HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE

[John Dibble]

Unfortunately, I don't believe that Jesus died.

So,we have a 2000 year old man-god walking around somewhere?

No, of course not - he's flying around in space. Everyone knows that.

[John Dibble]

I like how that web site says the Bible agrees with science because it says there are a lot of stars.

I also like how it says that you can't live without blood. Clearly this information required divine revelation to figure out.

[John Dibble]

Is that really your big concern?

If by "big concern" you mean "provided a moderate chuckle", then yeah.

[John Dibble]

Don't you care about your own soul?

I already sold mine to some guy named Stan for a lottery ticket and a waffle. He promised he'd take good care of it, so I'm not too worried.

[John Dibble]

Please take this thread seriously.

No.

[John Dibble]

You are free to believe as you wish, but you must face the concequences after you die.

Oh no, you will be the one facing the consequences, my poor deluded friend. When Cthulhu and the other Old ONes awaken from their ancient slumber, you will be one of the unfortunate souls who have suffer through their reign, begging for them to finally devour you to end your torment. I on the other hand will be among those who are eaten first and will not have to suffer.

It's all explained here.

[John Dibble]

This is my thread.

No, it's mine now. I stole it fair and square and you can never have it back - MWAHAHAHA!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're going to be here forever then. But that's fine, you're welcome in my thread, but only if you can answer me these questions three!

1. WHAT is your name?
2. WHAT is your quest?
3. WHAT is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[John Dibble]

Please take the time to read this first post and pray that prayer at the bottom of it to God from your heart.

Alternatively, you can try this one which is equally effective:

"Oh Great and Mighty Thor, I beseech you! Please use your magic hammer to save us all from the frost giants, for they seek to do bad things to us because they are bad. Also, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, smite my enemies for they have most likely been naughty in thine eyes. Oh, and lest I forget, I humbly ask that you put in a good word with Odin so that I may go to Valhalla when I die, where we'll get totally drunk on mead and then we'll pick up some Valkyrie bitches. We both know that would totally rock."

[John Dibble]

It's not even possible for you to exist according to scientific law, yet here you are.

Uh, no, there is no scientific law that says it's not even possible for us to exist.

[John Dibble]

Yes, there is.  According to the laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, yet matter exists and energy exists, therefore it is impossible for us to exist, yet here we are because GOD created the matter and energy.  He has power over scientific law.

Once again you have failed in a most epic manner to understand basic logical principles.

You are applying the God of the gaps logical fallacy - just because science does not currently have an explanation for something does not even remotely imply that supernatural beings are responsible. Therefore just because science does not currently have an adequate explanation of where matter and energy originated from (if it originated at all, it may very well have always existed) does not mean that your God, or any deity for that matter, is responsible for making it.

But wait, your logical fail goes even further into the depths of epic failure! Not only do you claim that a god is responsible for this event, but you go even further to claim that it is your specific deity of choice. Why couldn't it have been any of the other numerous gods or goddesses or spirits or whatever that spawned the universe? Do you have any evidence to back up that it is your specific deity that exists and is responsible for creation?

If you're going to try to use science to prove your claims, then do so scientifically, because right now I can provide any number of other explanations that fill in the gap with just as little evidence as you have used to fill it in yourself.

[John Dibble]

Actually, the conservation of energy has been observed in every scientific observation man has ever made.  I wouldn’t hold my breath that any observation to the contrary is ever going to be recorded.  Your hope to find one is actually contrary to the scientific evidence, evidence that can be duplicated repeatedly and in a moment’s whim.

*sigh* I have not claimed that the laws of thermodynamics have been contradicted by science. That you claim I have is a strawman argument. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument I'm presenting, which is no surprise because you used this exact same argument before.

People inserting God into the Big Bang to explain what science hasn't been able to is no different than the ancients inserting their gods into planetary motion because science hadn't explained that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's nice, but it's not science and thus far there hasn't been a single scrap of evidence to prove it. I could insert any number of supernatural beings into the gap in scientific knowledge to explain the presence of matter or energy or any of the other unknown aspects of the universe but that doesn't make it true, much less scientific.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

increase in entropy doesn’t allow for an infinite age of the universe.[/quote]

Which is why the matter and energy simply may have existed in a less entropic state than we see it now. Or perhaps the laws of the universe were different during pre-Big Bang conditions and matter and energy could spontaneously come into existence - that would perfectly explain the presence of matter and energy as well. Or perhaps the universe was at one point an open system and matter and energy flowed in from a perfectly natural source rather than a deity. Nobody really knows as we lack the means to see the universe in that time period. That's the whole point. Right now you're guess is just as scientifically worthless as mine would be.

[John Dibble]

Please read this first post and pray that prayer at the bottom of it to God from your heart.

Please don't bump your own threads without contributing anything new.

