The Museum of Hoaxes
Prove God Exists and Get $1,000,000
Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Jan 12, 2005
 <a href="http://www.thinkandreason.com/" title="Think and Reason">Think and Reason</a> is offering $1,000,000 if you can<b> prove</b> that God exists. There are conditions attached. But they do say: <i>"All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy!"</i>

Is there really this money sitting waiting?

Supposing I said I was God - and prove I exist (should be easy) - is the money mine?
Category: Money, Religion; Replies: 1406

Comments
Page 6 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
Lindsay
Member
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 | 10:08 PM
right sorry.. evidense

there are many christians many people could give their testimonys. not everyone likes to debate like i do though sooo idk if anyone will want ot sacrifise tiem to this. their testimones will only be ignored and no one can ever prove or disprove God with what you consider evidense

long day my brain isnt working well so pardon me if im even more illogical than usual
Lindsay
Member
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 | 10:11 PM
God isnt going to go against his word. if he can take away for freewil then he wont and has no reason to. i can cut off my ear if i really wanted to but i dont and i wont. God can force you to love him but he doesnt want to and he wont
skepticality
Member
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 | 10:22 PM
*God isnt going to go against his word. if he can take away for freewil then he wont and has no reason to. i can cut off my ear if i really wanted to but i dont and i wont. God can force you to love him but he doesnt want to and he wont*

But, if he knows the entire future, then you have no free will because your actions are already planned.

Additionally, there is no 'fight' between good and evil then either. You can't have complete control of the universe AND have a fight on your hands. So, IF God has all-mighty control, AND he knows everything that is going to happen...

Then, both;

Free Will does not exist.

AND

God created Evil on purpose. Which, makes him less than Good.
Lindsay
Member
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 | 10:42 PM
if there is good then there has to be evil or no one would no what good was becuase there would be nothing to go against it. you cannot decide what it moraly right or wrong especialy for God. if nothing bad ever happened then bad an dgood wouldnt exist and your life would basically suck. The reason that God doesnt have control over everything is because he gave the Earth to adam to do as adam pleased. by using his freewill to sin against God he basically handed it over to the devil. God will take it back later.

he doesnt follow time like we do he doesnt have to functionas a human does. if he didnt know what you were going to do then you would still do it regardless. if he didnt know that you were going to reject him then would you have accepted him? that would make no sense and there would be no reason..if you say the reason that you would accept God is becuase he hasnt known that you wouldnt then that also makes no sense because God wants you to accept him. you could live live with God not knowing what you would do and it would be no different than if you lived your life with him knowing what you would do. you have freewill.
skepticality
Member
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 | 10:57 PM
*you cannot decide what it moraly right or wrong especialy for God*

So, then... when 'God' tells some people to become serial killers... that is okay? Because... God has a different morality than our own? One we don't understand?

Because, if we understand it, then we CAN decide what is morally right and wrong.

So, either... we UNDERSTAND morality, and therefor CAN judge if something God does is moral or not.

OR

We do not understand Gods morality, and we should never judge anyone.... because, it is all some twisted morality we don't understand, and cannot judge.

*God will take it back later.*

Why wouldn't he now? He must like f'n with us all for his own enjoyment. Guess that goes back to not being able to figure out Gods morality. Which seems pretty twisted and semi-evil when you look at the world in general.

Man, that Tsunami, sure was a great moral victory!

*he doesnt follow time like we do he doesnt have to functionas a human does. if he didnt know what you were going to do then you would still do it regardless.*

And now we have officially hit the wall where we have resorted to making some stuff up.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 | 11:05 PM
if nothing bad ever happened then bad an dgood wouldnt exist and your life would basically suck.

lindsay, if there we need bad to know what good is, then does that mean there is badness in heaven? There would have to be, if people are to be happy there, by your reasoning.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 | 11:08 PM
And, like I said in the other thread, there are plenty of testimonies of people communicating and feeling joy from non-christian gods. I would wager that the total amount of people who have had strong religious experiences of the non-christian variety throughout time is vastly higher than the number of christian religious experiences.
Lindsay
Member
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 | 11:20 PM
wen you get to heaven everyhting that you have gone through will no be erased. youll rmember what pain felt like. your life wont be bland.

