From link
> 
> As a whole, Earth is essentially a closed system
> 
> ...


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 14, 2014)

660griz said:


> You can argue with other scientist.
> 
> http://faculty.uml.edu/nelson_eby/87.201/Instructor pdfs/The Earth System.pdf



A great scientist once told me this, "Just because it is published, does not mean it is correct." Just because you limit your observations to a "box", does not mean that the box is isolated from the rest of its surroundings.

I consulted with several of my work associates. They all agreed that the Earth is definitely not a closed system. Matter in the universe is finite, matter on Earth is not (meteors and such).

They went further to say that the only thing that resembles a closed system is a manmade experiment, but those are always temporary.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 14, 2014)

How much oxygen and hydrogen exchange is there between our atmosphere and space?  I've looked but haven't found a good answer yet.  I know there is something like one hydrogen atom per cubic yard in space, but how does that translate into bringing more elements into our atmosphere?  I mean enough where it would greatly impact the amount of possible water produced?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2014)

When discussions about proven science start to resemble discussions about the bible, you know it is a lost cause. Almost like science is being molded to match the bible. I blame the school system.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2014)

It's odd.  Believers try to make a case on how an impossible event could have possibly happened using science and logic until the argument fails and then they resort to saying that it's supernatural and outside the realm of science and logic.  

Like I said before, this sub-section, indeed the whole notion of Apologetics is a no go from the start, doomed to fail.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 15, 2014)

660griz said:


> When discussions about proven science start to resemble discussions about the bible, you know it is a lost cause. Almost like science is being molded to match the bible. I blame the school system.



Science doesn't prove things.

The discussion has come full circle. I too can blame the school systems because so many people do not know what science is, and what it is capable of, and what it is not capable of.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

http://www.ted.com/conversations/18256/truths_and_facts_does_science.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

I did some googling for you.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2014)

Now we have both Googled yet...nothing. Ambush is right...doomed!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Science doesn't prove things.
> 
> The discussion has come full circle. I too can blame the school systems because so many people do not know what science is, and what it is capable of, and what it is not capable of.
> 
> ...



From talk origins:
_
 "A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953._ 



  yawn, Ted.

Ever hear this:  "I don't know _how_ He does it but I know He does."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 15, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Science doesn't prove things.
> 
> The discussion has come full circle. I too can blame the school systems because so many people do not know what science is, and what it is capable of, and what it is not capable of.
> 
> ...



From one of the links:


> The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.”  What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven.  Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false.  But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my *** tomorrow.  In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.



Says a lot about creationists and science.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 15, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Science doesn't prove things.



I understand that.

I regret the phrasing. What I  meant was the generally accepted method of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> From talk origins:
> _
> "A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."
> 
> ...



You have helped me prove my point. Thanks.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 15, 2014)

bullethead said:


> From one of the links:
> 
> 
> Says a lot about creationists and science.



No, in fact, it does not.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 15, 2014)

660griz said:


> I understand that.
> 
> I regret the phrasing. What I  meant was the generally accepted method of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment



When discussions about the generally accepted method of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment start to resemble discussions about the bible, you know it is a lost cause.

I fixed it for you, but I still don't think it makes sense.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> When discussions about the generally accepted method of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment start to resemble discussions about the bible, you know it is a lost cause.
> 
> I fixed it for you, but I still don't think it makes sense.



That's why all Apologetics, including your feeble attempt to try to explain how there could have been a world wide flood, is a useless exercise.  I would prefer you simply say the great flood and the talking, burning bush happened because of magic.  It's really your best possible answer.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I would prefer you simply say the great flood and the talking, burning bush happened because of magic.  It's really your best possible answer.



^^^This!


----------



## 660griz (Apr 16, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I still don't think it makes sense.



(generally accepted)= proven 
( method of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment) = science

What about now?


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> That's why all Apologetics, including your feeble attempt to try to explain how there could have been a world wide flood, is a useless exercise.  I would prefer you simply say the great flood and the talking, burning bush happened because of magic.  It's really your best possible answer.



I am so glad that your opinion is just your opinion.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 17, 2014)

660griz said:


> (generally accepted)= proven
> ( method of intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment) = science
> 
> What about now?



Abortion is generally accepted.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 18, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Abortion is generally accepted.



And proven. Correct. As are tangents.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 18, 2014)

660griz said:


> And proven. Correct. As are tangents.



Sorry, I should have elaborated. My point is that it may not be the best idea to found your beliefs in "generally accepted" ideas. But, the choice is yours.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Sorry, I should have elaborated. My point is that it may not be the best idea to found your beliefs in "generally accepted" ideas. But, the choice is yours.



7 billion people on the planet and about 2.1 billion are Christians. I could not agree with your "generally accepted" point more.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 19, 2014)

bullethead said:


> 7 billion people on the planet and about 2.1 billion are Christians. I could not agree with your "generally accepted" point more.



I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Christianity is not "generally accepted", and you agree that basing one's beliefs on ideas that are not generally accepted is a good idea?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Christianity is not "generally accepted", and you agree that basing one's beliefs on ideas that are not generally accepted is a good idea?



What I am saying is Christianity is "generally accepted" by less than 1/3 of the world's population. Based on those figures I not only agree with your point of "that it may not be the best idea to found your beliefs in "generally accepted" ideas" but I follow that advice when it comes to all religions.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> What I am saying is Christianity is "generally accepted" by less than 1/3 of the world's population. Based on those figures I not only agree with your point of "that it may not be the best idea to found your beliefs in "generally accepted" ideas" but I follow that advice when it comes to all religions.



Thanks for clarifying. I got it now, but I would think generally accepted would be more like >1/2 of the population agreeing. It is a very subjective term though.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Thanks for clarifying. I got it now, but I would think generally accepted would be more like >1/2 of the population agreeing. It is a very subjective term though.



Then it would stand to reason that anything based on <1/2 of the population, like only 1/3 actually accepting a belief, would be an even better reason to not found any beliefs on. Especially since there is such wide spread beliefs within those beliefs.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Then it would stand to reason that anything based on <1/2 of the population, like only 1/3 actually accepting a belief, would be an even better reason to not found any beliefs on. Especially since there is such wide spread beliefs within those beliefs.



I think you got what I was saying backwards.

I was saying that basing one's beliefs on generally accepted ideas was not good.

As in, don't go with the majority. I used abortion as an example. It is generally accepted, but I believe it is wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> I think you got what I was saying backwards.
> 
> I was saying that basing one's beliefs on generally accepted ideas was not good.
> 
> As in, don't go with the majority. I used abortion as an example. It is generally accepted, but I believe it is wrong.



with 2.1 Billion Christians....I'd venture to guess THE MAJORITY of them base their beliefs on a generally accepted idea.....Not Good.
You used abortion
I used religion


----------



## 660griz (Apr 21, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> Sorry, I should have elaborated. My point is that it may not be the best idea to found your beliefs in "generally accepted" ideas. But, the choice is yours.



Yet, we ALL do it.


----------