[John Dibble]

Evangelists claim Noah's Ark found

What? Again? How many "arks" have been found over the years by now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That they think it's 99.9% likely it is doesn't make it so. Ever heard of "wishful thinking"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe you should try reading this article a little closer - notice "Yes, Noah's Ark is completely real! Now find out "what you don't Noah" about the story as well as your spectacular destiny they rarely ever mention in church in this autographed No. 1 best-seller!" - yeah, they're trying to get you to buy stuff. They're trying to make a buck off of your beliefs. Classy! You might try getting a different source of information, maybe one that doesn't have a financial interest in you believing what the article has to say...

(yes, there are other articles on this archaeological find - and it is an archaeological find but not necessarily the one they are looking for)

You'll also note that they haven't confirmed that this "structure" that these compartments are in is even a boat! How can they really be 99.9% sure that it's the ark if they haven't even confirmed it's a boat?

[John Dibble]

Evangelists claim Noah's Ark found

What? Again? How many "arks" have been found over the years by now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That they think it's 99.9% likely it is doesn't make it so. Ever heard of "wishful thinking"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe you should try reading this article a little closer - notice "Yes, Noah's Ark is completely real! Now find out "what you don't Noah" about the story as well as your spectacular destiny they rarely ever mention in church in this autographed No. 1 best-seller!" - yeah, they're trying to get you to buy stuff. They're trying to make a buck off of your beliefs. Classy! You might try getting a different source of information, maybe one that doesn't have a financial interest in you believing what the article has to say...

(yes, there are other articles on this archaeological find - and it is an archaeological find but not necessarily the one they are looking for)

You'll also note that they haven't confirmed that this "structure" that these compartments are in is even a boat! How can they really be 99.9% sure that it's the ark if they haven't even confirmed it's a boat?

Christian Archaeologist Casts Further Doubt on Ark 'Discovery'

OH NOES!

[John Dibble]

God sent His very Son to this earth to DIE so that we could choose whether or not we wanted to be forgiven of our sins or pay the penalty ourselves.  I choose Jesus.

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.

You are all stardust.

You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution More.. weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today." - Lawrence Krauss

[John Dibble]

God sent His very Son to this earth to DIE so that we could choose whether or not we wanted to be forgiven of our sins or pay the penalty ourselves.  I choose Jesus.

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.

You are all stardust.

You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution More.. weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today." - Lawrence Krauss

How did the stars and dust get here?

I could go through a long lecture that you'd find either boring or fascinating, but ultimately the answer is "we don't know", which is a hell of a lot more honest than just making something up and calling it the truth without any evidence whatsoever. If you'd like a good summary of what we do know then I would advise you to watch this lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

The bible says that man was formed of the dust of the earth:

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

There is more to man than the material.  There is the soul and the spirit.

And what exactly are these "soul" and "spirit" things, and what the hell is the difference supposed to be between the two? Have you ever seen them, or measured them in any way whatsoever? How do you know they aren't simply the chemical and electrical impulses within our brains? (Which would actually make them entirely material things)

[John Dibble]

The soul is your personality, memories and the essence of who you are.  The Spirit is the part of you that communes with God.  When a person is born, they are spiritually dead due to the sin nature that they inherited from their father.  When a person accepts Christ, He gives you a new Spirit inside you along with His holy Spirit.  Then that person is able to commune with God in a way that is very real to them.  They can feel God's presence with them wherever they go.  It is something that is not of a physical nature, but is something that is very real.  That's why Christians are so sure that they have a real relationship with God, because they Do.  I know I do.

Yeah, and members of other religions are quite certain of their relations with their deities of choice. In fact there are Christians who feel that way and also simultaneously think that other people who are Christians and also feel that way but have slightly different view on some of the dogma or something will be going to hell because they aren't real Christians! So whose feelings are correct? Do you have an objective way to show whose feelings of having a connection with a deity are based on something truthful and real?

[John Dibble]

I ask you to Please click on this video of this man who says he went to hell. 

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/852697/23_minutes_in_hell_reference_edition/

Ok, some guy claims he had visions of hell. So what? Maybe he was having a vivid bad dream.

[John Dibble]

I ask you to Please click on this video of this man who says he went to hell. 

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/852697/23_minutes_in_hell_reference_edition/

ok, I've made it through the first 13.5 minutes of it.  I am not discounting it, but I have yet to find anything applicable.

what, exactly, was/is the point of the vision?  how does it apply to someone like me who already believes?

There's the crux of it - he's preaching to the choir. The presentation is in a church during service. This type of preaching is meant to reinforce the belief rather than convert, to keep the people in fear of the possibility of hell - even though it sounds like this guy was already a believer when he had this vision or dream or whatever - so that they'll want to stay believers or become more fervent believers. The people doing the preaching aren't necessarily conscious of this, but it is what they are doing when they are preaching to the people who are already in their service. Be wary of anyone knowingly doing this kind of preaching towards that aim, because such people are usually doing it for their own gain rather than out of selflessness.

[John Dibble]

The likeliest explanations, of course, are either that jamfest's pastor has a very vivid imagination, or he's a liar.

these innuendos get old

Sure you do. I make up stories about my brothers for my job (it being a bit different), but it's not outside the realm of possibility that your pastor would do the same if it got his point across.

another innuendo.