Gods morality is in the bible and it should be the ones that christians follow. you personaly cant decide what is moraly right for God. dont bother showing me all of the things that you consider horribly wrong from the bible its your interpritation of it and according to the bible unbelievers arent going to understand it.. if God were to take back the earth now then there would be alot more people going to hell. theres a time when it will be right and it will happen.

i dont have the energy today to get into the whole "if God loves us then why does he let us die?"
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 02:28 AM
hee hee, I just sent the following email to a kids4truth, a christian website:

My grandma died a few years ago as an atheist. Now people tell me she went to hell. Is there anything I can do to get her into heaven? Could I go to hell so that she can go to heaven?
--David

I'm really curious as to how they'll be able to tell me she went to hell, in a nice way.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 02:30 AM
David if God were forcing you to do things then he would force you to follow him.

Unless God didn't want me to follow Him. Or are you now an infallible oracle for the will of God?

God knows you better than you know yourself. He made you...formed every aspect of your being.

So He did that AND knew how I'd respond to every challenge, every choice and every temptation. God is therefore responsible. If you give a man a gun and know without a doubt he was going to kill someone with it, you are an accessory to the crime. You have condemn your God out of your own mouth; he creates the evil people in every respect, knowing they will do evil. He is an accessory to every crime of history. He is evil.

if you cant be open minded enough to realize that then im dissapointed

You think anyone who doesn't agree with your very simple and limited interpretation of God isn't openminded. Which is possibly the most close-minded attitude on this forum. I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea of a God that can trancend space and time and know and do everything. A consequence of this is that I have no free will and I'm perfectly willing to entertain that idea as well. So will you entertain the idea that you are wrong in your concept of God (not necessarily in his existence)? On the weight of the 'evidense' of this forum, apparently not.
crankymediaguy
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:59 AM
Citizen Premier said:

"hee hee, I just sent the following email to a kids4truth, a christian website:

My grandma died a few years ago as an atheist. Now people tell me she went to hell. Is there anything I can do to get her into heaven? Could I go to hell so that she can go to heaven?
--David

I'm really curious as to how they'll be able to tell me she went to hell, in a nice way."

Hey, CP, you shouldn't have told the name of the website. You KNOW some goody-goody is going to go there and spoil your gag.

By the way, what makes you think they'll tell you Grandma is going to Hell in a NICE way? In my experience, some hard core believers seem to enjoy the thought of the "unsaved" roasting in Hell. Makes 'em feel superior in their superstition, you know?
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 05:08 AM
Apparently, God also didn't like me posting that last entry and fiddled with the formatting. Ooh, the big meany!

Mind you the poor spelling is defunately mine. No 's' in transcend? No 'f'-in way! I've been reading Lindsay's post for so long sensory adaption is taking plaice and i kant see the miss-takes in my own writting. Itll be my punctation next youll see!!!
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 06:24 AM
I wanted to just throw in a quick comment here about freewill.

<i>Knowing</i> what will happen and <i>causing</i> it to happen are 2 different things. I <b>know</b> in the morning that my daughter will ask to eat. (She does the baby sign, and she does it as soon as she gets up.)

If I know she is going to do something, it's not the same as causing it. Even if I give her a choice and ask, "Pancakes or Eggs?" I know she'll say eggs, b/c she doesn't know how to say pancakes. Now, I'm not omnipotent or anything, so there is not a lot I can <b>know</b> she'll choose, but of the things I <b>do</b> know about...I'm not causing her to choose those things, she's choosing them on her own. But, b/c of my knowledge of her little attitude and behavior, I already know what she's going to choose.