[vocabulary Nazi]

Now I'm not about to get into a long, drawn out argument over the content of what's being argued now, however... do you even know what an innuendo is? Seems to me they are being rather direct with what they are saying, so these aren't innuendos. I mean yeah, they're saying "maybe", but there's nothing indirect or subtle about it. If you want to call it an insult, fine, but there doesn't appear to be any innuendos here.

Alternatively...

[/vocabulary Nazi]

[John Dibble]

What is in bold, is what you have to prove exists before the rest can be believed. And only then do we accept deism as the starting point. Theism is another matter...

I thought I had explained the fallacy of this argument before:

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

So, if God were provable, it would prove that the bible is wrong.  Therefore, you’re asking me to prove the bible correct by proving the bible is wrong.

It’s a dumb argument.  You would have seen through its transparency if you would have thought it though before you borrowed it.

Yeah, the problem with your argument is that it shows the patent absurdity of these Biblical claims. You wouldn't apply this faith argument to anything else and you know it, but somehow you expect that it holds water when applied to your religious beliefs. It's ludicrous, and just because your Bible admits that the claims made therein can't be proven does not make it a fallacy to do the logical thing and ask for evidence. The real fallacy is yours, and it's called special pleading.

[John Dibble]

Yeah, the problem with your argument is that it shows the patent absurdity of these Biblical claims. You wouldn't apply this faith argument to anything else and you know it, but somehow you expect that it holds water when applied to your religious beliefs. It's ludicrous, and just because your Bible admits that the claims made therein can't be proven does not make it a fallacy to do the logical thing and ask for evidence. The real fallacy is yours, and it's called special pleading.

Of course I won’t apply a faith argument to the physical world – it’s physical.  But neither should you attempt to measure the spiritual using physical constraints.

This is still special pleading. If you haven't even managed to demonstrate that this spiritual world which is somehow separate from the physical world actually exists, then how do you even have an argument?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you so impotent that you need agnostics to explain it for you? As far as the type of agnostic you're talking about (yes, they come in more than one flavor) I find them to be intellectually lazy - to say something can't be proven when you haven't even proven that it can't be proven is nothing more than an assumption. Their premise is unproven, so to call my argument a fallacy based on an unproven premise is just plain dumb of you.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you so impotent that you need agnostics to explain it for you? As far as the type of agnostic you're talking about (yes, they come in more than one flavor) I find them to be intellectually lazy - to say something can't be proven when you haven't even proven that it can't be proven is nothing more than an assumption. Their premise is unproven, so to call my argument a fallacy based on an unproven premise is just plain dumb of you.

Agnostics are lazy?  Then, PLEASE demonstrate to this board the superior diligence of your active intellect by explaining to us how you have proven it can be proven that there is nothing outside of this physical world.

Yo, Dibble, I am laughing at the superior intellect!

Again with the straw man arguments. I did not claim that there isn't anything outside the physical world. I would think that would be obvious, but you're either just unable to comprehend basic logic or you're just lying because you know you can't get by without it.

What I did claim is that there isn't any evidence for something outside of the physical world, and that even if there is there isn't any evidence that it can't be observed in a scientific manner. If you can't even give reliable evidence that it exists, how could you possibly know whether or not it can be observed scientifically?

[John Dibble]

Again with the straw man arguments. I did not claim that there isn't anything outside the physical world. I would think that would be obvious, but you're either just unable to comprehend basic logic or you're just lying because you know you can't get by without it.

What I did claim is that there isn't any evidence for something outside of the physical world, and that even if there is there isn't any evidence that it can't be observed in a scientific manner.

well, that is a tad different than saying, “Because I have no physical evidence of God, therefore God doesn’t exist.”

Which I never said, at least in the general sense of there possibly being something out there that I might consider a god. Something like that may exist, I simply won't believe in it until I'm given a good reason to do so. This is different than explicitly stating that such a thing can't possibly exist.

I will however state with a high degree of certainty that some claims of gods or other supernatural beings are probably false, but I don't think you'd disagree with that - after all you don't believe in Zeus either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only “reliable evidence” you’ll except is scientific.  Therefore, your statement is a contradiction.[/quote]

No, it is not a contradiction. I never claimed that this other world exists or that it couldn't be shown to exist scientifically. You on the other hand have claimed that it exists but for some reason can't be proven in any way whatsoever yet we should believe in it anyways for some reason. It's absurd and illogical, and the best you seem to be able to do is use strawman arguments and repeat the same thing over and over again as if that will make it true.

The word you're looking for is "accept" by the way, not except.

[John Dibble]

The word you're looking for is "accept" by the way, not except.

LOL!  I thought ^this^ was in retaliation for the following:

Actually you use a book written by a murdering, lying, stealing, greedy band of bronze age barbarians to justify your hatred against homosexuality.

And FYI, the book of Romans was written in the Iron Age, NOT the Bronze Age.

then I realized I posted my correction of you after you posted your correction of me.  hehe

Naw, that was me just being a vocab nazi.