I dunno...a lot of people seem to be pushing the idea that the Free Will option is being predetermined FOR you. Which, from what I understand is not the case.

You MIGHT have chosen door B, but you're not going to. Just like Jocelynn MIGHT ask for pancakes. But she isn't going to. Not any day soon anyway!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 06:39 AM
I think you believers--and non-believers, actually--might get a kick and/or laugh out of this:
http://celebritymedium.livejournal.com/ . I know I did.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 07:06 AM
I know in the morning that my daughter will ask to eat. (She does the baby sign, and she does it as soon as she gets up.)

No, you believe she will, and it is no doubt very likely that she will based on your past experience with her. Though you probably don't like to think about it (I didn't when my daughter was a baby), there is a small but non-zero probability that your child will not be alive the next morning. That something is likely does not make it inevitable.

But suppose you had a crystal ball, suppose it was always (and I mean always) right. What if it showed an accident happening to your child? What do you do? You can't prevent the accident, because if you could then the crystal ball wouldn't always be right. If you try to prevent it it will happen anyway because the crystal ball forsaw what you'd try when it predicted the accident. You'd try anything and everything, move heaven and earth (I know I would), but your every attempt is part of the circumstances the crystal ball knew would occur before the accident. In effect you are following a sick script, going through the motions that bring you face-to-face with the big accident in the final reel. You have no free will, your every action was forseen, your every response was forseen, when the crystal ball showed you the accident, everything you would do after had aleady been taken into account.

I reject that kind of universe. I want my actions to be effectual, I want my choices to be potent, I want my future in the balance. I want to make a difference. As a consequence no-one can know what my future holds, because it hasn't happened yet and however likely my actions appear, however predictable, there is always a non-zero probability I might do the unexpected. There is always a chance I might surprise God.

That is free will.

You MIGHT have chosen door B, but you're not going to. Just like Jocelynn MIGHT ask for pancakes. But she isn't going to. Not any day soon anyway!

That's weak determinism. The difference here is that perfect knowledge of my future prevents me from diverging from it.

You MIGHT have chosen door B, but you're not going to.

The sentence is a contradiction (and uses two different tenses for added confusion). If I might choose B, then that implies the probability of me doing so is non-zero (P > 0). If I'm not going to (that is, if it is known before I make the choice that the outcome isn't B) then the probability of me choosing B is zero (P=0).

If it was known beforehand and with 100% accuracy that I wasn't going to choose door B, then it becomes impossible for me to do so. I might think I have free will, it might even feel like it to me, but the probability I was going to choose door B is exactly 0. Even if I toss a coin for it, or count the number of radioactive decays in a second (odd = A, even = B), or close my eyes and spin round until I'm dizzy.
skepticality
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 08:03 AM
*I know in the morning that my daughter will ask to eat. (She does the baby sign, and she does it as soon as she gets up.)*

That would be known as deduction, not omnipotence. If you are saying that God has some form of keen Sherlock Holmes ability to figure out what might happen based on past behavior. That is a different story. Because, lots of humans do that every day with great accuracy.

All your examples still carry with them a large margin for error.

So, therefore, if God is just playing the odds. Then, he would not be all powerful.

That is where the problem comes in for most religious Dogma. VERY Conflicting concepts of their Deity.

You CANNOT have free will, if you are DEFINATELY going to do something in the future. You are then nothing more than a predictible machine, or event.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 08:29 AM
I wasn't really trying to sway anyone one way or another with Free Will...
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 09:11 AM
Just a quick on-topic question.

Would His head on a stick be considered proof enough, or would you need His entire body?
Lindsay
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 10:11 AM
lol im sry i talk to about ten other people on aim and yim while i type this so i really dont care how my spelling is.

the whole crystal ball thing has nothing to do with your freewill. things in the world happen that you have to no power to change. not because you cant choose to change it but because you just cant. if you found out that your kid was going to get hit by a car in 1 minute and you were a half n hour away with no way to contact your child then no matter what you chose to do to try and stop it, it just wont work. its impossible. knowledge does not make the facts facts make the knoweldge. or however you would like to put it.

you know what maybe your future is mapped out. maybe you cant change what you are going to do. but its not becuase God mapped it out..you did. everything about you and your circomstances shows God what you would choose. lets say someone told you that you most likely would choose vanilla icecreaam over chocolate and to prove them wrong you chose chocolate. no matter what you were going to chose chocolate because of the way your minds works and what your circomstances dealt you. God knows this becuase he knows you perfectly. therefore a thousand years before it happened he could say it would happen because that is the way that you work with those circomstances.

but im leaving right now for vacation then im going to camp and i wont be able to comment

bye
David B.
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 01:43 PM
no matter what you were going to chose chocolate

In other words, I have no free will. I prefer to have a possibility of choosing vanilla, however small.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 02:17 PM
Personally, I still feel that we live in a sort of clockwork universe, with absolute actions causing absolute results. Therefore, something with an absolute knowledge of physics and a knowledge of the entire substance of the universe could predict the future absolutely. This is assuming some kind of imaginary measurement that doesn't affect that which is observed. This prediction would even include such complex machinery as is found in human beings. As long as the human brain is part of the universe, it is predictable. Does this mean we don't have free will? Not really, it just means we're not exactly sure what free will is.
crankymediaguy
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 02:21 PM
Charybdis said:

"Would His head on a stick be considered proof enough, or would you need His entire body?"

Well, considering that you believer-types never provide ANY evidence at all, the head would do just fine, thanks. It would be FAR more than you've managed to produce in over 2000 years.

By the way, did you know that the Shroud of Turin, which was not-so-long-ago touted as "proof" of the whole Jesus thing, has been definitively proven to be a Medieval-era hoax?

As I've said before, we tell you that merely asserting your belief does NOT constitute proof and you guys respond by asserting your belief. To paraphrase an old saying, "Facts talk, bullshit walks."
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 02:26 PM
Um, Cranky?

I'm on your side. Always have been. It was a joke.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 02:36 PM
If there is further reference of the Turin Shroud here, I'll have to blow up this thread with a home made bomb. Please continue.
Myst
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 03:28 PM
I have one (ok one of many) major problem with the bible. In the beginging there was only Adam and Eve, correct? One man and one woman only. This means their sons and daughters had to get together and have children and so on and so on. Baisically you have nothing but inbreeding!!!

Inbreeding does not make for a healthy species. Here is the evidence:

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2005-06-27-amish-genetics_x.htm">Gene hunters flock to Amish country</a>

For those who don't wish to click the link I will post a small segment of the article:


The gene hunters, who come from far and wide, spend countless hours rooting through a rich genetic trove that only an insular genetic pool like the Amish can offer.

To the Amish, many of whom travel the few dozen miles or so from their homes by horse and buggy, the clinic has been heaven sent. It very often saves their children, who are disproportionately afflicted by rare and sometimes fatal genetic-based diseases because of 200 years of inbreeding.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 03:48 PM
No no no Myst. Adam and Eve's children mated with the early hominids resulting in a mixing of creationism and evolution. So they're both right! 😊
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:10 PM
Personally, I still feel that we live in a sort of clockwork universe, with absolute actions causing absolute results. Therefore, something with an absolute knowledge of physics and a knowledge of the entire substance of the universe could predict the future absolutely.

Absolutely right. Mind you look at the assumptions...

1) Absolute knowledge of physics:
This is the <a href="http://home.broadpark.no/~aklepp/astri/thesis/node11.html">Descartian universe</a> of classical mechanics. One interesting aspect is that it would require a working "<a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/how.html">hidden variable</a>" theory of radioactive decay, otherwise its random nature would throw of your initial conditions in short order. Any HVT is incompatible with just about all of quantum theory. A theory that is as well tested as Relativity or Evolution. And that's just one source of randomness, what about virtual pair production, etc. Like Heffalumps and Woozels, admit one hidden variable and 'before your eyes you'll see them multiply'.

2) absolute knowledge of the universe:
So you've got your HVT and are now ready to write down the complete state of the universe (while sat somewhere outside it obviously) on that really big notepad you got last Hanukkah. Only, some things are irreducibly combined; position-momentum, energy-time and other uncertainty formulations. This isn't just the observer (disturbance) effect mind you, it's in the fundemental nature of a particle, even with ideal measurements. Also, what point in time do you chose? The beginning is always good, in fact it's pretty much essential as relativity makes any other time meaningless for any other frame of reference but yours. Time is a purely local concept, there is no universal 'now'.

This is assuming some kind of imaginary measurement that doesn't affect that which is observed. This prediction would even include such complex machinery as is found in human beings. As long as the human brain is part of the universe, it is predictable.

Only if the universe it is part of is predictable. And that's a galactically huge 'if'! The universe is predictable, in broad swathes, over fairly short time spans, in some respects, at a certain scale, when it's in a good mood... if you're not too fussy.

Simply put, I find Asimov's Hari Seldon to be a lot more plausible that Lindsay's God.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:14 PM
I must be about one long post away from RSI by now.

Mst be terser. Use txt tlk 2 sv rists. L8r.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:26 PM
Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but when physicists refer to things that are truely random, aren't they simply saying human beings have no way to properly measure them? I admit it's a very big 'if.' And I neglected to mention that anything doing this calculation would have to be outside the universe, otherwise you'd have an infinite set.
Anyways, while yes my idea coflicts with quantum theory, so does relativity. They're both as well tested, as you say.
Myst
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:27 PM
No no no Myst. Adam and Eve's children mated with the early hominids resulting in a mixing of creationism and evolution. So they're both right!-Charybdis

I guess that would explain a lot of things, wouldn't it. 😉
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:32 PM
<a href="http://www.k4t.com/Questions/question12.htm">kids4truth</a> to the rescue!
Myst
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:36 PM
I still don't buy it, Citizen!
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:37 PM
Of course you don't. I just wanted to share the Christian answer.
Myst
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:41 PM
I am constantly amazed with the spins that are put on these so called answers to the obvious questions about inbreeding.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:45 PM
Well, when you tell yourself "I'm going to believe this, no matter what," you can think of some pretty crazy stories.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:53 PM
Well, obviously Adam and Eve wouldn't have had any genetic defects to pass along, being made by God's hand, therefore inbreeding wouldn't have been an issue. Any defects would have had to creep in over the generations, and by the time it became an issue the population was large enough to deal with them.
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 04:56 PM
Chary, defects are obviously because of sin and evil!
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 05:00 PM
Exactly, so they would have only come about as the population grew and sin became a problem.
Myst
Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 05:20 PM
I thought sin became the problem after Eve ate the apple?
crankymediaguy
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 06:13 PM
Charybdis said:

"Um, Cranky?

I'm on your side. Always have been. It was a joke."

Sorry, Charybdis. I responded to what you said without thinking about who said it and what the intent was. Obviously, I get a wee bit worked up over dealing with the non-rational. Thanks for not getting pissed at me.
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 06:16 PM
CMG, we assumed it was for that reason.
And I still appreciate you*.


*Even if you don't reply to my email. 😛

And Ray Bradbury.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 06:19 PM
No problem CMG. We all tend to get too frustrated sometimes. 😊
David B.
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 07:34 PM
when physicists refer to things that are truely random, aren't they simply saying human beings have no way to properly measure them?

I quote, "it really is random, right down to its gnarly, subatomic roots. In 1964, the physicist John Bell proved a theorem which showed hidden variable (little clock in the nucleus) theories inconsistent with the foundations of quantum mechanics. In 1982, Alain Aspect and his colleagues performed an experiment to test Bell's theoretical result and discovered, to nobody's surprise, that the predictions of quantum theory were correct: the randomness is inherent--not due to limitations in our ability to make measurements"

yes my idea coflicts with quantum theory, so does relativity. They're both as well tested, as you say

See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem">Bell's theorem</a> on Wikipedia. Basically, the consensus is that experimental evidence supports QM over Relativity but the jury is still out, and anyway the big R would only need revising, not abandoning.
David B.
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 07:37 PM
Besides, I like uncertainty. At least, I think I do.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 08:01 PM
I don't like uncertainty; the notion bothers me. I like that quote you provided, but I need more of an explanation of how it really is random, rather than simply someone saying it is. Until I get that explanation, I'll have to assume there's either a variable we don't understand or a problem of measurement.
crankymediaguy
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 | 01:01 AM
Boo said:

"CMG, we assumed it was for that reason.
And I still appreciate you*."

Aww, that's sweet. 😊


"*Even if you don't reply to my email."

Really? Hmm, I wonder which of my eight zillion email addresses you sent something to? I don't recall getting anything from you. I didn't deliberately snub you, I promise.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 | 04:23 PM
Until I get that explanation, I'll have to assume there's either a variable we don't understand or a problem of measurement.

First, brush up your maths. The reason for the quote was that the alternative (to quote Wikipedia) "may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please expand it to make it accessible to non-experts
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
 Member
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 | 06:09 PM
CMG, glad to hear you weren't rejecting me.
😊

I sent it to the email on your web page which, thinking about it, was probably not the cunningest of moves.
Anyway, it just mentioned that I appreciated your randi-isms. I found his website through you, and have been reading it and marvelling at it ever since. I'm currently working my way through his archives.

Ray Bradbury.
crankymediaguy
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 | 12:48 AM
Boo said:

"CMG, glad to hear you weren't rejecting me."

Hey, I'm hardly in a position to go around rejecting people.

"I sent it to the email on your web page which, thinking about it, was probably not the cunningest of moves."

Hmm, odd. I check that address at least every few days or so. I didn't see anything from you but I'll check again.

"Anyway, it just mentioned that I appreciated your randi-isms. I found his website through you, and have been reading it and marvelling at it ever since. I'm currently working my way through his archives."

Wow, I'm happy to hear that you found Randi through me. He's a fascinating guy. I've admired him for a long time and I'm still amazed that I got to talk to him for the first time a couple of weeks ago. I've been in email contact with him a lot lately. I'm really lucky that I've gotten to know some of my real heroes. I was a friend of Andy Kaufman's toward the end of his life and now I (kind of) know Randi. If I just had met Frank Zappa, I could die happy.

"Ray Bradbury."

THE Ray Bradbury? The Martian Chronicles guy? Probably not, huh?
julie dell
Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 | 08:53 PM
God made the earth and everything and every one around us. It is hard to believe but what else could have made us. God chooses who goes where every day of our lives if we let him. You dont know it but he is sitting beside every one right now. He is there, you dont see him but he is watching. Watching wheather or not you do the right thing, say the right thing, or give the right feeling. He is Thinking. Thinking of each and every one of you. He is loving. Loving each and every one of you.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 | 06:36 PM
"He is loving. Loving each and every one of you."

Was God watching, thinking and loving each and every one of the tsunami and Katrina victims? Did they all say the wrong things?
Lindsay
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 | 03:05 PM
i strongly resent those of you who use natural disasters against God to say that he cant love us because he allows us to die. im very sorry but i find that quite ignorant.
lindsay
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 | 03:16 PM
ok first of all, i worded that wrong. i dont resent you, i resent the idea. second of all, i didnt mean to enter that so quickly

how can you shout all of our lives that you dont believe in GOd, that you want nothing to do with him, and then expect him to force his way into your life to actually override your freewill and intervene in a life that he has been banned from? God is a gentleman, he will wait for you to ask him to do things. schools cant pray, or read the bible. teachers have such wide restristions on them religiously that its gotten to a point were its ridiculous. the ten commandments are being taken off of the courts. we're even going as far as to try and take under God out of the pledge of alleigance. in many countries, not 3rd world countries, but well devoloped countries, people are not allowed to preach on the streets.
the whole world is telling God that he isnt welcomed and yet you expect that if there is a God that he will just disregard your wishes and push his way into your life. which btw way there is a God. you just dont no it yet. and im sure that sentence will be used agaisnt me 😛

that also brings judgement into the picture. now imagine that you believe in teh christian God for a moment. now look around at what you see in the world and see all of the sin being comitted against God. god doesnt say i will love you and grant you impunity. he says i will love you and free from your sin, but with justice. that means true justice which is quite scary if you think about it. there are many things in the bible that fit with the things going on today that you are using against God. now, this is not fact but an idea. the bible says that isreal is his land and that no man can divide it without conciquenceses. for every jewish decendent driven from Gods holy land, there will be a price. almost the exact same amount of ppl that we have driven out of isreal have died in a # of these hurricanes. now that is a simple idea that i have borrowed from a specialist on the end times.

and finally, bad things happen. there is sin in the world and sin = eventual death. bad things happen and humans can never begin to try and completely understand that. who is to say that your logic and morals stand above God?

i havent posted on here in a while...
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 | 05:06 PM
Lindsay said:

"i strongly resent those of you who use natural disasters against God to say that he cant love us because he allows us to die. im very sorry but i find that quite ignorant."

Well, can you do better than just making that statement? Can you argue for your point of view?

Let's examine this a bit. If a human parent allowed a child to die without making a reasonable effort to save him/her, would you say that that person was "loving?" We're assuming here that the person in question has the ability to save the child, obviously.

An ominscient being, by definition, has the ability to save anyone from anything. If God loves us, why doesn't He save us from things that threaten us which we can't save ourselves from?

Your "resentment" is irrelevant; either make a case for your point of view or concede the argument.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 | 05:08 PM
Julie Dell said:

"God made the earth and everything and every one around us. It is hard to believe but what else could have made us. God chooses who goes where every day of our lives if we let him. You dont know it but he is sitting beside every one right now. He is there, you dont see him but he is watching. Watching wheather or not you do the right thing, say the right thing, or give the right feeling. He is Thinking. Thinking of each and every one of you. He is loving. Loving each and every one of you."

Prove ANY of that, Julie or accept the fact that many people simply are NOT going to buy into a myth.

I suspect you'll merely repeat what you've said. Please understand that repetition does not constitute proof.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 | 07:26 PM
Lindsay said:

"how can you shout all of our lives that you dont believe in GOd, that you want nothing to do with him, and then expect him to force his way into your life to actually override your freewill and intervene in a life that he has been banned from?"

Lindsay, I suggest you look into a concept known as "sarcasm." I was employing it.

"God is a gentleman, he will wait for you to ask him to do things."

Oh, did God wait for anyone to ask before He (allegedly) imposed "Original Sin" on all of us?

"schools cant pray, or read the bible."

Yes, you're correct that inanimate objects cannot do those things. What is your point?

"teachers have such wide restristions on them religiously that its gotten to a point were its ridiculous."

Are you referring to the fact that teachers in public schools are not allowed to teach religion? That is, of course, right and proper, assuming we're talking about America. Teachers in religious schools do not have such a restriction, of course.

"the ten commandments are being taken off of the courts."

The Ten Commandments have no place in an American court. They are the manifestations of a specific religious belief and do not belong in a taxpayer-supporter governmental entity.

"we're even going as far as to try and take under God out of the pledge of alleigance."

I would argue that there's no reason for a Pledge of Allegiance to even exist in a "free and democratic" nation. Putting that aside, though, are you aware that the reference to God has only been in the Pledge since the 1950's? (It was put in as part of then-prevalent anti-Communist mania.) The Pledge lacked the mention of God for decades prior to that. So, if anything, the Pledge is being restored to its original form if and when the God reference is taken out.

I would defend your right to worship and pray ANY WAY YOU WANT--on your own non-tax-supported time. You do NOT have the right, however, to impose your personal beliefs on any other citizen(s), including school children. What part of that do you have a disagreement with?
Lindsay
Member
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 | 07:26 PM
dude do you not see the post that i have right above that? the post were i did explain my point of view and where i explained that God is not going to force his way into your life when you clearly have banned him from it. i also said that i accidently pressed the submit button early. and that i didnt mean that i resented you but the idea, it came out wrong.
woot that was brilliant cranky absolutely brilliant
Lindsay
Member
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 | 07:27 PM
ah there you go thanks
Lindsay
Member
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 | 07:42 PM
hah ur a pretty witty guy arent you

u no wat im talking about dont play stupid. it makes you look bad i dont have to state everything perfectly. dont get obnoxious and actually no,i wasnt talking about teachers being able to teach religious though im sure that you were aware of that even though you said it. its gotten to the point were teachers will get in trouble for wearing a crusifix on their necklaces, for wearing the star of david buttons which isnt quite christian but ridiculous all the same. a teacher last year couldnt even make copies of a flier for a christain group at my school. that is ridculous. i undertsand tht they cant impose their religion on us, but they can express themselves. would it be wrong for a teacher to wear and abaaya? no. so why cant someone wear a crusifix?
and im not talking about wether its right or wrong. im just saying that people are making it clear that they are trying to drive God out of this coutries and out of most of their lives. theres a little thing called free will and he isnt going to comprimise that. look the whole god allowed people to die so he doesnt love us does not work and is chidlish. get over it. and if yu dotn agree then make good points rather than quoting my sentences and picking them apart. say something new. you really havent made any good arguement against wat i wrote. so get on with it. i havea 9th grade education, it shouldnt be that hard to make a good arguement against me rather than pick at my sentences. so use that brain and say something useful. ur intellegent, you can do it. and im sry if i sound like a brat im not trying to but well ive got to go so sry if i sound obnoxious
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 | 12:18 AM
Lindsay said:

"dont get obnoxious and actually no,i wasnt talking about teachers being able to teach religious though im sure that you were aware of that even though you said it. its gotten to the point were teachers will get in trouble for wearing a crusifix on their necklaces, for wearing the star of david buttons which isnt quite christian but ridiculous all the same."

I do not believe that any teacher in this country has gotten into trouble for wearing a religious symbol on their person. Please provide evidence of this claim, if you can. Stories like this make the rounds a lot but they turn out not to be true. Please find a reliable news source for this story and tell us where it can be found.

"i undertsand tht they cant impose their religion on us, but they can express themselves. would it be wrong for a teacher to wear and abaaya? no. so why cant someone wear a crusifix?"

I repeat my previous request. I do not believe that any teacher anywhere in America has gotten into trouble for wearing a religious symbol on their person. That, of course, is very different from TEACHING religion in a public school, which is and should be banned. By the way, what is an "abaaya?"

"im just saying that people are making it clear that they are trying to drive God out of this coutries and out of most of their lives."

"Driving God out of" one's own life is a personal matter and individual choice. What do you mean when you say that people are trying to drive God out of this country? What does that mean? What churches have you seen driven out of business in America? What laws against any form of religious belief have you seen proposed, let alone passed?

There's a difference between individual belief and worship (which I support everyone's right to) and teaching religion in a public school (which I am against). I'm obviously not religious--I think it's all a bunch of nonsense--but I defend the right of any American to believe whatever they want. Just as strongly, I am against them shoving their beliefs down someone else's throat, which is what teaching religion in public schools amounts to. See how this works?
Page 6 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.